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.
No comments:
Post a Comment