Why Did God Create Anything At All?

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

Why did God create anything? By creating something apart from Himself that can sin, aka humanity, is He not making reality worse? If God is making reality better by introducing humans into a relationship with Him, this also brings up issues. How can making humans make reality better if reality was just God in His perfection? If it is going to be better then would not have humans been necessary within God's being? I can see one possibility: that the creation of humanity is a neutral act when it comes to better or worse. This seems weird then that God would limit non-essential aspects of His being (entering time) to slide sideways on the scale of better or worse reality. I know my thinking is wrong somewhere, but I need someone else to show me. Thanks

RESPONSE-

We love to hear from people who are thinking about these questions! You said, "I know my thinking is wrong somewhere..."  I think we can help! The problem seems to be in your underlying definition of "reality" and the ensuing confusion of that with God.  Let's explore that a little more and hopefully it will help clarify your thinking on this issue.

Your opening question is great! Your second question: "By creating something apart from Himself that can sin, aka humanity, is He not making reality worse?"   Here is where I think the confusion creeps in. Your question seems to confuse reality with God as you ask the question, "...is He not making reality worse?" I say that because the rest of your letter struggles with why would he do that when he, himself is perfect. You ask, "How can making humans make reality better if reality was just God in His perfection?"

The clarification I think you are seeking is this. The reality of God alone, before he created anything apart from himself is just that, God alone. There is no "other". When God creates, he brings into existence something other than himself. So, while he, himself is perfect, that which he brings into existence apart from himself is not perfect in the same sense that he is perfect. Indeed, in Genesis 1 God declares that what he created is "good". That in no way implies perfection in the absolute sense that God alone is perfect. Therefore, there is no logical or theological issue in saying that God chose to create another reality, apart from himself, and that reality is "improved" by introducing humans. Why is it improved? Because humans are created in God's image and thereby reveal his glory in this new reality. I don't think there is any reason or need to evaluate whether or not the new "total reality", i.e. God + his creation is "better" than God alone. However, the answer would be that the newly created reality is not "better", only different. God alone is perfection as you noted. When he creates he is not attempting to improve anything. He, in himself, is total perfection. He is creating something other than himself which cannot be perfect as he himself is perfect. But, the creation certainly can be "better" or "improved" by God introducing his image-bearers into that creation. The end result is a new reality that perfectly embodies God's will for his decision to create is necessarily perfect. Even though the created reality is not perfect in the same sense God is perfect, it is the result of his perfect will to create and includes the reflection of his perfect glory through his image-bearers.

In more technical terms, the clarification I am making is that of categories. In your original formulation, you were making a category mistake which basically means you were equating the category of the Divine reality with that of the created reality. Yet, they are completely different categories of things. The Divine reality is utterly unique and singular, there is nothing else in that same category. Created reality is completely different than the Divine reality, and it is not singular, for there are many examples of created things within that category.  Yet, there is only one example of the Divine reality, God himself.

So, in summary, God creates a completely different reality than himself. The created reality is good but not perfect and of a completely other kind of thing. The Divine reality is perfect and always will be perfect. The created reality could be said to have been improved when God chose to add humanity to it because humanity bears God's image and thus introduces reflections of his glory (the original of which is perfect) into the created reality. The new "total reality" (God+created reality) as a whole is not worse because the Divine reality remains perfect. His will to create was necessarily perfect, and thus the created reality, while in and of itself is not perfect in the same sense as the Divine reality, is a perfect expression of his creative will. Especially when considering the incarnation (God entering time) to redeem the creation through Christ, we can see the whole of the created reality as a perfect expression of his will - both to create *and* to redeem!

Hopefully, this helps to clarify. God bless, and keep asking such good questions!

The Kalam Argument for the Existence of God

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"I wanted to get your opinion on something. I recently watched a clip of Graham Oppy talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument. He says that when you pose God as a solution you are adding a new “substance” or “thing” or assumption to the argument. So since we know the universe exists it’s simpler to say that the universe is the necessary cause. Now the clip I saw was taken from another video so I don’t get the whole context. But basically, how would you respond to someone saying it’s best to assume a unknown naturalistic cause for the universe (even if it’s a universe before ours) verses God creating it?"

