Recently, President Duterte of the Philippines issued a challenge to prove the existence of God. About a week ago, I showed that to believe in God is reasonable and responsible; indeed, he credibly exists. (BTW, the hits:comments ratio was interesting.)
Today, I will explore a bit on what it means for God to be the necessary being at the root of reality.
Classically, a necessary being would exist in any possible world, while a contingent one (such as we are) exists in at least one possible world, but would not exist in at least one possible world. This is because contingent beings are causally dependent on external enabling factors. For example, ponder the fire tetrahedron:
A fire, being contingent, has enabling factors which must each be present for a fire to exist. In every instance of a fire, those factors will be present, and a sufficient cluster of causal factors will be present. So, too, were one or more on/off enabling factors removed or absent, a fire could not begin or would go out.
Thus, we can see by example what it means to be contingent as a being.
Now, we need to also see that candidate beings may be possible or impossible, and of the possible beings, some will be contingent and others are necessary. Impossible beings — such as a square circle — cannot exist in any possible world. They are impossible of being as core characteristics connected to their identity stand in mutual contradiction thus the being cannot exist in any possible world. For example, characteristics of squarishness and circularity are mutually contradictory, which is why a square circle cannot come into existence in any possible world. By contrast, a possible being can exist in at least one possible world. Then, if there is at least one possible world in which a candidate being would not exist, it is contingent — like a fire. Where there is no possible world in which a candidate being would not exist, that being would be necessary.
Why is that?
Because, the candidate would be part of the framework for a world — any world — to exist.
For example, for a distinct world W_1 to exist, it must have a distinct identity. This instantly means that we contrast W_1 with NOT-W_1, ~ W_1. Using A, we see A vs ~A. That is, two-ness must exist once any distinct world exists. This brings with it the set of counting numbers {0, 1, 2, 3 . . . }. You cannot have a world without these things.
A serious candidate necessary being — invisible pink elephants and flying spaghetti monsters etc need not apply — will have another key characteristic: they will not be built up from separate, independently existing parts. Such parts would be external, necessary enabling factors.
Thirdly, a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible of being or else it will actually exist. For, being framework to any possible world and being possible of being, it will be in the world that we inhabit.
This means that God (as understood by ethical theism — the eternal, utterly independent, utterly good, utterly true, utterly holy sovereign Creator and Lord) will either be impossible of being or else will be actual.
In short, atheism implies that God as understood by ethical theism is either not a serious candidate or else is impossible of being. This is why we have so often seen silly parodies like flying spaghetti monsters [a composite being like that cannot be a necessary being]. It is also why atheists used to champion the now failed problem of evils as a means of arguing that the concept of God could not be instantiated.
Such arguments are in part un-serious, and the serious part has failed.
So, we are back to where we were a week ago:
we look for reasonable, responsible warrant for world roots adequate to account for a domain spanning hydrogen to humans, and know that it is not credibly a wholly material order. There must be room for mind, moral government and the human spirit. Where, too, we must adequately account for the one and the many, including good vs. evil.
Cutting to the chase scene, we are looking for a grand, worldviews level inference to the best explanation of a world that spans from hydrogen to humans.
The candidate to beat is: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
That is, it is a reasonable and responsible view to hold to ethical theism. In that context, we can account for ourselves as created to be in the image of God, able to sufficiently sense, understand and act into the world responsibly and freely. Where also, it then makes excellent sense to see a world that is full of signs of design of the cosmos, and of the world of biological life. Where also moral government and significant, responsible, rational freedom make sense as endowments by our creator.
This is the challenge on the table. END