The Battle for God Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005

The Battle for GodThe Battle for God

Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005

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

The Battle for GodThe Battle for God I. The External BattleI. The External Battle

Theism versus:Theism versus:DeismDeismFinite GodismFinite GodismAtheismAtheismPantheismPantheismPanentheismPanentheismPolytheismPolytheism

The Battle for GodThe Battle for God I. The External BattleI. The External Battle

Theism versus Theism versus DeismDeismBeyond WorldBeyond World Beyond world Beyond world& in the world& in the world & not in the world & not in the world

Problem:Problem: God did the big miracle God did the big miracle (creation) but not smaller ones (creation) but not smaller ones (like resurrection(like resurrection))

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

than good).than good).

The Battle for GodThe Battle for GodI. The External BattleI. The External Battle Theism vs. AtheismTheism vs. Atheism GodGod e existsxists No God exists No God exists

Problems: Problems: 1. No evidence for atheism.1. No evidence for atheism. (Evil presupposes God) (Evil presupposes God) 2. Strong evidence against it (cosmo, 2. Strong evidence against it (cosmo, teleo, and moral arguments).teleo, and moral arguments).

The Battle for GodThe Battle for GodI. The External BattleI. The External Battle Theism versus PantheismTheism versus Pantheism God made all God is allGod made all God is all I am not God I am not God I am God I am God Evil is real Evil is real Evil isn’t real Evil isn’t real

it. 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 GodThe Battle for GodI. The External BattleI. The External Battle Theism vs. PolytheismTheism vs. Polytheism One One GodGod Many Gods Many Gods Infinite Finite Infinite FiniteProblems:Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite 1. Every finite needs and infinite

Cause (So, gods need a God). Cause (So, gods need a God). 2. 2. Unity (oneness) of universe needs Unity (oneness) of universe needs

One Cause (mathematical & One Cause (mathematical & physical law; anthropic principle). physical law; anthropic principle).

The Battle for GodThe Battle for GodI. The External BattleI. The External BattleTheism versus PanentheismTheism versus Panentheism Monopolar Monopolar Bipolar Bipolar Pure Actuality Pure Actuality Actuality and Actuality and & no potentiality& no potentiality potentialitypotentiality Simple Simple ComplexComplex Infinite Infinite FiniteFinite Independent Independent DependentDependent Absolutely perfect Absolutely perfect Not perfectNot perfect Unchanging Unchanging ChangingChanging

The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism

1.1. God is self-caused which is impossible. God is self-caused which is impossible.2. God and world are mutually dependent 2. God and world are mutually dependent

which is impossible.which is impossible.3. God is changing which is not possible 3. God is changing which is not possible

without an unchanging basis for without an unchanging basis for change change (which would be more ultimate than God).(which would be more ultimate than God).

4. God is not perfect (which demands a 4. God is not perfect (which demands a Perfect by which He is measured).Perfect by which He is measured).

The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism5. Their concept of change is incoherent, since 5. Their concept of change is incoherent, since a. There is no continuity in the change.a. There is no continuity in the change.

b. It is change w/o anything that changes.b. It is change w/o anything that changes.c. It is annihilation/recreation without a c. It is annihilation/recreation without a

Creator to do the recreation. Creator to do the recreation.6. If God is temporal, then—6. If God is temporal, then—

a. He must have a beginning;a. He must have a beginning;b. He must be material;b. He must be material;c. He must be running down (II Law).c. He must be running down (II Law).d. He can’t think faster than light.d. He can’t think faster than light.In short, the panentheistic God is a In short, the panentheistic God is a creature in need of a Creator.creature in need of a Creator.

The Battle for GodThe Battle for God I. The External BattleI. The External Battle II. The Internal BattleII. The Internal Battle

II. The Open TII. The Open TheismheismSimilaritiesSimilarities

God is infiniteGod is infiniteGod is uncausedGod is uncausedGod is necessaryGod is necessary

DifferencesDifferencesSimpleSimple ComplexComplex

UnchangeableUnchangeable ChangeableChangeableNon-temporalNon-temporal TemporalTemporal

Problems of Open TheismProblems of Open Theism1. They claim God is infinite. 1. They claim God is infinite. 2. They claim God has parts.2. They claim God has parts.3. But an infinite being can’t have 3. But an infinite being can’t have

parts.parts. a.a. Everything with parts can Everything with parts can

have more parts.have more parts.b. But there cannot be more b. But there cannot be more

than an infinite. than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being c. Hence, an infinite Being

cannot have partscannot have parts..

