Theism Part One: The Argument from Change

Just as I'm doing a series on the papacy, examining a complex and multifaceted issue in "smaller" chunks, so I'd like to compose a cumulative case for the existence of God.  Note that, for the Orthodox, none of these are THE reason we believe in God.  We believe (both in the sense of "believing in existence of" and "trusting") in God because of the revelation of Jesus Christ and our direct experience of God's presence in prayer and sacrament.

However, there ARE some DECENT arguments pointing towards God's existence, and in a world like ours where secularism is assumed (and religion viewed as mere personal choice), an apologetic argument or series of arguments in favor of God's existence can be helpful.  In particular, it shows that belief in God is not mere mythology nor mere psychology, but ALSO intellectually probable and reasonible.  This will matter more for some than for others, but its good to have these arguments in your toolbox if the right situation happens to arise.

This post assumes basic familiarity with syllogistic argumentation (two or more premises leading to a logically necessary conclusion).  If someone doubts one of the two premises, then it becomes necessary to defend that premise with an additional syllogism or as an axiomatic necessity.

The argument from change comes after the jump:

Premise 1: All observable things in the universe are subject to change
Premise 2: All change must originate outside the thing changing
Conclusion: There must be something outside all changing things causing change: an unchanged changer.

Premise 1 can be objected to on the grounds that natural laws (physics) appear to have stability.  This is a matter of perception only; the laws of physics aren't real things - they are just observable patters in the nature of real things changing.  In other words, there is a clear stability in HOW things change, but that observation itself is not sufficient to explain the ultimate cause of change.

Premise 2 can be defended by another syllogism:
P1: Things are now what they are now
P2: Things are not now what they will be
P3: Things (ontologically) have all and only all of what it means to be what they are now.
P4: Things (ontologically) do not have now what it means to be what they will be.
P5: Things cannot gain things ex-nihilo (from nothing)
C: Things must gain from outside themselves that which they will need to be what they will become (since they do not already possess those things nor can they come from nothing).  This is premise two of the original syllogism.

With both premises defended, the conclusion follows: there must be an unchanged changer, and this is what we call God (the source and cause of all change, Himself above and beyond change - transcendent).

In Christ,
Macarius