Leibniz's Contingency Argument, Part 2 || Omar Arellano

Last broadcast ay we talked about the first part of the contingency argument ni Leibniz. We presented the argument and showed the truthfulness of the first premise. We also briefly talked about establishing the second premise. We showed sa second premise na si God ang best explanation sa existence ng universe. Ito ay dahil between abstract objects, such as mathematical entities, and God ay si God ang best na nag account as an explanation sa universe, dahil aside from being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, ay we could see that God is a concrete object that is unimaginably powerful, which means na He could truly make changes sa reality, and that He is personal, which means na He could decide to create. Ang abstract objects ay causally walang power and impersonal, which cannot decide. Today ay we will talk about the second part of the contingency argument. We will continue sa pag establish ng premise 2 ng argument, then proceed to show how to establish premise 3 in case we need to give good reasons for people who deny the existence of the universe.
Going back sa premise 2, which is “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God” ay we could meet certain people who will say that the universe just exists necessarily. This is a radical admission. Ang comment nga ni William Lane Craig ay kahit ang atheist na philosopher of science na si Adolf Grunbaum ay indignant sa suggestion na yun ang view niya when Dr. Craig asked him. There will be some people who will say na instead of the universe, maybe ang matter itself that makes up the universe ang nag exist necessarily? Kaso this is problematic kasi we know that small particles like protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. May six types of quarks, which are up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. They can’t say na the ang matter in which elementary particles are composed of exists necessarily kasi they aren’t composed of anything. They are basic units of matter. So kung wala ang particular particle ay ang matter itself will not exist. Physicists would say din na the fundamental particles we have could’ve been different instead of the one that we have, and if that’s the case then we could’ve have a different universe. Dr. Craig gave an analogy like if your desk made of wood would instead be made of ice. If that happens, then an ice desk would’ve been a different desk and not the same desk. The same way that if we have different set of fundamental particles, ay even if it’s arranged identically sa universe natin ngayon ay we will still have a different universe. Even Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow would say na our universe ay isa sa 10500 na possible universes na maaaring mag come into existence. If the universe could’ve been different, then hindi ito nag exist by necessity. Now that we are able to establish Premise 2, let’s proceed sa third premise, which is “The universe exists”. If we meet a skeptic who doubts the existence of the external world, what do we do? Are we in the matrix? This is a first-order na skepticism. One solution na natutunan ko from Dr. Craig na puwede ko ibigay to this problem ay tinatawag na particularism. Advocates ng view na ito ay si G.E. Moore, Roderick Chisholm, and si Thomas Reid. Basically ay they will say that people can know specific na clear items for knowledge. Example nito ay we can affirm that we may seem to see a tree, or we can say na we know that 5+5 = 10, na kumain ako ng sinigang as lunch, atbp. And sinasabi rin ng particularists na we can know certain things without having to have a criteria kung paano natin nalaman ang mga bagay na iyon. We know many things kahit di natin fully na naiintindihan ang mga bagay bagay o kahit hindi natin kaya patunayan ang alam natin. Ang isang skeptic can object sa isang particularist in two ways: ang first one ay they will say na ang particularist ay nag beg ng question. Ang begging the question ay isang fallacy where the conclusion is assumed sa premises. So when the skeptic says this ay sinasabi niya na ina-assume ng particularist ang point in question, which is whether people have knowledge. Ang second one naman ay they will ask the particularist “how do you know?” Sa accusations na ito ay particularists could respond to this in four ways: First, if ang skeptic ay isang iterative skeptic, meaning ay hindi siya nag offer ng argument but merely asks in every assertion, “how did you know?” ay puwede hindi pansinin ito ng particularist dahil wala silang solid na position or argument. Pero if ang skepticism niya ay result ng isang argument ay puwede ipakita na one cannot reasonably doubt anything if you do not know some things. Ang isang global na unmitigated na skepticism ay hindi defensible na position kasi when they assert something ay they presuppose knowledge which they are trying to deny na possible. Second ay if skeptics will ask the question na “how do you know?” Particularists can simply refuse to play their game by saying na we can know certain things without being able to show or prove how we know it. Third, a particularist can say na just because logically possible na mali siya sa isang bagay ay hindi automatic na mali na siya agad in reality. So if hindi kaya ng skeptic to show good reasons kung bakit mali ang particularist ay hindi enough to merely say na logically possible na mali siya. Ang burden of proof ay nasa skeptic to show this.