RESPONSE-

Josh, I know you said you really don't have the full context of Graham Oppy's comments so it's a little difficult to be sure I'm addressing his point. If his point was that positing God as the cause of the universe is not justified simply because God is not part of the universe...well that is essentially saying it's not justified to say the universe has a cause. But, that's the entire point of the Kalam argument! So I'm not sure that is what he was driving at but if so, it's begging the question. If on the other hand, his point was that by introducing God as a supernatural cause one is introducing a more complex solution thus violating Ockham's razor, then I would say it only violates Ockham's principle if positing a cause within the universe makes sense. I believe we can say no, it does not make sense. For it to make sense we have to posit that the universe is the cause of itself which is patently nonsensical! Again, such a proposal actually runs contrary to the Kalam argument. Premise 2 of the argument states, "the universe began to exist". Thus P2 precludes the idea that the universe itself is necessary or eternal. Rather, unless one can defeat P2 of the argument, the conclusion (C1) follows logically and necessarily. One cannot say P1 is true and P2 is true yet claim the universe is necessary or eternal!  If P1 and P2 are true, the universe is clearly not eternal and therefore must have a cause. The current scientific consensus is that P1 and P2 are true. But what about your explicit question?

You asked, "...how would you respond to someone saying it’s best to assume a unknown naturalistic cause for the universe (even if it’s a universe before ours) verses God creating it?" My first response would be derived from what I explained above, the whole point of the Kalam argument is to present the logical, inescapable conclusion from P1 and P2. You cannot assume an unknown naturalist cause for the universe if you agree to P2 because a naturalistic cause means a cause that is of nature which by definition is within the universe! And, P2 is the scientific consensus so one would need to provide a defeater for that premise. In your question, you introduce a potential defeater which is the multiverse theory. Nevertheless, my first response to someone who objects that a naturalistic cause is best is to say, the universe cannot cause itself. The idea of self-cause is nonsensical.

But what about the "multiverse" theory to which you refer when you say, "even if it's a universe before ours"? There are various permutations of the multiverse idea but suffice it to say none have gained consensus, all are highly speculative, and anything but simple as an alternative to divine causation! To propose a multiverse construct to explain the existence of our universe certainly doesn't qualify as a simpler solution. The *only* thing that it might possibly "buy" the objector over a Divine causation solution is that it could be called "naturalistic". So, if one is operating from a naturalistic presupposition, it will be more appealing. However, the multiverse theories are so speculative I think a case can be made they are more in the realm of metaphysics than in the realm of physics. But, even assuming they are squarely in the realm of physics a multiverse theory really just begs the question. Where did the multiverse come from?! Unless one can demonstrate with more probability than P2 (which enjoys current scientific consensus) that the multiverse is necessary/eternal, then one must also posit a cause to the multiverse. Thus the multiverse fails as an ultimate cause for the universe.

The genius of the Kalam argument (beyond being most aligned to the empirical evidence of course) is that its conclusion is logically inescapable if P1 and P2 are true. P1 is virtually undisputed and P2 enjoys current scientific consensus. Further, the logic leads to additional conclusions that are very difficult to dispute leading to specifically a Divine cause. This of course is why many go to such extreme speculative measures to propose a naturalistic cause. Building upon C1 we can say, (C2) the cause must be outside the universe, i.e. independent from the universe in order to be a cause of the universe, (C3) and if the cause is "prior" to the universe, i.e. no time and space yet existed, the cause must be timeless and spaceless, and (C4) the cause must be immensely powerful, with (C5) immense intelligence to have caused a universe of such amazing fine-tuning to support life, and finally (C6) the cause must be personal to best explain the act of causing "prior" to time itself because that implies a decision and a decision implies a mind. So as we can see, many subsequent conclusions flow from C1 of the Kalam argument. This expands the scope and explanatory power of the argument helping to establish it as a superior or more plausible explanation for the universe than a purely naturalistic explanation.

Josh, I hope this helps. God bless you!

God's Sovereignty

This is a question sent to me and my response.

QUESTION-

"I am a Pentecostal Christian. At times, I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life. Why not? I know He is sovereign, but yet He doesn't take control of situations. I love a very deep answer please."

RESPONSE-

I am a bit confused by the way your question is worded so I will need to make an assumption on what you are really asking. What's confusing is that you say, "Why not?" immediately after the phrase, "I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life."  What you seem to be asking in context though is, why is it that God sometimes seems passive in a Christian's life? Even though we know he is sovereign over all creation, why does he not "take control of the situation"? I will assume your "why not?" question applies to, why does God not take control of the situation. So I apologize if I have misunderstood the intent of your question.

The key to the answer is found in your very question when you say, "I know he is sovereign". Yes, he is sovereign! We know this from scripture. "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases (Ps 115:3)  "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Is 46:10)  "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dn 4:35) "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Ac 2:23) "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Ro 8:28)  "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Ep 1:11) and I could go on and on! Scripture clearly reveals and proclaims the absolute sovereignty of God, meaning that he alone has the ability to do all that he desires, to accomplish all his purposes.

