Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Six

Charnock next observes that the being that does not understand itself thoroughly and is not capable of ordering itself cannot make itself. In order to make something properly one has to comprehend it. More than three centuries after Charnock wrote man still lacks comprehensive knowledge of himself, of his own nature. It is certain that this is not just lost knowledge--that at one point in the distant past some supremely wise man had such knowledge but somehow failed to pass it on.

He also observes, somewhat parenthetically, that the knowledge of ourselves we gain from Scripture about our nature, while not accessibly through the exercise of reason, is not contrary to reason. Here he would be talking chiefly about man's sinfulness and fall from original righteousness.

Charnock then explores a hypothetical: Say for the sake of argument that the first man did in fact make himself. If this is the case, why did he make himself with limits? Why is man not decked out in power and excellences? It is a certainty that man desires to be much more than he is; why not indulge all his desires at the outset? In fact, man's limitations testify to his contingency.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Five

Wow, I really have been remiss. A combination of a bad cold and many other demands on my time. I'll try to do better.

In the next section of his argument, Charnock maintains that no creature can create itself. In the specific case of man, he quotes Psalm 100:3: "Know that the Lord himself is God; it is he who has made us and not we ourselves." To delve into the matter deeper, he observes that every created thing began to be (i.e., had a beginning, as already demonstrated) and once was not. If something is not, does not exist, it is no thing or nothing. At one time, I was not--depending on precisely when you want to time my beginning, we can say at least that prior to 1958 I did not exist and therefore was nothing. That may be existentially uncomfortable, but there you have it. And when I was nothing--when I did not exist--I could do nothing. That which is nothing cannot act. It cannot do. Nothing can act before it is. And therefore no creature can create itself, for to create is to act and the creature cannot be and not be in the same time and in the same relationship. Rationality 101, folks--the law of noncontradiction.

Tomorrow I hope to move to the next section of this argument in which Charnock considers not just the impossibility of creatures self-creating but the necessary processes by which things are created.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Four

In the first place, simply that creatures are testifies to their Creator. "All things that are demonstrate something from whence they are." A statue testifies to the existence of a sculptor; a garden testifies to the existence of a gardener; a book testifies to the existence of a writer.

Furthermore, all creatures had a beginning. There was a time when they were not. The world is not eternal or from eternity, so someone or something had to bring it into existence. This "cause" of creation must itself be in being before it created--"that which is not cannot act."

Charnock elaborates two additional arguments here. He first observes that time itself cannot be infinite (the kalam argument familiar to the Christian apologist) else now could not have yet arrived. Therefore the world is not eternal. He specifically argues from the finitude of past heavenly revolutions, meaning that the planets have accomplished a finite number of orbits around the sun, and the moon a finite number of orbits around the earth--there cannot be an endless stretch backwards in time. Secondly, generations of living things cannot be infinite or from eternity because they develop or mature and thus require time. And because in the current state of things we experience decay and death, an eternal generation of creatures would necessitate an eternity of corruption; in this, Charnock was likely anticipating the concept of entropy.