Fourth, the particularist can show na he avoids the infinite regress sa usapan about knowledge and that they accord with the reality na people could really know some things contrary sa assertion ng skeptic. As a side comment, maliban sa arguments na binigay natin about particularism which we could use to demonstrate na we could know some things, like the existence of the universe, we can see common-sensically na the skeptic does not live consistently sa kanilang beliefs kasi in reality they live their lives as if they could really know some things. For this reason ay we could say na it’s the case that the universe or the external world does exist. Take note na in presenting an argument sa conversations ay hindi natin need i-establish or show lahat ng premises. We can just argue for the truthfulness of the premise if yung certain premise ay may objection from a person na kausap natin. Some of the premises kasi ay maaari na they will concede, like the third premise. So to review, let’s go back sa argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

So based on the contingency argument, in light of what we have talked about. Since premise 1 and 3 is true, then it follows sa premise 4 na ang universe ay may explanation for its existence. And since premise 2 and 4 ay totoo ay it’s reasonable for us to conclude na ang explanation for the existence of the universe is God. And if you don’t prefer the term God, as Dr. Craig would argue, ay the best explanation is “the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the universe and everything in it”.

Today, in this broadcast ay we were able to show that the best explanation sa existence ng universe ay si God by addressing the objection that the universe exists necessarily. Aside from that ay I gave one good reason to show skeptics that the universe or the external world ay indeed nag exist in case they meet actual people first-order skeptics. Next broadcast ay we will now talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is an argument that shows what is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Apologetics in Christianity & Science || John Ricafrente Pesebre

Among my many joys in apologetics ministry is to introduce modern counter-intuitive ideas most especially to evangelicals who have a negative bias against anything secular. One of these ideas is the integral relationship between faith and science, especially big science -- the era of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus.

Notice that those three are engineers. Engineers are concerned with mechanisms (an idea pointed out by Steve Fuller -- philosopher-sociologist and Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the Department of sociology at University of Warwick, England). These were people along with others like Faraday, Boyle, Brahe, Kepler, and Maxwell who saw in nature mechanisms that are worthwhile and beneficial to discover and investigate. Once discovered they mapped out laws and also mathematical computations that would give an account of the phenomenon.

Notice also, that those scientists and engineers were professing Christian. They believed that nature’s mechanism is a worthwhile discovery because it was not only looking into the how God's mind worked but how it can be understood rationally.

Why believe nature is rational? Because the Creator is a rational being. Albert Einstein hints at the idea of a divinely-ordained rational universe: “I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason." In the era of the big sciences, scientists were more explicit about the relationship of science and their belief in God. Robert Boyle said, “God would not have made the universe as it is unless he intended us to understand it.” Sabi din ni Louis Pasteur, “A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him . . . The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

So there you go. The engineers of modern science looked at nature and they saw a mechanism placed there by God. In the Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, the Holy Grail of Newtonian physics, Isaac Newton wrote this, “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.” This was the Newton who in one of his journals wrote, "Yet one thing secures us what ever betide, the scriptures assures us that the Lord will provide.”

Leibniz’s Contingency Argument Part 1 || Omar Arellano

Sa ating huling broadcast ay we talked about classical apologetics. We discussed about the two-step method ng classical apologists in showing Christianity to be true, which is ang pag gamit ng natural theology, kung saan we prove the existence of God using observation sa nature and our human reason, and also ang Christian evidences, which are particular evidence we use to make the case for the truthfulness of Christianity. Sa ating broadcast today ay we will start na to talk about the arguments we use sa natural theology for us to prove the existence of God. We will start sa Contingency Argument ni Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. What we will do muna is to present the argument, then explain each point for us to understand it properly.

