The Battle for God Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005

The Battle for God I. The External Battle II. The Internal Battle

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism versus: Deism Finite Godism Atheism Pantheism Panentheism Polytheism

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism versus Deism Beyond World Beyond world & in the world & not in the world Problem: God did the big miracle (creation) but not smaller ones (like resurrection )

I. The External Battle Theism vs. Finite Godism Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Contrary to principle of causality: 2. There is something more than God (viz., an infinite Being). 3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in which case evil is more ultimate than good).

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism vs. Atheism God e xists No God exists Problems: 1. No evidence for atheism. (Evil presupposes God) 2. Strong evidence against it (cosmo, teleo, and moral arguments).

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism versus Pantheism God made all God is all I am not God I am God Evil is real Evil isn’t real it.

Problems with Pantheism: Problems with Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth. 2. It claims we can change from illusion to enlightenment; a. We can change. b. We are God. c. Yet God cannot change. 3. If error is not real, then why try to refute it (which they do).

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism vs. Polytheism One God Many Gods Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, gods need a God). 2. Unity (oneness) of universe needs One Cause (mathematical & physical law; anthropic principle). The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism vs. Polytheism One God Many Gods Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, gods need a God). 2. Unity (oneness) of universe needs One Cause (mathematical & physical law; anthropic principle).

The Battle for God I. The External Battle Theism versus Panentheism Monopolar Bipolar Pure Actuality Actuality and & no potentiality potentiality SimpleComplex InfiniteFinite IndependentDependent Absolutely perfectNot perfect UnchangingChanging

The Problems with Panentheism 1. God is self-caused which is impossible. 2. God and world are mutually dependent which is impossible. 3. God is changing which is not possible without an unchanging basis for change (which would be more ultimate than God). 4. God is not perfect (which demands a Perfect by which He is measured).

The Problems with Panentheism 5. Their concept of change is incoherent, since a. There is no continuity in the change. b. It is change w/o anything that changes. c. It is annihilation/recreation without a Creator to do the recreation. 6. If God is temporal, then— a. He must have a beginning; b. He must be material; c. He must be running down (II Law). d. He can’t think faster than light. In short, the panentheistic God is a creature in need of a Creator.

The Battle for God I. The External Battle II. The Internal Battle

II. The Open Theism Similarities God is infinite God is uncaused God is necessary Differences SimpleComplex UnchangeableChangeable Non-temporalTemporal II. The Open Theism Similarities God is infinite God is uncaused God is necessary Differences SimpleComplex UnchangeableChangeable Non-temporalTemporal

Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God is infinite. 2. They claim God has parts. 3. But an infinite being can’t have parts. a.Everything with parts can have more parts. b. But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being cannot have parts.

Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God can change. 2. But whatever changes has parts. a. In all accidental change, part remains and part does not.* b. But God has no parts. c. Hence, God cannot change. *In substantial change, the being goes out of existence. But they agree God is a Necessary Being and can’t go out of existence) Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God can change. 2. But whatever changes has parts. a. In all accidental change, part remains and part does not.* b. But God has no parts. c. Hence, God cannot change. *In substantial change, the being goes out of existence. But they agree God is a Necessary Being and can’t go out of existence)

Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God is a Necessary Being. 2. But a Necessary Being has no potentiality in its Being (not to exist). 3. But what has no potentiality cannot change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality. Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God is a Necessary Being. 2. But a Necessary Being has no potentiality in its Being (not to exist). 3. But what has no potentiality cannot change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality.

Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. 2. But what is temporal undergoes change, for time measures change. 3. Hence, a temporal God changes. 4. But what changes, is caused, for— a. Change moves from potency to act. b. And no potency can actualize itself. 5. But Open Theists believe God is uncaused. 6. Hence, Open Theism is inconsistent. Problems of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. 2. But what is temporal undergoes change, for time measures change. 3. Hence, a temporal God changes. 4. But what changes, is caused, for— a. Change moves from potency to act. b. And no potency can actualize itself. 5. But Open Theists believe God is uncaused. 6. Hence, Open Theism is inconsistent.

Problems of Open Theism 1. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things. 2. Assuming God’s nature changes because His relationships do. a.The person changes in relation to the pillar, but– b.The pillar does not change in relation to the person. Problems of Open Theism 1. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things. 2. Assuming God’s nature changes because His relationships do. a.The person changes in relation to the pillar, but– b.The pillar does not change in relation to the person.

Major Conclusion It is either: Aquinas or Whitehead; Classical Theism or Panentheism Logically, there is no middle ground Major Conclusion It is either: Aquinas or Whitehead; Classical Theism or Panentheism Logically, there is no middle ground

Major Conclusion: 1. Classical theism is internally consistent on the basic attributes of God. 2. Hence, rejecting one attribute causes the whole system to collapse. 3. Panentheism is internally consistent on the basic attributes of God. Major Conclusion: 1. Classical theism is internally consistent on the basic attributes of God. 2. Hence, rejecting one attribute causes the whole system to collapse. 3. Panentheism is internally consistent on the basic attributes of God.

