Theism vs. Atheism debate
Introduction
Over the years, the debate on the existence of God has been a subject that has powered arguments between the believers of God and atheists or non-believers. Intensely, the debaters from the two sides have continuously enhanced their opinions to rationally argue out their views. The debate held in Greer Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll demonstrated the heightened contrast between the two sides of the argument. During the debate, Craig’s objective was to prove that God exists, a proposition that has eluded other previous theists such as Aquinas. On the other hand, Carroll, charged with the responsibility of proving that God does not exist, ends up responding with scepticism, though in weak arguments. In the video posted on YouTube, Craig used two arguments: cosmological and teleological to support that God exists and cosmology, while Carroll focused on criticizing Craig’s arguments rather than developing his claims to counter Craig’s. In this essay, I will first focus on Craig’s main arguments: cosmological and teleological, then use Aquinas’s similar supporting arguments before contrasting their views using Carroll’s counterarguments that state there is neither efficient cause nor an intelligently designed universe but things are naturally in existence.
I believe that Craig demonstrates the idea that everything happens for a cause; the truth of determinism, using a version of the cosmological argument. I agree that the acceptance of determinism in the natural world enables Craig to take his argument back to the Big Bang concept, an argument that reveals that the notion of infinity is incoherent. His argument of God’s existence demonstrates the infinity of God that created cosmology and how it came to existence. I disagree with Carroll because his argument is based on the acceptance of determinism and rejection of infinity, there emerges a question on how a finite universe was created. Notably, Carroll states that there is no scientific explanation that seeks to establish the cause of God creating the universe because of the different parameters that are set through the physical model. To explain, Craig asserts that the only logical conclusion is that the universe could not have come to existence on its own. I believe that Craig’s argument is stronger in response to Carroll argument on the existence of cosmology. Carroll’s model on how the Universe started to exist does not have a stronger basis that supports quantum existence. Also, Carroll suggests that the primal cause is infinite, effectively suspending the rejection of infinity (ReasonableFaith.org, 2014).
In the video, Craig ability to argue and state facts seem to have stronger proof. He argues that there is a cause for everything in the world and nothing can exist out of nothing or scientific beliefs. He argued that there are a series of efficient causes of all things in the world and that nothing exists before itself. I support that argument because it has proof because nothing can pop out of existence as Carroll argues. Consequently, nothing in existence in the world is the efficient cause of itself as demonstrated by Carroll. In my views, I believe that if the earlier efficient cause was in existence, then the perceived thing does not exist. Further, if a series of efficient causes is extended into the past infinitely, then there would not be anything in existence in the world today. Since the world has many things in existence due to efficient causes, then the efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum towards the past. Craig logically concluded that it was necessary to accept that there exists the first efficient cause, commonly known as God for cosmology to exist (ReasonableFaith.org, 2014).
According to Carroll, cosmology could not have been caused by a natural thing, but it must be thermodynamic. Consequently, the question of how the thermodynamic can act on the natural arises. While the question is absurd to a naturalist, Craig seems to be contented since he implies that the uncaused cause is God. While atheism rejects any conclusion of the existence of a supernatural, it is evident that at the present, the origin of the universe is unknown. However, Craig argument demonstrates that the cosmological argument is logical since he deduces the existence of something that deserves to be identified as God, using a few premises that are acceptable to many people. I believe that the design of the universe could only exist through creation as demonstrated by Craig. Carroll explains why cosmologists think about naturalism and theism. Carroll believes in theism by emphasizing that God does not exist when you connect him with world people live in. Craig believes in physics demonstrate that physics works in pattern and believes that the fundamental model can work through mathematics. In my views, I think that Carroll argument is effective but they lack adequate proof (ReasonableFaith.org, 2014).
According to Craig, the universe appears to be impeccably organized and configured by an intelligent being, who must be God. This argument appears to be a better explanation than naturalism since it gives evidence that is important for a logical argument. Craig’s view supported by physics laws of nature that the celestial bodies work towards achieving a specific objective, and not just by creation. Also, most natural things lack knowledge but when they are guided by an intelligent being, they get a purpose. Craig believes that an arrow hits its target since it is directed by an archer (Swinburne 33). I believe that an intelligent being is in existence to direct natural things to achieve their goals.
In response to Craig’s argument that the universe was intelligently designed, Carroll echoes the acknowledgement by physicists that human beings hardly know what they do not know; the origin of the universe and other past events. While Carroll gave this argument as a direct response to Craig’s teleological argument, it appears more like an objection to the cosmological argument. However, Carroll further criticizes the teleological argument by questioning the existence of matter before the creation of the universe. He technically asks who designed the designer. This question is similar to Richard Dawkins argument that “However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747”. Moreover, Carroll’s advances his argument against the existence of God by reminding theists that the universe is ultimately heading to oblivion and that God must have been a poor designer to have no meaningful end to it (Swinburne, 2004).
In support of atheism, Carroll proposes five arguments that counter Craig’s teleological argument. First, he argues that it is not known on how the universe is designed to support life since no one knows the ideal conditions for the existence of life. Secondly, the idea of the universe is fine-tuned to support life would only be accepted if the concept of naturalism is accepted; God would only create establish life under any conditions. Thirdly, the perceived designs can only be explained by dynamical mechanisms. Fourthly, the multiverse is only valid under naturalism. Therefore, is a supernatural being intelligently designed the universe; it would look very different from the current universe (Craig & Meister, 2010).
In summation, Craig seems to have a clear argument on the existence of God and cosmology. His strong argument is on the fine-tuning of the universe: if the efficient cause was weak, then the universe would not be in existence. The existence of an intelligently designed universe is a justification of all inferences that Craig makes in his arguments. Carroll’s agreement on the need to explain the origin of the universe which might imply the existence of God further creates a point of concession between theism and atheism, before the question of why God exists. Nevertheless, the question on the existence of God is a dilemma since the early times, today and the debate will continue to the next generations. The universe is impeccably designed and the question on whether it is a supernatural being responsible or it is just a natural phenomenon will continue to linger for a long time.
References
Craig, W. L., & Meister, C. (Eds.). (2010). God is great, God is good: why believing in God is reasonable and responsible. InterVarsity Press.
Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God. Oxford University Press on Demand.
ReasonableFaith.org (Mar 3, 2014). God and Cosmology. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8