Si Gottfried Leibniz ay kilala bilang co-founder ng calculus with Isaac Newton. Si Isaac Newton ay isang Ingles, at si Leibniz ay isang German, and they independently discovered calculus. Don’t worry kasi hindi naman related dun ang ating pag-uusapan today. Ang aim natin for talking about Leibniz’s argument ay for us to answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” or in other words “Why does anything at all exist?”, which he wrote sa kanyang introduction sa philosophy of nature and metaphysics entitled “The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason”. Magandang question ito for us to answer kasi it’s nostalgic, kasi it reminds us of our childhood kung saan ay we wonder kung saan ba nanggaling lahat ng nakikita natin. Here in our discussion ay I relied sa work ni William Lane Craig sa book niya na On Guard. I’ll do my best to explain it to you in simple terms. Let me start our discussion by introducing the argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Sa argument na ito ay we can see that Premise 3 is obvious. If a person ay isang seeker after truth ay hindi niya ito i-deny. Ang obvious na i-deny nila first na we can talk about is ang Premise 1. In Premise 1, they will say object na “God then has a reason for His existence”. If we look sa argument ay it seems vulnerable sa objection dahil it says that “everything” ay may reason for their existence, which of course includes God. And if you say na si God ay nag exist without explanation, you will be accused na nag commit ka ng special pleading kasi you exempted God sa “everything” without enough justification. And they will be right na nag commit ka ng ganito na logical fallacy if you do that. You tempt them to say in the same vein na “bakit hindi puwede na ang universe ay nag exist lang without explanation?” As a Christian, to avoid this problem, ay you don’t have to worry about the idea that God has an explanation for His existence. Please allow me to explain. Sa pananaw ni Leibniz ay may dalawang bagay: first, ay ang mga bagay na nag exist necessarily, at pangalawa, mga bagay na nag exist contingently. Ang mga bagay na nag exist contingently ay nag rely sa isang external cause or sa ibang bagay in order for them to exist. Ang obvious example nito ay tayo mismo. We rely sa existence ng parents natin in order for us to exist. Ganoon din ang mga parents natin sa kanilang mga parents for them to exist. Ang mga phones natin ay nag rely sa materials na needed and for isang group or factory in order for the phones to exist. Tapos ang mga nag exist naman necessarily ay mga bagay na nag exist by necessity dahil sa kanilang nature. In other words ay impossible for them na hindi mag exist. Ang nature nila ay they cannot not exist. Ang example nito ay abstract objects tulad ng numbers, sets, at ibang mathematical entities. Hindi sila social construct na gawa natin. So it’s true nga na everything ay may explanation for their existence, either sa necessity of their own nature or dahil sa isang external cause. So when they ask us about the reason for God’s existence ay it’s because of the necessity of His own nature. This will provoke them to say na in the same way ay the universe ay nag exist based sa necessity ng own nature nito. They will say this kasi if we say na may explanation ang universe sa existence nito then we are saying na before the universe happened ay may nothingness, but siyempre it cannot be an explanation for anything. So for them by virtue of that ay it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation, which is a logically fallacy na they assume from the start na totoo ang atheism. This is something siyempre na sila ang may burden of proof to establish. Even physicists na hindi Christian would say na time, space, and matter started when the universe started. If the universe started, then siyempre that would show na it fits sa category na ang universe ay isang contingent being. Ang analogy na we can give sa pagiging self evident ng premise 1 ay if we see a translucent ball sa isang forest floor. Siyempre we won’t think na it just existed inexplicably. If palakihin natin ang bola sa size ng car, we still would want an explanation. Kahit size pa ito ng house, or ng planet natin, or if ang ball would be the size of the whole universe! Some will say na true ito sa mga bagay inside the universe pero not of the universe itself, pero this would be a logical fallacy, kasi hindi puwede i-affirm na lahat ay may explanation, then you will exempt ang universe bigla by saying na walang explanation sa existence ng universe. For this reason ay mas plausible na true ang premise 1 rather than false.

