The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodBig Bang/CosmologyGod and Scientific LawsOrigins Article in Brief

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is a strong rationale for concluding that a supernatural Deity exists. The Universe exists and, according to the evidence, requires an adequate Cause.

The famous philosopher from the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, is generally given credit for articulating what is known as the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, although the Bible described the essence of the argument hundreds of years before he was on the scene (e.g., Hebrews 3:4). The argument essentially says that the cosmos is here and had to come from somewhere. It could not have created itself. Nothing comes from nothing in nature, as verified by the First Law of Thermodynamics (Miller, 2013).

The rational person will only draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131). The evidence from the natural realm indicates that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent (or simultaneous—Miller, 2012a) cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, pp. 1064, 2000). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. If this Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to you, then you understand why the Cosmological Argument is powerful, logical evidence for the existence of God.

Causality and History

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. From at least the time of Plato (1966, 1:96a-b) and Aristotle (2009, 1[3]) in the fourth century B.C., philosophers have pondered causality. In 1781, the renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule…. All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781, emp. added). In the nineteenth century, German medical scientist and Father of Cellular Pathology, Rudolf Virchow, affirmed that “[e]verywhere there is mechanistic process only, with the unbreakable necessity of cause and effect” (1858, p. 115, emp. added). Fast forwarding another century, our increased understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation. It is “assumed.”

This principle is not some idea that can simply be brushed aside without consideration. If the Law of Causality were not in effect, science could not proceed—it would “crumble to dust” since, by its very nature, it involves gathering evidence and testing hypotheses in order to find regularities in nature. The goal of scientific experimentation is to determine what will happen (i.e., what will be the effect) if one does certain things (i.e., initiates certain causes). If there were no relationship between cause and effect, then nothing could be taken for granted. One day gravity may be in effect, and the next day it may not, and there would be no point in studying it, since it might be different tomorrow. There would be no such thing as a “scientific law,” since there would be no such thing as a “regularity,” which is fundamental to the definition of a law of science (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003, p. 1182).

Moving farther into the 20th century, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In 1949, Albert Einstein, in The World as I See It, under the heading “The Religiousness of Science,” wrote, “But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation” (2007, p. 35, emp. added). In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, renowned American philosopher and professor Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added).

Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

The National Academy of Science’s guidebook, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, says, “One goal of science is to understand nature. ‘Understanding’ in science means relating one natural phenomenon to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena…. Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena” (1998, p. 42. emp. added). Notice that, according to the National Academy of Science (NAS), there can be no progress in science without causality. The NAS, though entirely naturalistic in its approach to science, recognizes causality to be fundamental to the nature of science. It is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

The Law of Causality—A Problem for Atheism

The Law of Causality is fundamental to science, and yet it stands in the way of the bulk of today’s scientific community due to their flawed definition of “science.” In an interview in 1994, the late, famous evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

As Einstein said, scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning…. So time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that curtain can never be lifted…. And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise that motivates all scientists (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 303, emp. added).

The scientific community today, by and large, incorrectly defines “science” in such a way that anything supernatural cannot be considered “scientific,” and therefore science “fails” in certain areas. Only natural phenomena are deemed worthy of being categorized “science.” According to the definition, if something cannot be empirically observed and tested, it is not “scientific.” [NOTE: The naturalistic community contradicts itself on this matter, since several fundamental planks of evolutionary theory are unnatural—they have never been observed and all scientific investigation has proven them to be impossible (e.g., spontaneous generation of life and the laws of science, macroevolution, etc.; cf. Miller, 2012b).] One result of this flawed definition is highlighted by Jastrow, himself, in the above quote. Contrary to Jastrow’s statement, the laws of science, by definition, do not “fail.” They have no known exceptions. So, it would be unscientific to claim, without conclusive evidence in support of the claim, that a law has failed.

This leaves atheistic evolutionists in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about “unscientifically”—without a natural cause. Four decades ago, Jastrow wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know (1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, if the material realm is all that exists, if naturalistic science can shed light on the matter of origins, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe did not precede its cause—rather, it actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science.

The Law of Causality—A Friend to Creationists

Instead of flippantly disregard­ing the truth of the Law of Causality because it contradicts naturalistic theories, why not recognize that the highly respected, exception-less Law of Causality is not the problem? Why not recognize the fact that naturalistic theories, such as the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, are simply not in harmony with science on a fundamental level? Why not consider an option that does not contradict the Law? If one were to follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than defining God out of science, one is led to the unavoidable conclusion that there must be Someone super-natural that caused the Universe to be. If every material (i.e., natural) effect must have a cause, then the ultimate Cause of the Universe must be supernatural.

Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. Notice that creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. In Hebrews 3:4, the Bible says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. And that is the essence of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Emile Borel was a famous French mathematician for whom the Borel lunar crater was named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). He once said concerning the amazing human brain that is able to author works of literature, “Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth” (1963, p. 125). The effect of the brain’s existence, like a work of literature, must have an adequate cause. In the same way, we know that the infinite Mind behind the creation of this infinitely complex Universe had to be, and was, more than adequate for the task of bringing it all into existence (Revelation 19:6).

Uncaused Cause?

“But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God? Doesn’t God need a cause, too? Who caused God?” First, notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. A law of science is determined through the observation of nature—not super-nature. Since they have not observed the supernatural realm, scientists cannot apply the scientific Law of Causality to it. The laws of nature do not apply to non-material entities. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law. In the words of skeptic Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society and columnist for Scientific American:

If God is a being in space and time, it means that He is restrained by the laws of nature and the contingencies of chance, just like all other beings of this world. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such constraints, not subject to nature and chance. God as creator of heaven and earth and all things invisible would need necessarily to be outside such created objects (2006, Ch. 8, emp. added).

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (p. 6, emp. added). God, according to the Bible, had no beginning. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being Who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Recall Hebrews 3:4 again, which indicates that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect, as are houses, but rather, presides as the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being Who initially set all effects into motion (John 1:3).

Again, philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to sidestep the need for a Cause and argue the eternality of the physical Universe are in direct contradiction to the Law of Causality (since the Universe is a physical effect that demands a cause), as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that nothing physical lasts forever (see Miller, 2013).] Aristotle, in Physics, discussed the logical line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover (1984, 1:428). Aquinas built on Aristotle’s reasoning and said:

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another…. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality…. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently no other mover…. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Concerning the Law of Causality, Kant said that “everything which is contingent has a cause, which, if itself contingent, must also have a cause; and so on, till the series of subordinated causes must end with an absolutely necessary cause, without which it would not possess completeness” (2008, p. 284, emp. added). An uncaused Cause is necessary. Only God sufficiently fills that void.

Consider: in the same way that dimensional space—length, width, and height—are part of the physical Universe, time, itself, is as well. In the same way that space had to have a cause, time itself had to as well: time had a beginning. That means that its Creator logically could not have a beginning. A “beginning” implies a specific timeframe that has begun. Without time in existence, there could be no such thing as a “beginning.” So the Cause of the Universe could not have a beginning since He created time, itself. In essence, there was no such thing as a “beginning” until the uncaused Cause began something. [NOTE: If time was not created, then it exists apart from God and even God is subject to it. The Bible affirms, however, that time itself was created along with the Universe when it uses the phrase “in the beginning” in Genesis 1:1.]

Consider further: if there ever were a time in history when absolutely nothing existed—not even God—then nothing would continue to exist today, since nothing comes from nothing (in keeping with common sense and the First Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). However, we know something exists (e.g., the Universe)—which means something had to exist eternally, or we would eventually get to a point in past time when nothing existed, which we have already noted cannot be. That something that existed forever could not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever (cf. the Second Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). It follows that the eternal something must be non-physical or non-material. It must be mind rather than matter. Logically, there must be a Mind that has existed forever. That Mind, according to the Bible, is God. He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can exist forever—the uncreated Creator. While usable energy in the Universe is inevitably expended, according to the Second Law, moving the Universe ever closer to a state of completed deterioration and unusable energy, God’s power is “eternal” (Romans 1:20).

Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27, emp. added).

The Universe exists. It cannot be eternal according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It could not create itself according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Its existence requires an adequate, supernatural Cause. The Bible calls Him Jehovah.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Aristotle (1984), Physics in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Borel, Emile (1963), Probability and Certainty (New York: Walker).

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), tenth edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

Einstein, Albert (2007), The World As I See It (New York: BN Publishing).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

Kant, Immanuel (2008), Kant’s Critiques: The Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Judgment (Radford, VA: Wilder Publications).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Simultaneous Causation,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=687&topic=57.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4225&topic=296.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson (2008), “Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel,” The MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Borel.html.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle file.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock and Brian J. Skinner (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press).

Virchow, Rudolf (1858), “On the Mechanistic Interpretation of Life,” in Disease, Life, and Man: Selected Essays, ed. by L.J. Rather (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 1958 edition.