ProblemsProblems of Open Theismof Open Theism

1. They claim God can change. 1. They claim God can change. 2. But whatever changes has parts.2. But whatever changes has parts.

a. In all accidental change, part a. In all accidental change, part remains and part does remains and part does

not.*not.* b. But God has no parts. b. But God has no parts.

c. Hence, God cannot change. c. Hence, God cannot change.*In substantial change, the being goes *In substantial change, the being goes out of existence. But they agree God is out of existence. But they agree God is a Necessary Being and can’t go out of a Necessary Being and can’t go out of existence) existence)

Problems of Open TheismProblems of Open Theism1. They claim God is a Necessary Being.1. They claim God is a Necessary Being.2. But a Necessary Being has no 2. But a Necessary Being has no

potentiality in its Being (not to exist).potentiality in its Being (not to exist).3. But what has no potentiality cannot 3. But what has no potentiality cannot

change in its Being, for change is change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality.the actualization of a potentiality.

Problems of Open TheismProblems of Open Theism1. They claim God is temporal.1. They claim God is temporal.2. But what is temporal undergoes 2. But what is temporal undergoes

change, for time measures change.change, for time measures change.3. Hence, a temporal God changes.3. Hence, a temporal God changes.4. But what changes, is caused, for—4. But what changes, is caused, for—

a. Change moves from potency to a. Change moves from potency to act. act.

b. And no potency can actualize b. And no potency can actualize itself. itself. 5. But Open Theists believe God is 5. But Open Theists believe God is

uncaused.uncaused.6. Hence, Open Theism is inconsistent. 6. Hence, Open Theism is inconsistent.

Problems of Open TheismProblems of Open Theism1. Confusing God’s 1. Confusing God’s naturenature and and activity.activity.

(What God(What God is is and what God and what God doesdoes) ) a. Goda. God is is eternal, but He eternal, but He actsacts in in

time.time.b. God b. God isis unchanging but He unchanging but He

producesproduces change in things. change in things.2. Assuming God’s 2. Assuming God’s naturenature changes changes

because Hisbecause His relationships relationships do. do.a.a. The person changes in The person changes in

relation relation to the pillar, but– to the pillar, but– b.b. The pillar does not change in The pillar does not change in

relation to the person.relation to the person.

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

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

Major Conclusion:Major Conclusion: 4. Hence, accepting one attribute means 4. Hence, accepting one attribute means

accepting all essential attributes.accepting all essential attributes. 5. 5. Neotheism attempts to accept some Neotheism attempts to accept some

without accepting other attributes of the without accepting other attributes of the panentheistic view of God.panentheistic view of God. 6. Hence, neo-theism is internally 6. Hence, neo-theism is internally

incoherent. It either—incoherent. It either—a.a. Reduces to panentheism, or—Reduces to panentheism, or—b.b. It falls back to classical theism.It falls back to classical theism.

Minor Conclusion:Minor Conclusion:

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

Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity:

The Argument from God’s:The Argument from God’s:1. Uncausality 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity2. Infinity3. Independence3. Independence4. Necessity4. Necessity5. Unity5. Unity


1. Argument from Uncausality:1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being. a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducible b. But whatever has irreducible

complexity is caused. complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have c. Therefore, God does not have

irreducible complexity.irreducible complexity.


2. Argument from Infinity2. Argument from Infinity a. a. God is an infinite Being God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have b. But an infinite can’t have

parts parts 1) Whatever has parts can 1) Whatever has parts can

have more parts.have more parts.2) But there cannot be more 2) But there cannot be more

than an infinite.than an infinite. c. Hence, God has no parts. c. Hence, God has no parts.


3. The Argument from Independence3. The Argument from Independencea. God is an Independent a. God is an Independent

Being.Being.b. Whatever is composed is b. Whatever is composed is

dependent on another dependent on another who who composed it.composed it.

c.c. Hence, God is not Hence, God is not composed. composed.


