Why the 'Causality Argument' may be the Atheist's worse nightmare

I recently became aware of an apologist of some renown. His books have been best sellers, on apologetics, theology, and various Christian subjects, yet, I had focused so much on the ministry of Dr. Craig, I had neglected to study others (and I don’t apologize for being a fan-boy of William Lane Craig). The apologist of which I speak is Michael Robinson. He is the Lead Pastor at Abundant Life Community Church in Granbury, Texas. He has written over 30 books on Theology, Evangelism, the Bible, Apologetics, World Religions, Islam, Cults, and numerous other religious subjects. He also has taught at Christ Covenant Bible School and Full Life School of Theology. An article he wrote on his site, goddoesexistallknowit.blogspot.com, came across my newsfeed, as J. Warner Wallace (another apologist you should follow) of Cold-Case Christianity (a Blog and podcast) shared it, as he does on a consistent basis with other apologetic related articles. I was ASTOUNDED!

Potent Proof

The article I came across, titled ‘The Potent Proof for God: Many Atheists Try to Avoid The Compelling Evidence’ was as clear an apologetic read as I’ve encountered in a long time. Even though he comes across initially as a presuppositional, and he is, he still pours on the evidences that are ignored or dismissed and makes a compelling case for theism, and specifically Christianity. His opening salvo sets the tone, “It is the 21st century. The New Atheists have been on a decade’s long rampage. Christian philosophy and apologetics are growing faster than ever. And still, most atheists have no idea what a reasoned “argument” is.” Ouch, that’s easy for him to say, but he actually ‘proves’ his point as he takes on the hardened ‘New Atheist’ square on their own ground.

Presuppositionalist

As a pure presuppositional apologist, Robinson starts out in Romans, asserting that atheist know the truth of God. Even though I theologically agree with that, it is not helpful in arguments for theism, many times, in my opinion. To Robinson’s credit, he doesn’t stay there long, but does offer the presuppositional argument, He starts with Aquinas, “To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature,” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1). Next he goes to Bahnsen, “There is no transcendental argument that “rules out all other kinds of arguments … either in general philosophy and scholarship or particularly in apologetics,” (Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic). Finally, he goes to Don Collect, “God is not a deductive consequence of the premises of the argument, but rather the ontological and logical ground for the very possibility of the premises themselves,” (Don Collect, Speaking the Truth in Love). Even though all these arguments are true, Robinson doesn’t hang his hat here and stand pat, no, he goes the way of classical apologetics, in a very clear way.

Classical Apologetics

Robinson proceeds to the classical arguments like the ‘Moral Argument’, ‘Ontological Argument”, and many others as he proceeds thru a clear and convincing rebuttal to the ‘New Atheist’. He then slips back into his presuppostional framework, which is not my favorite type of argument, but his point is well made:

“Regarding traditional arguments, I would add: To make sense out of our world, the atheist still must presuppose the Christian worldview. It alone supplies the required pre-essentials for the immutable universals such as laws of thought. These laws are necessary for predication, communication, and the intelligibility of theistic proofs. When the perspective of the Christian worldview is rejected, the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the a priori conditions for knowledge and meaningful experience. This contravenes anti-theism. Christian theism supplies the rational prerequisites for proof, propositions, evidence, and knowledge. Van Til observed: ‘There can be no other facts than such as speak clearly of God and therefore of God’s claims upon man. Every fact speaks of God and speaks of Him in the imperative as well as in the declarative voice.’”

Causality Argument

After spending a fair amount of time on various ‘Ontological Arguments, such as; Anselm’s, Gödel's, and even Alvin Plantinga’s, he moves into a very strong apologetic argument, reasoned and articulated with great finesse and great aplomb. He quotes Jonathan Edwards, “I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause.” Then he brings in William Lane Craig, “Atheists themselves used to be very comfortable in maintaining that the universe is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that they can no longer hold that position because modern evidence that the universe started with the Big Bang. So they can't legitimately object when I make the same claim about God-he is eternal and he is uncaused.” This is his way of setting up the ‘Causality Argument’ (CA). He is arguing against the most absurd argument that ‘New Atheist’ like Richard Dawkins, promote; everything came from nothing. Robinson said, “In principle, Christian theism explains everything and non-theism lacks the ontic foundation to account for anything. So, selected New Atheists attempt a jujitsu move and embrace the profoundly irrational concept that nothing can produce all things in heaven and earth.”

The CA is based on a simple notion that things that began had a cause. Often you will hear the NA argue that then God must have a cause. God logically, as I’ve argued with many atheist before, cannot be ‘caused’, He is the first cause of all things. Robinson includes one of my favorite apologists, Dr. John Lennox:

“If Dawkins insists on who created God, I can ask him who created the universe. The buck will stop somewhere on both sides. You either stop with matter and energy, which has been capable through unguided processes to produce life, rationality, and the idea of God because there isn’t a God or else you believe that matter and energy are not primary at all, but are derivative, and we start with in the beginning God.” (John Lennox, God’s Undertaker)

Hume Dispatched

Robinson even brings in Anthony Flew, former atheist turned theist to dispute David Hume’s classical argument against the CA, “Generations of Humeans have … been misled into offering analyses of causation and of natural law that have been far too weak because they had no basis for accepting the existence of either cause and effect or natural laws… Hume’s skepticism about cause and effect and his agnosticism about the external world are of course jettisoned the moment he leaves his study” (Anthony Flew). Robinson breaks down the weakness of the OBJECTIONS to the CA, “The denial of the CA would imply there would be an infinite chain of cause and effect, an infinite regress. Furthermore, if one rejects an ultimate cause, one would never find a specific effect since the infinite regress would never arrive at a particular effect. Therefore, it is necessarily the case that there exists a first efficient cause, a cause with a sufficient ontology such as God, but nothing within the known universe has such ontic attributes. Causality is not understandable or logical away from the biblical God.“ This is a powerful tool, in the arsenal of weapons in an apologist’s quiver.

Kalam

Robinson concludes the article with a defense of the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’ employed by Dr. William Lane Craig, based on the CA as a strong basis for it. The Kalam is one of the strongest logical argument for God’s existence we have. Robinson defers to Craig, “The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite regression of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause. The Kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics aimed at proving that God exists” (William Lane Craig). He actually concludes the article, again in deference to Craig, “The beginning of the cosmos cannot have begun from nothingness, but God must have created it in time. One, who stipulates that the cosmos is uncreated, lacked a beginning and had an infinite history, must face the truth that it is subsequently impossible to have arrived at the present age, in the same way as it is impossible to ride on a train traveling on infinite long train tracks and arrive at a specific destination. Without a definite starting point in time one cannot arrive anywhere, including this point in time” (William Craig).

Conclusion

The CA is a brilliant argument that brings in cosmology, time, and many of the other arguments for God’s existence. In actuality, the CA is a great basis for almost all, for if there is no first ‘cause’ then we are left with infinite regress of time, matter, space, and the universe, itself. As Robinson clearly demonstrates, this is logically and scientifically impossible as we would never arrive at anything if there is no start, no beginning. I’m putting Mike Robinson on my apologetic radar as he has proven a good source of arguments. I highly recommend you find time to check out his site and other resources that he makes available. Check out his site here: http://goddoesexistallknowit.blogspot.com/.

#apologetics #video #evidence #MichaelRobinson