Major Conclusion: 4. Hence, accepting one attribute means accepting all essential attributes. 5.Neotheism attempts to accept some without accepting other attributes of the panentheistic view of God. 6. Hence, neo-theism is internally incoherent. It either— a.Reduces to panentheism, or— b.It falls back to classical theism. Major Conclusion: 4. Hence, accepting one attribute means accepting all essential attributes. 5.Neotheism attempts to accept some without accepting other attributes of the panentheistic view of God. 6. Hence, neo-theism is internally incoherent. It either— a.Reduces to panentheism, or— b.It falls back to classical theism.

Minor Conclusion: Other theists who reject God’s simplicity, non-temporality, or immutability are subject to the same criticisms. Minor Conclusion: Other theists who reject God’s simplicity, non-temporality, or immutability are subject to the same criticisms.

Arguments for Simplicity: The Argument from God’s: 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity 3. Independence 4. Necessity 5. Unity Arguments for Simplicity: The Argument from God’s: 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity 3. Independence 4. Necessity 5. Unity

Arguments for Simplicity: 1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducible complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have irreducible complexity. Arguments for Simplicity: 1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducible complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have irreducible complexity.

Arguments for Simplicity: 2. Argument from Infinity a. God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have parts 1) Whatever has parts can have more parts. 2) But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, God has no parts. Arguments for Simplicity: 2. Argument from Infinity a. God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have parts 1) Whatever has parts can have more parts. 2) But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, God has no parts.

Arguments for Simplicity: 3. The Argument from Independence a. God is an Independent Being. b. Whatever is composed is dependent on another who composed it. c.Hence, God is not composed. Arguments for Simplicity: 3. The Argument from Independence a. God is an Independent Being. b. Whatever is composed is dependent on another who composed it. c.Hence, God is not composed.

Arguments for Simplicity: 4. Argument from God’s Necessity a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist). b.What has no potentiality cannot be composed. c.Hence, God has no composition. Arguments for Simplicity: 4. Argument from God’s Necessity a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist). b.What has no potentiality cannot be composed. c.Hence, God has no composition.

Arguments for Simplicity: 5. Argument from God’s Unity a.God has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in God. b.What has parts, has plurality in its essence. c.Hence, God has no parts. Arguments for Simplicity: 5. Argument from God’s Unity a.God has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in God. b.What has parts, has plurality in its essence. c.Hence, God has no parts.

Objections to God’s Simplicity: 1.Historical Objection 2.Theological Objections 3.Philosophical Objections. Objections to God’s Simplicity: 1.Historical Objection 2.Theological Objections 3.Philosophical Objections.

Objections to Simplicity: Historical Objection: It comes from Greek philosophy Response: 1.So does process theology. 2.So does logic. 3.This is a “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet they accept these! Objections to Simplicity: Historical Objection: It comes from Greek philosophy Response: 1.So does process theology. 2.So does logic. 3.This is a “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet they accept these!

Objections to Simplicity: Theological Objection 1: The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God. Response: 1.This confuses essence and persons in God. 2.There is only one essence, yet there are three persons in God. Objections to Simplicity: Theological Objection 1: The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God. Response: 1.This confuses essence and persons in God. 2.There is only one essence, yet there are three persons in God.

Theological Objection 2: God has many attributes. But all members of the Trinity are identical to the same essence. Hence, they are the same. Response: This confuses identity of object and identity of meaning. 1. All member of the Trinity are identical to the same object (thing); 2. Yet their meaning implies an opposing relation (e.g., same road between two cities does not mean they are the same cities.

Philosophical Objection 1: Simplicity is not intelligible Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. 2. It is apprehendible, even if not comprehendible. 3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality which they claim to understand.

Philosophical Objection 2: Simplicity is not intelligible Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. 2. It can be apprehend, even if not comprehended. 3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality. 4. It may be unintelligible to us (e.g., an unknown language) but not unintell- igible in itself (e.g., a square circle).

Philosophical Objection 3: If God is simple, then all properties are identical. But they are not. Response: 1. God’s many attributes are not the same. 2. Rather, the same God has many attributes. 3. God has many names, since no one tells all about Him. (e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)

Philosophical Objection 4: If God is identical to His properties, then He is a property (= abstract object), not a concrete person. But He is personal. Response: 1. This wrongly assumes they are predicated of God univocally (not analogically). 2. This assumes the platonic view that properties exist apart from things.