An Overflow of Worth

So far we've discussed three main arguments for building a case for the existence of the Christian God. We've looked at the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, and the Teleological Argument, or the argument from design. To wrap up this discussion, I'd like to briefly share one more argument for the existence of God that is, in fact, my favorite argument. It comes from Thomas Aquinas' Third Way, and it's known as the Vertical Cosmological Argument. While the Kalam Cosmological Argument argues for a Beginner of the universe, the vertical form of this argument argues for a here and now sustaining cause of the universe. Space, nor the extent of my knowledge, permit a thorough examination of this argument, but I ask that you take a few moments to think through these points and see if your view of God and your worship of Him is not affected. Let's get started.

I think we can all agree that something exists. We at least know that we exist, for we would have to exist in order to deny our own existence. That, of course, would be a contradiction. So we know something exists. Now let's think about the existence of something simple. Think about a triangle. How would you define what a triangle is? Let's say it's a three-sided geometric figure. If we destroyed all the triangles in the universe, would that do anything to change what a triangle is? Of course not. A triangle's definition, or its "essence," would still be the same. That means that existence is not part of what a triangle IS, but something a triangle HAS. That means that triangles, like you and me, are contingent. They exist, but they could possibly not exist. In other words, their existence is not "necessary." It's similar to a unicorn. We know that a unicorn is a horse with a horn. But they don't actually exist. If existence were part of what a unicorn IS, or part of its essence, then we would define a unicorn as a horse with a horn THAT EXISTS. Do you see the difference? So WHAT something is, its essence, and THAT something is, its existence, are not necessarily the same thing.

The fact that we ACTUALLY exist, but could POTENTIALLY not exist, means that we cannot account for our own existence. Something that doesn't exist necessarily cannot create itself. Logic plainly tells us this. In order for something to give itself existence, or create itself in other words, it must already exist, which is an obvious contradiction. Hopefully it's clear at this point that we are relying on something else to give us existence. Perhaps your thinking, "My parents gave me existence." Are your parents really the ultimate cause of your existence? Think about it. If your parents cease to exist, would you? Of course not. But a contingent being is always a contingent being, and is therefore always relying on something else for its existence. So your parents are not the ultimate cause of your existence. In fact, based on our current knowledge, everything in the universe is contingent, or could possibly not exist. Therefore, the entire universe is dependent on something else for its existence. But just like our parents are not the ultimate cause of our existence, we can't just posit another contingent being as the cause of the universe. If we do, we continue to push the problem back a step forever and never reach an initial cause. This is a philosophical impossibility.

So what type of being must be the cause of all contingent beings? As we just saw, it couldn't be just another contingent being. But there are only two types of being, contingent (i.e. unnecessary) and necessary. So the cause of the universe must be a necessary being, an uncaused cause. What does this mean? Well, if a contingent being's essence (think "WHATness") and existence (think "ISness") are different, then a necessary beings essence and existence are the same thing! A necessary being IS existence. In other words, its definition would include "and exists." So a necessary being cannot not exist. It must exist. It has no potential not to exist. It is what it is in a necessary way. In philosophical terms, a necessary being is pure ACTUALITY, pure existence. Our essence limits us to what type of existence we have. That's why we are humans and not trees, and rocks are rocks and not dogs. But a necessary being's essence and existence are the same thing. So a necessary being is UNLIMITED.

This may sound confusing, but it is, in fact, very profound. Think about it. What would be true of an unlimited being in regards to power, or presence, or knowledge? It would be all-powerful, everywhere-present, all-knowing. Is this beginning to sound familiar? This necessary being must be eternal, all-good, the ultimate basis for all that exists, and is ultimate Worth. Whatever is of ultimate worth is worthy of all worth-ship or worship. And whatever has all of these qualities is appropriately called God.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I do hope you appreciate the profundity of this reasoning. Without quoting a single Bible verse, we've shown a very profound reason for believing in God. But, the most profound thing to me is how this reasoning lines up precisely with God's self-revelation in scripture. As a necessary being who's very essence is existence, God says His name is "I AM" in Ex. 3:14. As the necessary being who is the ultimate here-and-now cause of our existence, God revealed to Paul in Col. 1:16-17, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." As Paul said in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move and have our being." Truly He is worthy of our worship as the ultimate source of an overflow of worth.

For further reading on this subject, please visit these great resources:
Sound Rezn (Alex McFarland's radio show) blog
Professor Doug Beaumont's page

For His glory,
Adam Tucker