Questions on Human Reproduction, Heaven, and Islam

KEVIN HARRIS: You’re on the hot seat, Bill! We’ve got questions from all over the world. Let’s see what your answers are.

Dear Dr. Craig, I’m curious if we sometimes press this concept too hard. That is, God actively creates every human being. So many of the intellectual struggles with God's sovereignty and human free will (or lack of free will) seem to be based on the concept that God is choosing to create every human being one by one knowing many will ultimately be condemned. Am I missing something obvious in Scripture that would prevent the concept that God simply instructed Adam and Eve and then Noah to multiply and fill the Earth, but he has now fully turned that process over to humanity? In other words, what if God is allowing the human reproductive process that he initiated but stepped away from to continue producing humans based solely on free will procreation, and then he works their subsequent actions toward his goals? If this is feasible, would it alleviate the problem of God choosing to create someone he knows will reject him? Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for all you do. Kyle in the United States

DR. CRAIG: I think Kyle's question is interesting but the motivation behind the question is misconceived. Adopting this hypothesis would do nothing to alleviate the problem of God choosing to create people who he knew would ultimately reject him. Because even if people are just procreating by their own free will and God isn't specially creating every individual, given his foreknowledge of the future he knows who will reject him and who will freely accept him. So I think we need a theory of providence that I have tried to articulate based upon God's middle knowledge of each person that he creates and how that person would freely respond to God's grace in the circumstances in which God created him. Now, that's a totally different topic, and I don't want to talk about that because that's not Kyle's question. Kyle's question actually raises issues in the philosophy of mind with regard to the creation or origin of the soul. If we believe that human beings have a soul that is independent of the body in the sense that it is a spiritual, immaterial substance that is somehow conjoined with the physical body then the question arises: Where do souls come from? How do souls originate? There are three broad approaches to answering that question. The traditional answer is creationism – that God specially creates each individual new soul and places it in that developing body in the womb. This would be the model that Kyle is, I think, reacting against where every human being is a specially created soul by God which he infuses into a body. A second view would be the Traducian view of the origin of the soul which says that souls are not special creations by God but rather they are begotten or procreated from the parents – that somehow the souls of the parents generate (or give rise to) the soul of the individual that is conceived by the union of the sperm and the egg from the parents; that somehow the sperm and the egg carry soulish potentiality so that when they unite these serve to generate a brand new soul that is then conjoined with that developing body. On this view each individual person is not a special creation of God in the way that it is on creationism; rather, it is a natural process of begetting by the parents. The third perspective is called emergentism. This is the view that when the physical body, and particularly the nervous system and brain, reach a certain level of complexity then it gives rise to a new spiritual substance which is called the soul so that souls emerge, not only in the process of evolution, but they emerge in the developmental process of embryology in the womb. When the nervous system reaches a certain complexity then the soul emerges as a distinct and separate entity from that physical body. So on Traducianism and emergentism Kyle's view would be correct that each individual human being is not an individual special creation of God, though of course God in his foreknowledge knows that such individuals will be procreated and will come to exist. This is an open debate among Christian philosophers in the philosophy of mind as to which of these views is the best account of the origin of the soul.

KEVIN HARRIS: There's so much we could chase on that, but I tell you I've always liked what you've said about evil not having veto power over God. If God desired to create a particular person . . .

DR. CRAIG: Right. And I do think that given his middle knowledge of what every possible person would do in any set of circumstances God might create him, God can bring about a world in which the optimal balance between saved and lost is produced. I think as long as that is a plausible and possible alternative the problem that motivates Kyle's question is resolved.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, I've seen that you reject (correctly in my opinion) the strong doctrine of the divine simplicity. What I would like to ask you is a counterfactual question. If per impossible (for argument's sake), the strong doctrine of divine simplicity were true, what would follow from that in relation to theism and Christianity? Jerry in the United States

