Challenge to the Challenge - 02.24.2004 - By: B. Hearn

I appreciate all of the emails and comments received regarding The Challenge. Feedback has varied greatly as expected - everything from vitriolic criticism to genuine appreciation. One pastor asked permission to use the presentation in an apologetics class he was teaching. A young college student was emboldened by The Challenge to ask questions of her microbiology professor regarding origins after his incessant promotion of neo-Darwinism. So I am thankful for what God has done with this piece. During the past two years questions about The Challenge have been raised and I would like to take this opportunity to address some of them here.

Question: “How am I supposed to get through the presentation when one or more of my responses are: ‘I have no idea’ or ‘no one knows for sure?”

Answer: If you honestly have “no idea” at any given disjunction, and you have exhausted an investigation of the matter, then the presentation is effectively over for you. Keep in mind, as the final conclusion is built on more than one argument, you might be persuaded by other parts of the presentation. On the other hand, the statement, “no one knows for sure,” seems to me a red herring. True, arguments presented in The Challenge do not have the evidential support to deliver certainty. Few arguments do. However it is the comparative criterion that matters. A good premise has greater plausibility than its denial – and data exist to assess plausibility in these matters. In fact there is a good deal of information on the Internet regarding the subjects raised in The Challenge. The scientific discoveries are easily verified and the Cosmological and Teleological arguments used are nothing new.

Question:  “Since each question is offered black and white; is not the conclusion unsupported or drawn hastily?”

Answer: Each question in The Challenge is a disjunction with contradictory disjuncts (P v ~P); one affirming and the other denying a premise in one of several arguments. For example:

Do you believe the universe began to exist?...yes or no
Can be restated as: The universe did begin to exist (P) or the universe did not begin to exist (~P) - which do you believe?

One of the two disjuncts must be true and the other false given the Law of Noncontradiction ~(P · ~P). If you are honestly committed equally to belief P and ~P (0.5) at any point, you are stuck and the presentation is over for you. In other words, there is no wiggle room in one’s response. The first part of the presentation makes use of the centuries-old Kalam Cosmological argument:

1. All things beginning to exist have a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. Therefore the Universe has a cause

The conclusion (3) follows deductively from premises one and two. If you believe both premises are more plausible than their denials, you are warranted in believing the conclusion. The middle part of the presentation is a disjunctive syllogism of agent or non-agent causation. If the Universe is caused, then its cause is intelligent or it is not. The next section of the presentation uses a variation of the Teleological argument in modus ponens form (Cf->Up), Cf …Up:

1. Fine-tuning of initial conditions suitable for the existence of life (Cf) implies the Universe was created for a purpose (Up)

2. The initial conditions of the Universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

3. Therefore the Universe was created for a purpose

Again, the conclusion (3) follows deductively from premises one and two. Finally support for divine purpose in the origin of life on Earth is given as the following syllogism:

1. Undercutting the hypothesis: the origin of life is the result of undirected processes, gives support for divine purpose as being the best explanation for the origin of life

2. Undercutting abiogenesis, panspermia and directed evolution undercuts the hypothesis: the origin of life is the result of undirected processes

3. Therefore undercutting abiogenesis, panspermia and directed evolution gives support for divine purpose as being the best explanation for the origin of life

The arguments used in The Challenge are logically valid and since each disjunction is comprised of contradictory disjuncts, a black and white fallacy is avoided since there is no way to escape between the horns. There are two concerns however I believe some have regarding the arguments used in the presentation. One is the epistemic status of the premises. Second is whether or not other possibilities are left out. First consider a set of possible worlds:
{W1...W6}[1]…

W1 – Universe is necessary, uncaused; no deity exists, man is mere byproduct:
Includes static, cyclical, imaginary time, hyper-universe-spawn or any other brute fact universe where it merely “Is”, eternal, no beginning (~Bx) - man is the product of blind processes, without objective purpose since there is no god.[2]

W2 - Universe is necessary, uncaused; deity coexists, man is mere byproduct:
Same as W1 except a god or some deity coexists with the universe (either separate or as a unity of one substance) – includes Pantheism (subset), finite-god view (subset)

W3 - Universe is necessary, uncaused; deity coexists, man is purposed:
Same as W2 except man is purposed. An applicable worldview is difficult to conceive given a limited god coexisting with the universe yet being the sufficient cause and reason for man’s existence. Similarly, the pantheistic view seems to conceive of a divine universe where man is just part of the furniture, yet divine as well.

