# Stephen Charnock's Argument for God's Existence



## Toasty (Dec 28, 2015)

Here is a quote from Charnock's book, _The Existence and Attributes of God_:



> It is true, indeed, we are ascertained that they were made by the true God ; that they were made by his word ; that they were made of nothing ; and not only this lower world wherein we live, but, according to the Jewish division, the world of men, the world of stars, and the world of spirits and souls. We do not waver in it, or doubt of it, as the heathen did in their disputes ; we know they are the workmanship of the true God, of that God we adore, not of false gods; “by his word,” without any instrument or engine, as in earthly structures; “ of things which do not appear,” without any pre-existent matter, as all artificial works of men are framed. Yet the proof of the beginning of the world is affirmed with good reason ; and if it had a beginning, it had also some higher cause than itself: every effect hath a cause.
> 
> The world was not eternal, or from eternity. The matter of the world cannot be eternal. Matter cannot subsist without form, nor put on any form without the action of some cause. This cause must be in being before it acted ; that which is not cannot act. The cause of the world must necessarily exist before any matter was endued with any form ; that, therefore, cannot be eternal before which another did subsist; if it were from eternity, it would not be subject to mutation. If the whole was from eternity, why not also the parts; what makes the changes so visible, then, if eternity would exempt it from mutability?



Here is another quote from his book:



> III. No creature could make the world. No creature can create another. If it creates of nothing, it is then omnipotent and so not a creature. If it makes something of matter unfit for that which is produced out of it, then the inquiry will be, Who was the cause of the matter? and so we must arrive to some uncreated being, the cause of all. Whatsoever gives being to any other must be the highest being, and must possess all the perfections of that which it gives being to. What visible creature is there which possesses the perfections of the whole world? If therefore an invisible creature made the world, the same inquiries will return whence that creature had its being? for he could not make himself. If any creature did create the world, he must do it by the strength and virtue of another, which first gave him being, and this is God. For whatsoever hath its existence and virtue of acting from another, is not God. If it hath its virtue from another, it is then a second cause, and so supposeth a first cause. It must have some cause of itself, or be eternally exist*ent. If eternally existent, it is not a second cause, but God; if not eternally existent, we must come to something at length which was the cause of it, or else be bewildered without being able to give an account of anything. We must come at last to an infinite, eternal, independent Being, that was the first cause of this structure and fabric wherein we and all creatures dwell. The Scripture proclaims this aloud, “ I am the Lord and there is none else : I form the light, and I create darkness.”m Man, the noblest creature, cannot of himself make a man, the chiefest part of the world.



What do you think of his argument? Could anyone explain why matter cannot subsist without form?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2015)

Toasty said:


> Could anyone explain why matter cannot subsist without form?



It would be pure chaos. Try to imagine matter without any structuring principle.

Admittedly, it's a tough concept. I would re-work the entire argument (which I think is on the right track) along Torrance's lines of contingency and Divine Order.


----------



## Douglas P. (Dec 28, 2015)

If I was an atheist I would take his argument one level higher and ask how do we know the higher being that created matter/the world wasn't in some sense created himself. How do we know the creator must be eternal, with no beginning?


----------



## Captain Picard (Dec 28, 2015)

Douglas Padgett said:


> If I was an atheist I would take his argument one level higher and ask how do we know the higher being that created matter/the world wasn't in some sense created himself. How do we know the creator must be eternal, with no beginning?



This raises the issue of the Aristotelian concept of the "immovable mover", as such a counter by non-theists could posit a scenario of infinite regression of "creators".

Fundamentally, most non-theists merely assert the axiom of eternal matter and energy, as opposed to that of eternal Spirit, matter, or Consciousness.


----------



## Toasty (Dec 29, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Could anyone explain why matter cannot subsist without form?
> ...



That makes sense.


----------



## Toasty (Dec 29, 2015)

Douglas Padgett said:


> If I was an atheist I would take his argument one level higher and ask how do we know the higher being that created matter/the world wasn't in some sense created himself. How do we know the creator must be eternal, with no beginning?



There cannot be an infinite regress of one entity creating another entity. If there is an infinite amount of time, time would not have traversed to the year 2015.


----------