DR. CRAIG: Well, a lot, Jerry. It would follow that we are landed in complete mysticism, that we have no knowledge of God because he has no properties and therefore God is unknowable by us. We could only approach him like the Hindu or the Buddhist does – the Absolute or the Brahman, which is without distinctions and without properties. It would follow that the doctrine of the Trinity is false because there can be no complexity in God. I think this would be really disastrous for Christian belief if one were to adopt this very strong doctrine of divine simplicity according to which God has no properties and his essence just is the act of existence (the act of being) and that there is no complexity in God.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. My question is on the topic of Molinism and about a response you had to a questioner at Grace Point Church in San Francisco. Her question was how God chose a world. She asked, “Was it a utilitarian selection where it's just based on the amount of people that are saved?” She also used examples of people A, B, and C and how in different worlds A was saved but not B, or vice versa, and asked if God showed favoritism to A, B, or C in his selection of a world. You explained to her Molina's view as God not selecting a world based on the decisions of A, B, or C but instead chose a world which was of the best value to God. So essentially God chooses blindly with respect to what A, B, and C do. I assume this is your view because you said you find Molina's view very persuasive. This viewpoint seems a little problematic to me when you think about God answering prayers from a Molinist perspective. If God essentially chooses a world based on the best value or the end result, in what way is God taking into account our prayer from your perspective? Based on your past responses, I'm fairly certain you believe that God takes our prayers into account; however, I'm just trying to understand the compatibility of the viewpoints. I appreciate all your work. You've been instrumental to my faith. All the best. Matt in the US

DR. CRAIG: This is related to Kyle's question where I suggested that God in his goodness, given his universal salvific will, would choose a world that has the best optimal balance between saved and lost. But it wouldn't be based upon a specific knowledge of A, B, or C coming to salvation. Rather, God would offer his grace to everyone and then leave it up to them whether or not they would want to be saved. Everyone would receive sufficient grace for salvation. And I must say I just don't see the problem that Matt seems to discern with God's decreeing that he would answer certain prayers in creating the world and leave other prayers unanswered. It seems to me that in choosing a world God can take into account the prayers that people would offer, and part of a very good world would be one in which he would answer some of those prayers. So I guess I just don't see the difficulty in God decreeing to answer various prayers in his choice of a world.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. I saw a counter version of the ontological argument that uses modal logic. In it, it concludes that God does not exist because it is logically possible for a non-sentient world to exist. Even though I agree that there is nothing incoherent with the possibility of a non-sentient world, how do we know it is not metaphysically possible? Thank you. Kaden in the US

DR. CRAIG: I don't see any reason to think that it is metaphysically possible that a non-sentient world would exist. That begs the question in favor of atheism because God is a sentient being. Certainly it's possible that a non-sentient universe could exist. God could have created a world of just planets and gas and rocks and things of that sort. That's certainly metaphysically possible. But for a possible world to lack all sentience would be to say that atheism is true. So I don’t see any reason to think that it is metaphysically possible that an atheistic world exists.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, Do you think the argument from motion is compatible with the incarnation? The argument seems to lead us to a being who has no potential, but wouldn't potentiality be needed for God to become incarnate? Thomas.

DR. CRAIG: This is again related to the earlier question about divine simplicity. Those who hold that God is simple say that God is pure actuality and that he has no potentiality. I think Thomas is right in saying that a God who could become incarnate has to have potentiality. The second person of the Trinity – the Logos – existing prior to Mary's virginal conception of Jesus had the potential of assuming a human nature and so becoming incarnate. And that potentiality was not actualized until that moment that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb. So I think it's very difficult to see how the incarnation is possible for a God who lacks all potentiality.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, the concept of heaven as described in the Bible leaves me filled with doubts. In many ways it challenges my belief in God completely. In Revelation it says there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying. There shall be no more pain. I struggle to see any purpose or utility in this eternity. If man created in God's image is also a creator, and if our purpose on Earth is to decrease suffering and learn to walk rightly with God, what purpose can there be in a heaven where everything is already perfect? Why bother to exist at all? Jane in the United States

DR. CRAIG: I don't think that Jane has grasped the correct end to which human beings exist. It is not to decrease suffering or to be engaged in some sort of useful activity. Rather, as the Westminster Catechism says, the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. In heaven we come to a knowledge and experience of God that is unalloyed by sin and the finitude of this life. We come to know God deeply and experientially. And that will be the fulfillment of human existence. It is an incommensurable good; literally, incomparable to any sort of finite earthly goods that we might know. So the purpose of heaven is wonderful. It is to know God himself, an incommensurable good which is the end for which we human beings were created.