Let’s now proceed sa Premise 2, which is “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” For me ay reasonable na premise ito kasi two lang namang ang possible na reasonable explanation for the existence ng universe, which is God and abstract objects. The reason for this ay if time, space, and matter, started when the universe started, then the cause of the universe must be beyond time, space, and matter. If hindi kasi beyond time, space, and matter ang cause ay it presupposes na agad ang existence of time, space, and matter, which is a logical contradiction. You’re basically saying na ang naging cause ng universe ay isang matter eh before the universe ay hindi pa nag exist ang matter. Therefore, ang cause dapat ng universe ay spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. That’s why ang possible na causes ay si God and ang abstract objects, which are mathematical entities. We have good reasons to think na hindi abstract objects ang cause, dahil causally impotent ang abstract objects to make changes sa world. They have no power and dahil impersonal ang mga ito ay wala silang capability to decide to create. Ang may capability to create or make changes ay isang concrete object, which truly exists and hindi lang mere concept. Ang best na nag fit here ay si God kasi maliban sa pagiging spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, ay unimaginable powerful and personal si God, so He can make changes and siyempre ay He can decide to create.

Dahil sa lack of time ay we will continue the discussion sa next episode. We will go back sa possible objection na the universe just exists necessarily, which people may use to avoid God being the explanation of the universe. We will address this to help you establish premise 2. Aside from that ay we will give good reasons in address objections in case we meet people who will object to premise 3 or they deny that the universe exists.

Today, ay we were able to present the argument and establish premise 1. We made distinctions about contingent and necessary beings for us to avoid the possible accusation of special pleading when we say na everything has an explanation for their existence. We also talked briefly about premise 2 of the contingency argument. Next episode ay we will talk about the objection sa premise 2 na ang universe ay nag exist necessarily. We will also talk about establishing the third premise in case we meet someone na mag-contest nito.

What is Classical Apologetics? || Omar Arellano

Ang apologetics ay isang science and art kung paano i-defend ang ating pananampalataya from objections laban dito. Lahat ng mga Christians ay called to practice apologetics. Ito ay dahil makikita natin mismo sa sinabi ni Apostle Paul na part ng ministry ng gospel ang pag defend sa gospel. Sabi nga ni Paul sa Philippians 1:7, “It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.” In light of this siyempre ay mapapatanong tayo about sa different methods kung paano ba i-defend ang ating faith. Sa current na series natin ay I will talk about ang methodology na tinatawag na classical apologetics. Pagkatapos ng talk natin about sa classical apologetics ay pag-uusapan natin sa mga susunod na broadcast ang mga iba’t ibang argumento na napapabilang sa methodology na ito upang maging mas familiar tayo rito. Sa ngayon ay magbibigay muna ako ng introduction patungkol sa kung ano ba ang classical apologetics bilang isang methodology. Ang magiging basis natin sa pag explain kung ano ang classical apologetics ay ang libro ni Steven Cowan sa Five Views on Apologetics kung saan ay may contribution ang apologist na si William Lane Craig about classical apologetics.

Basically ay Dr. Craig showed na ang methodological approach for classical apologetics is to use reason in the form of rational arguments and evidence ay essential for us to show that Christianity is true, though ang reason only has a secondary or contingent na role in personally knowing that Christianity is true. The reason is that ang proper ground of us knowing Christianity to be true ay based sa inner witness ng Holy Spirit sa ating hearts. We will share about this distinction of showing Christianity to be true and knowing Christianity to be true for us to appreciate the classical method. Ang classical na approach ay practiced ni Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, at William Paley. Three notable people na we know in our generation who practice it is si William Lane Craig, si R.C. Sproul who died last December 17, 2017, and si Norman Geisler who died last July 1, 2019. Ang classical na approach ay binubuo ng natural theology at Christian evidences. Ang natural theology ay defined as a way of reflecting on the existence and nature of God na independent sa divine revelation. Ang ginagamit nila typically ay ang human reason and also observation ng nature or ng universe. Ang mga example naman nito ay ang cosmological, teleological, moral, at ontological arguments for God’s existence. Ang Christian evidences naman ay evidence that particularly make a case for the truthfulness of Christianity. Ang examples nito ay ang arguments ni Geisler such as miracles, reliability of the scriptures, the resurrection of Jesus, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of the Bible. Just a quick comment, we will explain each of the mentioned arguments for us to grasp the big picture better so no worries if di niyo gets what is being referred to. Going back, in showing Christianity to be true, ang classical apologists would see na necessary ang pag gamit ng natural theology and Christian evidences, or in other words ay to show arguments muna for theism or God’s existence, then arguments specific that show Christianity to be true. Ito ang key na distinctive ng classical apologetics when we compare it with the evidentialist approach. Sila Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley would argue kasi na meaningless ang argument if hindi preceded ang miracles ng natural theology. Norman Geisler agrees with this na dapat natural theology muna bago Christian evidences. An evidentialist kasi na apologist like Gary Habermas would differ in a sense that we don’t need natural theology to precede Christian evidences. We can use for example, ang resurrection ni Jesus as a starting point, and when we are able to show it to be true, it retrospectively shows that God exists and that Jesus’ message is credible. Ito ang key difference between classical and evidentialist apologetics though they agree on many parts.