Order Her

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Moon Is a Witness

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Bulletin ArticlesCreation vs. EvolutionInspiration of the BibleFactual AccuracyScientific Foreknowle

Some 3,000 years ago, the psalmist extoled the faithfulness of God:

Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; it shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky (Psalm 89:35-37).

The context of Psalm 89 pertains to the covenant and perpetuity of David’s seed line. God assured him that his throne would be established even as the Moon is established in its continual, unchanging, reliable function. But God added an additional remark concerning the Moon, describing it as “a faithful witness in the sky.”

Is this remark intended to remind David that the Moon serves as a witness to the Creator of the Moon? Was He saying that David could rely on God’s covenantal promise since He is the Creator of the Moon? It is most certainly true that “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). The Moon, as well as the planets, Sun, and other stars all testify to the Source responsible for their creation, causing right-thinking people to stand in awe at His wondrous works (Psalm 8:1-5). But why would the Moon specifically be said to be a “witness”? First, we must ascertain the precise meaning of “witness.” The underlying Hebrew term means “witness, testimony, evidence” and refers to “someone who is witness to a fact or to an event, and who is able to confirm it in case of doubt.”1 Standard English dictionaries offer the following meanings of “witness”:

Cambridge Dictionary: “a person who sees an event happening, esp. a crime or an accident.”

Dictionary.com: “an individual who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.”

The American Heritage Dictionary: “One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced.”

Witnesses, by definition, give “testimony,” i.e., “firsthand authentication of a fact” (Miriam-Webster).

So the essence of what it means to be a witness is to see something firsthand that may then be reported to those who did not see it firsthand; to report something seen to those who have not seen. In what way does the Moon “witness” to humanity, i.e., convey firsthand information to which it has access but to which humanity does not have access?

It is most certainly a stunning proof of the existence of an Almighty Power that made it. But the Moon did not see itself created. However, having been created, it now serves as a literal witness of something that it “sees” or “experiences” that humans on Earth cannot see: the light of the Sun. The Moon has no light of its own. Rather, it specifically reflects the light of the Sun that strikes its surface.2 When the Sun “sets” in the West, the rotation of the Earth causing it no longer to be visible to that part of the Earth, those living in that region of the Earth may still “see” the Sun and be certain of its continued existence by means of the reflected light of the Moon. The Moon literally “witnesses” to the reality of the Sun, conveying to night viewers of the sky the sunlight that they cannot see firsthand. Returning to our definition of a “witness,” the Moon literally “reports” what it is “seeing” firsthand to those who cannot see firsthand what is being reported. Every time we look up and see the Moon, we are simultaneously seeing its witness to the Sun. [Consider this image.]

How could the psalmist have known of this incredible astronomical reality?3 His writing had to have been guided (2 Peter 1:20) by the Creator Who “set” the Moon in space “to give light on the earth” (Genesis 1:17). As the Sun reflected and witnessed to the perpetuity of David’s throne, so the Moon reflects and witnesses to the reality of the Sun. Incredibly, like the Moon,

[t]here was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world (John 1:6-9).

You and I did not see with our own eyes the presence of Deity on Earth when Jesus came from heaven to fulfill His divine role, and John served as an eyewitness to that reality, reflecting His glory to us. Likewise, the majestic Moon with its reflective capacity enables us to see the higher reality of a Creator who designed the Universe in such a way that we are beneficiaries of His cosmic marvels.

Endnotes

1 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint), p. 729; L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M.E.J. Richardson, and J.J. Stamm (1994–2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. 788. The two other occurrences of the term in the Psalms refer to false witnesses (27:12; 35:11).

2 Astronomers use the term “albedo” to refer to the reflectivity of the Moon and other celestial bodies. See, for example, G. Matthews (2008), “Celestial Body Irradiance Determination from an Underfilled Satellite Radiometer: Application to Albedo and Thermal Emission Measurements of the Moon Using CERES,” Applied Optics, 47[27]:4981-93, September 20; Jeff Medkeff (2002), “Lunar Albedo,” Notes on Lunar Features, https://web.archive.org/web/20080523151225/http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm.

3 5th century B.C. Greek philosopher, Anaxagoras (499-428 B.C.), is credited with being the first to explain that the Moon shines by reflecting the Sun’s light. David lived 500 years earlier. See J.J. O’Connor and E.F. Robertson (1999), “Anaxagoras of Clazomenae,” School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland, http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Anaxagoras.html

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Courage (Audio) 38 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/are-you-courageous-audio/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Wonders of Creation: Cuttlefish Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/wonders-of-creation-cuttlefish-5913/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Legacy Video 3 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/legacy/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

The Curse of Pornography You will need to scroll at he bottom of the screen to read.