KEVIN HARRIS: I like this question. I was going to ask if there are some views that in the new heaven and new Earth that we will continue to have projects to work, to create, in that fellowship with God, that untainted fellowship with God, and can continue to build and progress throughout eternity rather than just be in a state of mindless bliss like she thinks is so uncomfortable.

DR. CRAIG: Well, I don't think that we have sufficient information in the Scripture to know whether or not that's true. I feel very uncomfortable when people say things like, “When I go to heaven, I'm going to paint,” like they're going to have time for their hobbies. Any finite good pursued for infinite time would become cloying and boring. In fact, it would become torture. So it seems to me that the chief end for which we exist will be to know and experience God, and that this is a good beyond all measure. I don't know if there will be room for these sorts of finite projects that you describe. I think that that's something that's not been revealed to us.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question from Sudan.

Dear Dr. Craig, Firstly, I would like to thank you for all your valuable contributions. I hope you can help me figure out whether what I'm deducing is correct or not. Here where I live, most discussions aim to prove the validity of Islam by the fulfillment of some prophecies or the occurrence of some miracles with the logic that if Islam is true then Christianity must be false. But I think there is an error in this logic since if Christianity is correct then Islam must be wrong regardless of the number of prophecies that have been fulfilled. In short, if the attempt to prove the validity of Islam does not include ensuring that Christianity is wrong then this proof has no value. Taking into account that Christianity is not like Islam where in Christianity we deserve punishment whether we know that Christianity is true or not, while in Islam we are punished if we do not adhere to the law of Islam which needs to be proven that it is truly God's law. In a few words, a Muslim must not only prove the validity of Islam but he must also prove that Christianity is wrong. And if he cannot prove Christianity is wrong then we also cannot prove the validity of Islam. Is what I concluded correct, or did I make a mistake? Thank you. I hope you will help me. Fuad in Sudan

DR. CRAIG: Well, I want to thank Fuad for writing to us here at Reasonable Faith. I tremendously admire your bravery and courage in standing for Christ in a predominantly Islamic context in which so many people are martyred and giving their lives for their faith in Christ. So thank you for your commitment and for your question. It seems to me that Islam and Christianity are contraries; that is to say, they cannot both be true. They could both be false – maybe Buddhism is true! But they cannot both be true. So it seems to me that the logic is correct that if Islam is true then Christianity is false. And by the same token, if Christianity is correct then Islam must be wrong. So I see nothing wrong with that logic. If the Muslim can prove that Islam is true, that automatically proves that Christianity is wrong. Similarly, if the Christian can prove that Christianity is true, that automatically implies the falsity of Islam. So it's not correct, I think, Fuad, to say that a Muslim must not only prove the validity of Islam but he must also prove that Christianity is wrong. It seems to me that in proving the validity of Islam he automatically proves that Christianity is wrong. Similarly, if you can prove that Christianity is right then that implies the falsehood of Islam. So the question is: Which religion (if either) has the weight of the evidence in its support? And here I've argued extensively that the evidence in support of Christianity is just vastly greater than the evidence in favor of Islam which often consists of these concocted miracles and prophecies that really are pretty implausible.

KEVIN HARRIS: Hey, just a quick reminder that your support of the work of Reasonable Faith with your prayers and financial gifts are greatly appreciated and help us continue to offer all of our Reasonable Faith content free of charge. I hope you had a chance to check out our Equip platform. It’s online at KnowWhyYouBelieve.org. Equip is training over 7,000 people worldwide to defend their faith and go deeper in their walk with God. Your financial partnership helps us add more courses based on Dr. Craig’s work. So let’s keep it growing. Go online to KnowWhyYouBelieve.org. Finally, you know there are some good things about AI. Reasonable Faith is using AI technology to translate and dub Dr. Craig’s voice into other languages to reach and equip more people. All of this is possible because of your prayers and financial partnership, especially when you give strategically each month or you give a one-time gift or even give from your assets. Donate on our website, ReasonableFaith.org. We’ll see you next time on Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig.^[1]