Living Dead Man

Different Christian philosopher’s have stated the same argument in slightly different ways as a way of improving on it or making it more clear. Philosophical argument often undergo shaping, refining, and tweaking as a way of either dealing with objections, logical holes, or as a means of clarifying premises further. In Winfried Corduan’s book No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity, he puts forth his version of the Vertical Cosmological Argument stated as follows:

1. Something exists
2. Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent
3. A necessary being would have to be God
4. The world (or universe) cannot be a necessary being
5. There can be only one necessary being
6. Unless there is a necessary being, there cannot be any contingent beings
7. A necessary being exists
8. Therefore, God exists
9. Therefore, only one God exists
10. The God of theism exists

As with the other versions of this argument, if there is anything that you would like unpacked or just general questions or comments, please leave those and I’ll do my best to address whatever you would like.

You can find the other two versions of this argument here.

This argument is based on first principles in logic. I may end up modifying this post later to include those principles and make it easier to follow if needed. However, formally stated, this argument for the existence of God is stated as (this particular version of the argument is presented in Norman Geislers’ Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2006, p. 253):

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)
2. I am a contingent being
3. Nothing cannot cause something
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in those types of activities)
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e, not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what is could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings)
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists
12. Such a being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists

A modified version was presented in my class by Professor Reed and takes the following form (this is from my class notes):

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)
2. My existence is possible (i.e., possible but not necessary because my non-existence is possible)
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another
4. The cause of the existence of every composed being must be an uncaused cause
5. This uncomposed and uncaused cause of all composed being must be necessary, changeless, eternal, unlimited, pure actuality, and omnipotent
6. Further, this cause must be an infinitely (i.e., unlimited) knowing being
7. This first cause must be infinitely good (omnibenevolent)
8. Finally, this infinitely good cause is personal
9. Therefore, there exists a first cause of all possible beings that is necessary, immutable, eternal, infinite, pure act, omniscient, one, uncaused, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and personal
10. Now whatever is all of this is appropriately called “God”
11. This God is identical with the one described in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
12. This God is identical with the God of classical theism

I believe Professor Reed offered a slightly different version than the one given above. Once I am able to access the site again (it’s down) I’ll check it and if it is different, then I’ll post it here as well. Please offer any comments, critiques, or requests for clarification.

Professor Jason Reed of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), where I attend distance school, is interviewed by Doug Beaumont (also a professor at SES) on the Vertical Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. This is my favorite argument and I was introduced to it by Professor Reed. You can listen to him run through it and provide a high level view of the argument below.

Audio interview: Vertical Cosmological Argument (54 minutes)