 

The Curse of Pornography

An Illustration

Around forty years ago, I picked up a truck load of material at a plant in Toronto. It was lunchtime, so I sat in the office where the shipping department workers gathered for their lunch break. Several other truck drivers were there, and as so often happens in settings like that, the conversation turned vulgar. Various men tried to outdo each other in describing the raunchiest, dirtiest scene they could come up with. They were discussing their favorite “performers” and some of the strip-tease sights they had seen in their favorite night clubs. Eventually, the discussion became too rancid for me to handle and I stepped outside until they had finished their lunch.[1]

Today, you don’t need to go to a night club to watch the sights those men were bragging about. If you have an internet connection, you can pull them up right on your computer. If you want more privacy, you can get the same thing on your smartphone. Or, if you prefer hot flesh and face-to-face interaction, you can still find it in the night spots and red-light districts of most cities.

A Scourge

Pornography is a symptom of a deadly process that is destroying mankind, strangling us from the inside out. When men and women give complete rein to the base passions of their bodies, everything around them starts to degenerate. Men no longer respect and honor the beauty of womanhood. Instead, a woman’s body becomes a commodity, something to vent their passions on and then throw aside. Women no longer admire the strength and the manliness of men as their protectors. Instead, they judge a man by the level of passion that he can generate within them.

Beyond that, too many adults today take out their passions on the innocent children within their sphere of influence and power. Children grow up thinking that sexually abusing the weak around you is normal. Police struggle in vain to protect these little ones but too often the authorities don’t find out what is happening until the damage has long been done.

Historically speaking, we are rapidly approaching the same place where most nations caught up in the same bondage have fallen from power. The sex-mania of our time will soon weaken our nation to the extent that it will start to crumble around us from the inside out. Society will party until it is too late, and then they will wonder what happened.

Someone has said that pornography is our nation’s 7th largest industry. This indicates how deeply this heinous scourge has fastened its talons into our society. The deeper we sink into this cesspool, the more people lust after porn. The more porn that publishers produce, the deeper we sink into the cesspool. It is a vicious and seemingly irreversible cycle.

It is over sixty years ago that Hugh Hefner began publishing Playboy magazine, one of the first North American platforms deemed “acceptable” by Americans who were losing their Judeo-Christian moorings. But a lot has changed in the last sixty years. People are no longer satisfied with just viewing scenes that are immoral.  Porn has been sinking to even lower depths and often includes violence and torture. The pagan practices of torturing their victims to death are no longer as far removed from our society as we would like to think.

But, But, But…

I know, I know. Not everyone fits the description I have just given. Indeed, you can find many respectable people in society. But we are learning that even those we thought were “good” people are not immune to this. Respected fathers end up in court for molesting their daughters or a neighbor’s daughter. Even men and women who wouldn’t think of molesting a child admit to looking at porn for personal enjoyment. The problem is much bigger than we like to admit and touches the lives of more people than we can even imagine.

Just to help you get a picture of the problem, here are some statistics given by Covenant Eyes.

• 9 out of 10 boys are exposed to pornography before the age of 18.
• 6 out of 10 girls are exposed to pornography before the age of 18.
• 15% of boys and 9% of girls have seen child pornography.
• 32% of boys and 18% of girls have seen bestiality online.
• 39% of boys and 23% of girls have seen sexual bondage online.
• 83% of boys and 57% of girls have seen group sex online.
• 69% of boys and 55% of girls have seen same-sex intercourse online.
• 51% of male and 32% of female students first viewed porn before their teenage years (12 and younger).
• 64% of college men and 18% of college women spend time online for Internet sex every week.
• 67% of young men and 49% of young women say viewing porn is an acceptable way to express one’s sexuality.
• 68% of young adult men and 18% of women use porn at least once every week.
• 64% of Christian men and 15% of Christian women say they watch porn at least once a month.
• Regular church attendees are 26% less likely to look at porn, however, self-identified “fundamentalists” are 91% more likely to look at porn.
• The porn industry generates $13 billion each year in the US.

What Does the Bible Say?

Middle-aged King David fell into sin with the young wife of one of his soldiers. When she told him that she was pregnant, he had her husband killed and he married her supposedly to protect her reputation. (Or was it his reputation? I wonder…)

When his sin came out into the open, David wrote Psalms 51 to express his repentance. Later, he also wrote in Psalms 101:3, “I will set nothing wicked before my eyes.”[2] Maybe he remembered the evening when he had watched Bathsheba bathing on her housetop. Certainly, much of today’s immoral conduct and thought processes are provoked by the evil porn people gaze at.