W4 – Universe is contingent, non-agent first cause, man is mere byproduct:
Includes quantum-fluctuation, or model where first cause or beginning (Bx) is by non-agent, material or mechanical causation - man is the product of blind processes (ends in same outcome as W1, W2)

W5 – Universe is contingent, agent first cause, man is mere byproduct
Agent first cause yet man is byproduct - includes Deism (subset), Panentheism (subset), FAP (universe creates god creates universe)

W6 – Universe is contingent, agent first cause, man is purposed
Similar to W5 but man is purposed - includes major theistic worldviews, Deism (subset), Panentheism (subset)

Based on the possible worlds enumerated, one is justified in believing the most plausible world is W6 if he or she honestly affirms each disjunction in the Challenge. W6 describes a world where God created the universe and man is part of His creative purpose. Since the challenge terminates on a decisive denial at any disjunction, one is not led in the presentation to the final outcome of worlds W1 through W5 – I leave that pursuit to the participant.

As for the epistemic status of the premises; this concerns the arguments used guaranteeing the certainty of W6. In other words, how well do we know W6 based on our certainty of the premises? This is illustrated by affirming all of the disjuncts in the presentation by only a slight preponderance - such as P = 0.51 (I just barely believe the affirmative more than the denial at each disjunction.) Therefore the conclusion at each point and especially the conjunction of the arguments, do not necessarily present a high probability for W6. But then to focus on this aspect would be to miss the point - and that is W6 is more plausible than other worlds if you affirm each disjunct. The Challenge is not a mathematical proof for W6, but a means to reason to W6 as the best explanation.

Question: “Why do you assume Christianity is true based on the conclusion drawn by The Challenge?”

Answer: I don't – nor do I suggest otherwise. The Challenge presents a good case for W6 as depicted above. Several worldviews (Islamism, Judaism, Christianity and others) affirm W6. Now I happen to believe Christianity is the most plausible theistic worldview and I stated this as such in the presentation. Although I think the Challenge gets you part of the way, accepting Jesus as the Christ is another matter. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19)   General revelation can draw men to the knowledge of a Creator, but no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3) The goal of The Challenge is to compel one who is moved towards a belief in W6 to seek God. I believe one who seeks God is often found by Him: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” (Matthew 7)

Question: “Why should I listen to someone who is not an expert in physics or microbiology?”

Answer: My knowledge of these subjects is hardly a relevant factor in this presentation. True my expertise is in another field, yet by attacking the messenger instead of the argument, one is guilty of an ad hominem fallacy. The arguments in The Challenge are simple and speak for themselves and the supporting evidence is verifiable. Check it out!

Question: “What about the disagreement among theorists on Big-bang theory? Isn’t there too much uncertainty in the field to be basing any argument?”

Answer: To be sure, big-bang theory is a work in progress – especially given all scientific theories are works in progress to some degree. You might know how inflationary models are holding out for a theory of quantum gravity. Yes, there is uncertainty and disagreement among theorists regarding the details of the earliest moment of expansion. But The Challenge does not depend on exactly how the universe began to exist, but rather it did begin to exist. Regardless of how big-bang theory shapes out, the bottom line is the universe began to exist and on this front there is much agreement.

Question: “Are you pushing Old Earth Creationism (OEC)?”

Answer: No. Although I happen to be an “80-20” OE-Creationist, I feel in general this issue is not something Christians should debate. There are thoughtful and devoted followers of Christ on both sides of this divisive issue. The point is not whether God created the universe in six literal consecutive 24-hour days or not. It is rather; He created the universe. In other words, the universe began to exist and God and His purpose are the efficient and final cause. This is a better candidate for essential doctrine in my opinion and a key premise used in The Challenge – not OEC versus YEC.