作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮
摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the
Christian Faith》P53 ,更新傳道會出版
在時間和空間的領域內，萬物都有一個起始。我有開始，你有開始，我們所住的房子、所穿的衣物也有一個開始。換句話說，在某時空裏，我們現在所擁有的房子、衣服、汽車、洗衣機，甚至連我們自己都不存在，這是十分明顯的事實。
由於舉凡圍繞我們周圍的人、事、物都很明顯地有一個開始，因此我們很容易便會斷言說：凡物都有源始。但這樣的結論會帶來致命的後果，使我們掉進荒謬的深淵，這種想法對於宗教、科學和理性都是頗有傷害性的。
為什麽呢？我們不是剛說過，在時間和空間的領域內，任何事物都有一個開始嗎？這不也就等於說，一切事物都有一個開始嗎？不然。說凡物都有開始，在邏輯和科學上是不可能的。為什麽呢？因為如果說萬事萬物都有一個開始，那麽，這也就等於說必有一段時間，是萬物均不存在的。
讓我們稍停一下，試著想象萬物均不存在的情況：那是絕對的無有，是與萬物存在相反的一種概念。
如果真有一段時間，宇宙處於絕對虛空的情況下，那會有什麽存在呢？什麽都不存在！如果真有這麽一段時空，一切都是無有的，那麽從邏輯上來推論，我們就得到一個不可避免的結論，那就是無有將永遠地存在；當一切都是無有時，連永遠這個意義也不可能存在。
我們為什麽能如此確定地說：如果以前萬物均不存在，那麽現在萬物也不會存在呢？答案十分簡單，只可惜那些聰明絕頂的人，往往忽視了最明顯的事。這答案十分簡單——你不能從無有中得到實存。有一條科學和邏輯的鐵律這樣說：無中不能生有（ex nihilonihil fit）。無有不能產生任何事物，無有不能笑、不能唱、不能哭、不能工作、不能跳舞、不能呼吸，無有也一定不能創造。無有什麽也不能做，因為無有什麽也不是。無有根本就不存在。無有不具任何能力，因為它沒有實存。
要使無生有，無之本身就必須具備一種自我創造的能力，它要能創造自己，或能使自己存在。但這說法顯然是荒謬的，如果某件事物要能創造或產生自己，它便需要在現存之前已經存在了。但如果它已經存在，又何需被造呢？要自我創造，某事物必須在同一時間、同一處境中既存在、又不存在。這實在是一種矛盾，完全違背了所有理性和科學定律的最基本定律——非矛盾定律（law of
Noncontradiction）。
如果現在有任何事物存在，我們便知道在過去某時、某處，已有某種存在，而這存在不具備一個開始的。大思想家羅素（Bertrand Russell）與高普斯頓（Frederick copelston）關於宇宙本源，有一場著名的辯論。羅素說，現有的宇宙本源是由「有限之因的無限接續」而產生的。他假設宇宙中有一個無盡的因果系列，可一直上溯至永恒。這個觀念是把自我創造論的問題無窮延續！這是一個基礎上頗愚昧的概念——即使是由聰明人提出來，仍不減其愚昧。而且這比愚昧更糟，有些愚昧的事仍有可能是真的，但這種概念在邏輯上是不可能發生的。
羅素可以否定無中不能生有的定律，但是他這樣的否定，無疑是理性的自殺。根據邏輯上的必然性，我們相信如果現在有任何事物存在，那麽在此之前，必然已有一個不需要有創始的東西存在，問題是——這東西是什麽，或是誰呢？
許多嚴肅的學者相信，這個答案可以從宇宙之中找到，美國天文學家薩根（Carl Sagan）就是其中一位。這些人認為我們不需要在宇宙以上或以外，去尋求這個本身沒有開始而萬物均從其而來的事物。換句話說，我們不必假定有超越宇宙者--------如神-------的存在，宇宙或其中的事物已足以完成此項任務了。
以上的看法隱含了一種微妙的錯誤，與他們對超越（transcendent）一詞的理解有關。在哲學或神學上，超越的概念是指神在宇宙以上或以外，這是指神的實存比萬物都高。我們通常稱神為至高的實存（supreme being）。
這至高的實存與人的實存有何不同呢？注意，這兩個概念都包含實存之意。我們說神是至高的，是指祂與一般的實存在本質上不同。 那不同究竟是什麽呢？神被稱為至高者，因為祂沒有起源；祂之所以為至高者，是因為所有其他的實存都從祂而來，但祂並非從自己以外的其他實存而來。祂是永恒的創造者，其他的萬物都是祂所創造的。
當薩根和其他人說，在宇宙之內，而非在其上或其外，有一些事物是非受造的，他只是含糊其辭不提神的名字而已。他說，非受造之物是在此（宇宙之內），而非在彼（宇宙以上或超越其上），但這位非受造之物仍然需要一位至高的實存。所有受造之物所從之而來的宇宙奧秘部分，就實存而言，仍然是在創造物之上或之外的。換句話說，必然有一個超越的實存存在。
我們愈探索這位宇宙之內的創造者，便愈發現它或祂聽起來好像神。祂不是被造的，祂創造了其他萬物。祂（或它）在其實存本身，就有創造的能力。
若現在有事物存在，就必定有一位至高的實存，萬物由祂而來。此理清楚可見。聖經開宗明義說：「起初，神創造天地。」這經文使所有基督教思想的基礎，它不單是宗教上的宣言，在理性上也是不可或缺的概念。
總結：
1.在時間和空間裏，一切事物都有一個開始。
2.有不能從無有而來，無有不能有任何的作為。
3.如果無有曾經存在，無有現在便也應該存在。
4.現在有事物存在，那麽必然會有無需創始者的存在。
5.萬物不能自我創造，因為萬物若能自我創造，萬物便在自己存在之先已經存在了。
6.如果某部分的宇宙不是被造的，那麽，它對有起源的其他宇宙部分來說便是超越的，或謂更高等級的。
7.非被造的實存無論存在何處，都是至高的實存（等級高於被造的實存）。
8.超越不是從地理上講，而是從實存上講。
思考經文：
創1章； 詩33:1-9, 104:24-26 ；耶10:1-16 ；來11:3
Creation
Everything
in time and space had a beginning. I had a beginning; you had a beginning. The
houses we live in had a beginning. The clothes we wear had a beginning. There
was a time when our houses, our clothes, cars, washing machines, and ourselves,
did not exist. They were not. Nothing could be more obvious.
