The Source of Existence

In defending the existence of God, I have often noticed that most don’t have the accurate definition of God, and even when given that definition, those who oppose God’s existence still continue to attack the god who isn’t, not the God who is. The classical understanding of God is that God is not another being among beings, God isn’t another object in the universe, but God is absolute being, God is by definition the source of all being. This is what distinguishes the creator from the created. God is the source of all existence, which means that everything but God has a source for its existence outside of itself. Material existence cannot logically be the source of its own existence since material existence is by definition contained in a sequence of secondary causes. Matter cannot logically be posited as a first cause since matter necessitates an explanation for its own existence outside of itself. Thus there is necessarily an immaterial source for the existence of the material.

In the conversations I have had on this topic, I still get told that I have to explain God’s existence. “Where did God come from?” they’ll ask, which tells me that they aren’t talking about God when they ask that question, because God is by definition the source of all existence, and you cannot ask what is the source of the source of all existence, since the source of all existence by definition has no source. Dawkin’s and friends seem to think that the evolutionary model explains everything, without getting that you have to have a starting point, and a starting point by definition did not evolve, otherwise it wouldn’t be the starting point. God is the source of all being, which means that all beings have their being in God, which means that God has his being in himself, otherwise he is not the source.

I hope I have stated it enough ways for the point to be understood.


2 Comments Add yours

  1. Ed says:

    gobbledegook; noun
    1. language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand.
    gibberish, doubletalk, bosh, mumbo jumbo.


    1. Matt Schraud says:

      When something sounds like “gobbledegook,” there are really two possibilities. First is that it really is just a bunch of nonsense. Second, is that you don’t understand the language being used. Since the argument I’ve laid out has a long history with plenty of extremely intelligent minds behind it (you know like Plato in ancient times to David Bentley Hart in modern times with more brilliant minds that I can count on both hands in between), I’m going to say your issue is of the latter sort.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s