In justifying classical apologetics in Scripture, Craig commented on kathoratai on Romans 1:20, which means clearly perceive and discern. Sabi niya na puwede ito mag indicate na involved ang inferential reasoning sa pag perceive ng invisible nature ni God sa creation. Basically ang inferential reasoning ay you reach a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence. Isa siyang proseso where we use our reason to see whether or not a proposition is true, which leads us to a rational na conclusion. A very close parallel daw ayon sa mga commentators ng Romans passage ay ang Hellenistic na work na Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-9 kung saan clearly in view ang inferential reasoning. Higit pa rito ay sa Acts 14:17 na kahit God allowed the Gentiles to go in their own way, He did not leave them without evidence or testimony, which is binubuo ng created order. Plausible raw ito na interpretation which shows na legitimate ang pag gamit ng natural theology. Sa pag show naman ng Christian faith to be true, he cited ang appeal ng gospel writers sa miracles and fulfilled prophecy ni Jesus to show ang veracity ng kanyang message. Ang example nito ay ang practice ni Jesus sa Luke 24:25–27 and John 14:11, and ang sermon ni Peter sa Acts 2:22-32. Aside from what we had talked about in showing Christianity to be true, it’s important to note na ang role ng Holy Spirit in showing Christianity to be true is not to supply ang pagkukulang natin sa ating mga arguments. What He does ay ang pag move sa heart ng unbelievers to weaken their sinful na prejudices and for them to open their minds to consider the arguments.

Now that we were able to talk about showing Christianity to be true and a brief scriptural basis sa method ng classical apologetics, let’s talk about knowing Christianity to be true which is based sa inner witness ng Holy Spirit. Ang role daw ng witness ng Holy Spirit ay self-authenticating. This means na intrinsic siya na defeater ng mga defeaters brought against our faith. Ang defeater basically is a belief na if true will show na another belief is false. This means na we don’t need additional arguments or evidence for us to know na we experience God’s Spirit. It’s an immediate experience and not a proposition, like the way we see a beautiful scenery which is hard to describe using words, pero we know na maganda ang nakita natin na scenery. Ang subjective na assurance na ito gives us objective knowledge of the truth and ang experience overwhelms ang mga arguments na thrown against us. Ang analogy which I could give ay if you witnessed a murder. Dahil you are a primary witness ay sure ka kung sino ang pumatay. Even if you were framed to make it seem na you committed ang murder, kahit gaano ka solid ang argumentation nila against you ay resolved ka in your heart na you did not commit the crime. One passage that show this witness ay ang Romans 8:15-17, “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Another ay ang Galatians 4:6, “Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” Ang role lamang ng argument and evidence in knowing Christianity to be true ay ang tinatawag ni Martin Luther na ang ministerial use of reason, which means na subordinate sa ating faith ang reason. This makes our faith secure in times na wala tayong evidence or argument for our faith.

In summary, we showed what classical apologetics is by showing yung distinction nito from evidential apologetics when we talked about showing Christianity to be true. We also talked briefly about yung scriptural basis for the practice. We also talked about yung knowing Christianity to be true na aspect ng classical apologetics to show na ang ultimate foundation ng faith ng isang Christian ay hindi based sa evidence ng arguments, kasi a Christian could still believe rationally kahit wala siyang access sa evidence and arguments. Next broadcast ay we will talk about arguments that show that God exists which will start on the contingency argument.

Photo Credit