Because
we are surrounded by things and by people that obviously had a beginning, we
are tempted to jump to the conclusion that everything had a beginning. Such a
conclusion, however, would be a fatal leap into the abyss of absurdity. It
would be fatal to religion. It would also be fatal to science and to reason.
Why?
Did I not say that everything in time and space had a beginning? Isn't that the
same thing as saying simply that everything had a beginning? By no means. It is
simply logically and scientifically impossible that everything had a beginning.
Why? If everything that exists once had a beginning, then there had to be a
time when nothing existed.
Stop
for a moment to reflect. Try to imagine nothing existing. Absolutely nothing.
We can't even conceive of absolute nothingness. The very concept is merely the
negation of something.
Yet,
if there ever was such a time when absolutely nothing existed, what would there
be now? Right. Nothing! If ever there was nothing, then by resistless logic,
there would always be nothing. There's not even an "always" during
which there could be nothing.
Why
can we be so sure, indeed, absolutely certain, that if ever there was nothing
then there would be nothing now? The answer is astonishingly simple, despite
the fact that extremely intelligent people often stumble over the obvious. The
answer is simply that you can't get something from nothing. An absolute law of
science and logic is ex nihilo nihil fit, (out of nothing, nothing comes).
Nothing cannot produce anything. Nothing can't laugh, sing, cry, work, dance,
or breathe. It certainly can't create. Nothing can't do anything because it
isn't anything. It doesn't exist. It has no power whatsoever because it has no
being.
For
something to come out of nothing it would have to possess the power of
self-creation. It would have to be able to create itself or bring itself into
existence. But that is a manifest absurdity. For something to create or produce
itself it would have to be before it is. But if something already is, it
doesn't need to be created. To create itself, something would have to be and not
be, exist and not exist, at the same time and in the same respect. That is a
contradiction. It violates the most fundamental of all rational and scientific
laws, the law of noncontradiction.
If we
know anything, we know that if anything exists now, then somehow, somewhere,
something did not have a beginning. I am aware that brilliant thinkers such as
Bertrand Russell, in his famous debate with Frederick Copelston, argued that
the present universe is the result of an "infinite series of finite causes."
It poses an endless series, working backwards into eternity, of one caused
thing causing another forever. This idea merely compounds the problem of
self-creation infinitely. It is a fundamentally silly concept. The fact that it
has been proposed by intelligent people makes it no less silly. It's worse than
silly. Silly things can be real. But this concept is logically impossible.
Russell
can deny the law that out of nothing, nothing comes, but he cannot refute it
without committing mental suicide. We know (with logical certitude) that if
anything exists now, then there must be something that did not have a
beginning. Now the question becomes what or who.
Many
serious scholars believe that the answer to the what is found within the
universe itself. They argue (as Carl Sagan does) that there is no need to go
above or beyond the universe to find something that had no beginning from which
everything else comes. That is, we need not assume something like
"God" who is transcendent to the universe. The universe or something
in it can do the job quite well itself.
There
is a subtle error lurking in the above scenario. It has to do with the meaning
of the term transcendent. In philosophy and theology the idea of transcendence
means that God is "above and beyond" the universe in the sense that
He is a higher order of being than other beings. We commonly refer to God as
the supreme Being.
What
makes the supreme Being different from a human being? Notice that both concepts
share a common word, being. When we say that God is the supreme Being, we are
saying that He is a being who differs in kind from other ordinary beings. What
precisely is that difference? He is called supreme because He has no beginning.
He is supreme because all other beings owe their existence to Him, and He owes
His existence to none other than Himself. He is the eternal Creator. Everything
else is the work of His creation.
When
Carl Sagan and others say that in the universe, and not above it or beyond it,
there is something that is not created, he is merely quibbling about the
Creator's address. He is saying that what is uncreated lives here (within the
universe), not "out there" (above or transcendent to the universe).
But he still requires a supreme Being. His mysterious part of the universe from
which all created things come is still beyond and above everything else in the
creation in terms of being. In other words, there still must be a transcendent
Being.
The
more we probe this "within-the-universe Creator," the more it or He
begins to sound like God. He is uncreated. He creates everything else. He, or
it, has the power in itself of being.
What
is crystal clear is that if something exists now, then there must be a supreme
Being from which all other beings come. The first assertion of the Bible is
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This text
is foundational to all Christian thought. It is not only a religious statement,
it is a rationally necessary concept.
1. Everything in time and space has a
beginning.
2. Something cannot come from nothing.
Nothing cannot do anything.
3. If ever there was nothing, then nothing
could exist now.
4. Something exists now; therefore
something must exist that has no beginning.
5. Things cannot create themselves because
they would have to be before they are.
6. If some "part" of the
universe is uncreated, then it is superior or transcendent to the parts that
have a beginning.
7. An uncreated being is supreme (a higher
order of being than created beings), regardless of where it lives.
8. Transcendence refers to a level of
being, not to geography.