However, that in no way implies that he will intervene in our individual situations in a manner that we would prefer. Not at all! In fact, God's sovereignty means that he will accomplish *his* purposes completely and perfectly and that means allowing or ensuring our situations play out just as they do! If we truly believe God is sovereign over all things then it includes our lives and situations. God knows you perfectly. He knows your current situation perfectly and he knows every future event perfectly. Part of God's sovereignty is that perfect knowledge which includes what is often called "middle knowledge". God's middle knowledge means that God not only knows the beginning situation perfectly (i.e. the "now"), and the end (i.e. the future) perfectly, but he also knows everything in the middle perfectly. He knows what decisions you would make given any possible situation you could face in the world that God himself created and arranged. This is how God works all things together for your good and for his glory. This is referred to as God's providence and is what scripture clearly teaches. Therefore, far from passive, God is intimately active in every event and every situation such that Paul could make that amazing claim in Romans 8:28 - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."  So we must be careful not to confuse situations and outcomes that don't please us with God being passive! This is where Christian faith comes into play. As the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 11 by reminding us of the great heroes of faith. God made promises to them. But their life situations appeared not to be coming out as God promised. God appeared to not be giving Abraham the land he promised for example. But Abraham believed God, trusted in God's goodness and his sovereign purposes, and that was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. So it is with everyone who follows God. He wants us to trust him and believe in his goodness and sovereign purposes that, while it might appear God is not actively fulfilling his promises in our lives, he is indeed working all things together for our good and his glory! This is the essence of faith, what it means to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Co 5:7).

Russell, I hope this helps and may God richly bless you!

Intelligent Design

Within days of my daughter starting college this fall semester she came home relaying this comment from her biology teacher (I'm paraphrasing), "Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific whereas evolution is scientific". I explained to my daughter that the teacher's comment reveals a very common error based on ignorance regarding the meaning of "scientific"...odd coming from a college science teacher!

Many people confuse the meaning of the term "scientific" with the classic phrase "scientific method". One term (scientific) is used as a general almost "pop" term defining something as more or less adhering to the principles and "spirit" of objective, evidence based, investigation. The "scientific method" however, refers to a specific methodology that includes testing a hypothesis by experimentation. Now herein lies the "dirty little secret". Evolutionary "science" does not adhere to the scientific method any more than does Intelligent Design "science". In fact, I believe a strong case can be made that Intelligent Design theory follows (or can follow) the scientific method more so than Evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does NOT develop hypotheses that are then tested experimentally in a lab setting or otherwise. But Evolutionary theory is "scientific" in the sense that I defined above. It does seek to provide an objective theory to explain data that is observed in (presumably) a controlled and structured manner. So it does qualify as something that more or less adheres to the principles and "spirit" of objective, evidence based, investigation. It has developed a theory (Darwinian evolution) to explain data gathered by observation. It does not and cannot TEST its theory in the lab. Actually it cannot even PREDICT (which is critical to any good theory) outcomes because it claims the processes responsible for evolution are so incremental and slow that we cannot observe them!

Intelligent Design theory is similar to Evolutionary theory in that it too seeks to explain data gathered by observation. Obviously it has develop opposing hypotheses to Evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory claims the evidence shows that each animal species developed from an earlier species (ancestor) through a slow, random, incremental process of change "governed" by the "law" of natural selection. Intelligent Design on the other hand, claims that animal life and the entire universe (so it covers not just origin of species but origin of the cosmos) displays clear evidence of having been designed by an intelligent designer/creator. As for testing its theory Intelligent Design has the edge. The fundamental Intelligent Design hypotheses (roughly stated) that all matter is organized in such a way that its cause is best explained by an intelligent creator rather than by random chance + long epochs of time, can be somewhat tested in the lab. For instance experiments can be setup to demonstrate the relative ineffectiveness of random processes to produce order, structure, and design. Experiments can also clearly reveal the kinds of patterns and order that result from intelligent design processes - because we CAN duplicate the kind of intelligent design processes (to a point) that is claimed by the theory but we CANNOT duplicate the kind of evolutionary processes claimed by that theory.

All of this is to simply say that Intelligent Design theory is very scientific and probably even more scientific than evolutionary theory. So don't shrink back from the debate. Know that the Christian worldview is THE MOST POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE WORLDVIEW in existence to explain the way the world really is (1Cor 1:25).