Jesus said, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). To lust for a woman is to crave her in an inordinate way. This is how many rapes come into being. But you don’t need to rape someone to violate the law of God as taught in the New Testament. In God’s eyes, all you need to do is use your imagination, and the deed is done; the sin is committed.

The Bible doesn’t just talk about men lusting after women or women after men. It also speaks to today’s same-sex craze. Consider the following passage from the book of Romans.

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,  who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:24-28) [3]

 

The Real Solution

Evil imaginations and inordinate affections (fantasies and illicit passions) make a lot of trouble for some very respectable looking men and women. Married men and women, and a lot who aren’t married, have a good idea how every person they meet would look if they didn’t have any clothing on. Many women would be horrified if they knew what thoughts some men struggle with about them. This can also be true the other way around. At its root, that has nothing to do with the internet or Playboy magazines. It comes from not letting God deal with our sinful hearts.

If we have fallen into this trap there is only one real answer. We need to fall at the feet of Jesus and repent of our sin. We need to repent of the looks we sneak at women walking by. We need to repent of the pictures and videos we have viewed on our smartphones. We need to repent of our evil thoughts and our lusts. Once we have accepted Jesus as the Lord of our life, God can help us to find our way out of the trap we are in.

Accountability Groups

Secrecy often makes it harder for former porn addicts to gain or maintain victory over their sinful habits even if they are Christians. It is often helpful to enter an accountability covenant relationship with someone else or a small group of people. Knowing that you will either need to confess that you have failed or lie to protect yourself will often help you to find victory. The prayers and encouragement of your accountability partners will help as well.

You may also need to install a filter or accountability app on your computer and cell phone to keep you from failing in times of weakness. If nothing else works, you may need to eliminate technology with internet access from your life completely. Though this may sound extreme, let’s not forget that the goal is complete victory not occasional victory over the desires brought on by porn and everything that goes with it.

It really comes back to a few simple questions. Do you really believe that watching porn is sin? Do you really want to have victory? If the answer to these questions is a sincere yes, you will do whatever it takes to have victory in this area. Note the following statement that Jesus made.

“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.  And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire” (Matthew 18:8-9).

Jesus probably didn’t intend for us to literally cut off our hand or pluck out an eye. But He is saying that we need to do what is necessary to be victorious, even if it means taking radical action.

Cultivate Your Marriage

“Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.  Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 )

Here are a few more thoughts. It has been proven that men and women who are in a good marriage relationship are far less likely to fall into this sin than those who aren’t. In fact, one study says that a happily married man is 61% less likely to fall into the porn trap. A godly wife can be a big help to a struggling husband. She can help ward off a lot of temptation by being willing and eager to build a strong intimate marriage that fulfills his needs (and hers). Of course the opposite is true as well. Every married couple should sit down and read 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 together. Note especially the word deprive, used in verse 5 of this passage (the KJV translates this as defraud, which is even stronger). Refusing intimate relationships with your spouse can greatly increase the power of the temptation to delve into pornography or something else impure. Fulfilled husbands and wives are not nearly as likely to fall into the porn trap.  If a person feels they should refuse intimate relationships to encourage their spouse not to develop selfish and aggressive habits, a better solution would be to get spiritual counsel from Christians who are walking with God and who love their spouse.

This passage makes it clear that intimate relationships should not be selfish. Husbands and wives have power over each other’s bodies to give them fulfillment in ways that they could not rightly give to themselves. Indulging in porn is totally selfish. It is also interesting to note here that the husband and wife should be discussing these issues and finding a consensus on them. Intimate relationships should never be based just on the husband’s desires and opinions.

But What if I’m Single?

God doesn’t call everyone into marriage. Single men and women are about twice as likely to fall into pornography and lust than their married counterparts. Many single men and women fall into the grip of watching porn and masturbating.

If you are single and struggling, keep in mind that fulfillment in life doesn’t come from marriage or sex. It comes from being in the will of God. Please do not believe for a minute that God has deprived you of finding fulfillment in life just because you are single and cannot enjoy physical intimacy with another person. He has a beautiful plan for your life that will be fulfilling in every way without doing what the world does to find fulfillment for these desires.[4]

But there shall by no means enter it [the holy city] anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. (Revelation 21:27)

[1] It would likely have been good to leave the room before I did.

[2] All Bible passages quoted from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.

[3] For more discussion on this subject see our online essay, What the Bible says About Homosexuality

[4] You might also want to read our booklet on Masturbation and Sexual Desire.