4. Argument from God’s 4. Argument from God’s NecessityNecessity

a. A Necessary Being has not a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to potentiality (not to

exist).exist).b.b. What has no potentiality What has no potentiality

cannot be composed.cannot be composed.c.c. Hence, God has no Hence, God has no

composition.composition.


5. Argument from God’s Unity5. Argument from God’s Unitya.a. God has only one essenceGod has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of 1. There is a plurality of

persons, but-- persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in 2. A unity of essence in

God.God.b.b. What has parts, has What has parts, has

plurality plurality in its essence.in its essence.c.c. Hence, God has no parts.Hence, God has no parts.

Objections to God’s Objections to God’s Simplicity:Simplicity:

1.1. Historical ObjectionHistorical Objection2.2. Theological ObjectionsTheological Objections3.3. Philosophical ObjectionsPhilosophical Objections

. .

Objections to Simplicity:Objections to Simplicity:

Historical Objection:Historical Objection: It comes from It comes from Greek philosophyGreek philosophy

Response:Response:1.1. So does process theology.So does process theology.2.2. So does logic.So does logic.3.3. This is a “Genetic Fallacy.”This is a “Genetic Fallacy.”

Yet they accept these!Yet they accept these!

Objections to Simplicity:Objections to Simplicity:

Theological Objection 1:Theological Objection 1: The Trinity The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God.denies absolute simplicity of God.

Response:Response:1.1. This confuses This confuses essenceessence and and

personspersons in God. in God.2.2. There is only There is only one essenceone essence, yet , yet

there are there are three personsthree persons in in God.God.

Theological Objection 2: Theological Objection 2: God has many God has many attributes. But all members of the attributes. But all members of the Trinity are identical to the same Trinity are identical to the same essence. Hence, they are the same.essence. Hence, they are the same.Response:Response: This confuses identity of This confuses identity of objectobject and identity of and identity of meaningmeaning..

1. All member of the Trinity are 1. All member of the Trinity are identical to the same object identical to the same object

(thing);(thing); 2. Yet their meaning implies an 2. Yet their meaning implies an opposing relation (e.g., same road opposing relation (e.g., same road between two cities does not mean they between two cities does not mean they are the same cities.are the same cities.

Philosophical Objection 1:Philosophical Objection 1: Simplicity is not intelligibleSimplicity is not intelligibleResponse:Response:1. It can’t be denied unless it is 1. It can’t be denied unless it is

understood. understood.2. It is apprehendible, even if not 2. It is apprehendible, even if not

comprehendible. comprehendible.3. It is no more difficult to 3. It is no more difficult to

understand than infinity or understand than infinity or uncausality which they uncausality which they

claim to claim to understand. understand.

Philosophical Objection 2:Philosophical Objection 2: Simplicity is not intelligibleSimplicity is not intelligibleResponse:Response:

1. It can’t be denied unless it is 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. understood.

2. It can be apprehend, even if not 2. It can be apprehend, even if not comprehended. comprehended.

3. It is no more difficult to understand 3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality. than infinity or uncausality.

4. It may be unintelligible to us (e.g., an4. It may be unintelligible to us (e.g., an unknown language) but not unintell- unknown language) but not unintell-

igible igible in itself in itself (e.g., a square (e.g., a square circle).circle).

Philosophical Objection 3:Philosophical Objection 3: If God is If God is simple, then all properties are simple, then all properties are

identical. But they are not. identical. But they are not.Response:Response:1. God’s many attributes are not the 1. God’s many attributes are not the

same. same.2. Rather, the same God has many 2. Rather, the same God has many

attributes. attributes.3. God has many names, since no 3. God has many names, since no

one tells all about Him. one tells all about Him.(e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)(e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)

Philosophical Objection 4: If God isPhilosophical Objection 4: If God is identical to His properties, then He is a identical to His properties, then He is a property (= abstract object), not a property (= abstract object), not a

concrete person. But He is concrete person. But He is personal. personal. Response:Response:1. This wrongly assumes they are 1. This wrongly assumes they are

predicated of God univocally (not predicated of God univocally (not analogically). analogically).2. This assumes the platonic view that 2. This assumes the platonic view that

properties exist apart from things. properties exist apart from things.

Documents

The Battle for God Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005