Final Rejoinder/Conclusion - Shandon L. Guthrie

This is going to be my final response on this particular issue (although I will not discontinue my contributions as I see fit). I trust that this exchange has been fruitful for Mr. Hodge and the general reader because it has for me.

I think the debate has essentially come down to two main contentions by Hodge: (i) The Big Bang theory is not the best explanation of the origin of the universe, and (ii) The attributes of God are not clear in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

With respect to (i), Hodge denies the viability of the Big Bang theory on several grounds. First, he says that if the Big Bang is true then all material objects in the universe must have been generated at the same time. This is simply not true. While all of the energy in the universe all began at the singularity, the fact that particular heavenly bodies are generated at different times is precisely the unfolding of the Big Bang theory. The heavy elements in stars eventually give rise to planetary systems. So this is no surprise. The idea that I must prove that the oldest object in the universe must finite will be addressed later on when I explain the Big Bang in greater detail.

The Big Bang theory demonstrates that the universe began to exist some time ago. Now I hope that the reader caught this because Hodge tries to escape the consensus on this by basically denying that the universe exists! Is this really what one must do to deny the existence of God? Allow me to consider his analysis here. First, he surmises that the universe itself, as some sort of speculative housing for the space-time continuum itself (like money is to a pocket), is probably not finite because the universe is not the collection of space-time. But why make this unsupported assertion? This is why my previous rebuttals dealt with superspace in an attempt to thwart such peculiar concepts. Even an induction by enumeration would go to show that the universe (if ontologically distinct from its components) is probably finite given that every object in the universe examined so far is finite. More compellingly, the presence of background radiation in the universe serves to undergird the Big Bang theory and that there is an all-encompassing origin of the universe (and not just for its components). The thermodynamics of this fact has been an important feature supporting the Big Bang theory over any rival theories. Even the definitions he cites properly supports my view here sine the universe is not something distinct from its parts but is literally the collection of those parts itself! So, if the universe = all of its parts then the Kalam argument settles the theistic hypothesis just fine.
So Hodge asks me if I really have a case for the Big Bang theory (again). As noted before, there are two reasons to accept the Big Bang which Hodge waves away with his notion that the universe somehow is something other than the space-time continuum. Now there is a third reason to accept the theory given the background radiation. As Professor W. L. Craig observes:

"Perhaps the greatest triumph for the Big Bang model of the universe came in 1965 with the discovery by Penzias and Wilson of a microwave background radiation that permeates the entire universe" (Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, p. 40).

Because one may have a philosophical axe to grind does nothing to call into question the theory that is widely accepted by virtually all cosmologists today. In a recent article by Tom Ulsman, he cites Cambridge University Professor Neil Turok who says:

"The problem we have is that every particle in the universe originated in the singularity . . . That's unacceptable because there are no laws of physics that tell you how they came out of it" ("Give Peas a Chance," Astronomy Magazine, September 1999, p. 38).

The non-theist simply has no answer to this crisis. I, for one, have no problem in coming to grips with this analysis. So this leads Hodge to retreat to an outdated cosmology that is virtually rejected by the majority of astronomers today: the Steady-State model. Let me give four reasons why astronomers reject the steady-state model. (a) It requires the ex nihilo formation of matter to "fill in" the places where the galaxies are receding. This makes the steady-state seem awfully contrived. (b) Measurements of luminosity and the distances of galaxies are inaccurately measured given this model. (c) All matter reduces to other antecedent elements. For example, ionized gas comes from protons and helium nuclei, nuclei come from protons and neutrons, and so forth. (d) Most obviously, the evidence for the Big Bang evacuates any hope of a steady-state theory being veridical. Hodge's claim that more people are now accepting a steady-state model is a reflection of his ignorance of astrophysics.

Regarding (ii), I simply do not see why Hodge keeps accusing me of equivocating on "cause" in the argument. He said that I use "cause" in two different senses and I explained that this is not true because the only thing "cause" means in the argument is something that brings something else into existence and is explained by it. Whether or not the cause is efficient or material is simply left out of account. But efficient causation is surely being evinced in all three Kalam statements anyway, so what's the big deal? Being from non-being can only come from a productive or efficient cause, or "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence."
Concerning God's attributes, I guess he agrees with all of the attributions (non-spatial, intelligent, powerful, and so on) except immutability. With respect to immutability, I am glad to see Hodge finally acknowledge that being a creator really is not an attribute of immutability. So he says that maybe being a creator contradicts other attributes of immutability. How can this be? If being a creator (and I certainly admit that God is a creator) is not a necessary property of an immutable being, then his decision to refrain from creating and then to create is not a change of essence at all. This is like saying that because God is Good sans creation then when God chooses to perform good actions subsequent to creation then he is somehow changing his essence. The only thing required of the theistic conception of God (in his omnipotence) is that God must have the ability to create and that's all. More interestingly, the concept of change or mutability is reserved for corporeal beings only. When we ask how a being changed it is with respect to something else. But there are no spatial designations for God nor physical alterations with respect to something external since he is incorporeal and, hence, non-spatial.
The final complaint by Hodge is how I associate God with the cause of the universe. As I stated from the outset, God as the cause of the universe is an inference. But because we infer that the cause is an immaterial, non-spatial, personal, intelligent, immutable, and powerful being, then what else would better fit that description? It's like describing a woven piece of cotton material shaped like a chest that has a neck hole with two arm holes and wondering why anyone would call this a t-shirt. If Hodge is honestly going to say that even though such attributes are elucidated by our inference of the cause of the universe that any theistic interpretation is vacuous, then I would like to see his alternate explanation.

In conclusion, it seems that the initial argument I gave points decisively toward warranting belief in God, and points necessarily to the creation of the universe. The only criticism mounted in this exchange against the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the Big Bang theory is probably not true and if it is then the universe does not exist. Similarly, the only thing Hodge argued against God as the creator is that one out of several attributes tacitly implied by the nature of the cause is unclear. I would just like to invite the reader to continue pouring over these arguments and our exchange in the last few posts and ask yourself if God really does exist. When I sought the meaning to my own life I began investigating the existence of God and the reality of the Christian message which captivated me in a way that brought peace beyond all understanding. I am confident that if the reader seeks God with an open mind and an open heart then he shall reveal himself to you the same way he has to countless others before you.