CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. If God does not exist, then all human life as well as every individual life
will eventually be destroyed.
II. If there is no God and no life beyond the grave, then life itself has no
objective meaning, value, or purpose.
A. Meaning
1. Without immortality your life has no ultimate significance and
makes no difference to the world’s outcome.
2. Without God there is no broader framework within which man’s
life can be seen to matter.
B. Value
1. Without immortality there is no moral accountability, and your
moral choices become inconsequential.
2. Without God moral values are just delusions ingrained into us
by evolution and social conditioning.
C. Purpose
1. Without immortality your only destination is extinction in
death.
2. Without God there is no purpose for which you came into this
world.
III. It is impossible to live consistently and happily with an atheistic
worldview.
A. If we live happily as atheists, it is only by inconsistently affirming
meaning, value, and purpose for our lives, despite the lack of
foundation for them.
B. If we live consistently as atheists, we shall be profoundly unhappy
and even in despair because we know our lives are really meaningless,
worthless, and purposeless.
IV. Biblical Christianity challenges the worldview of modern man.
A. A
 ccording to biblical Christianity God exists and life does not end at
the grave.

W HAT DI FFE R E NC E D OE S I T M A KE IF G OD EX IS TS ? J 51
 B. Biblical Christianity thereby affirms the two conditions sufficient for
a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality.
C. Biblical Christianity therefore supplies a framework within which
one can live consistently and happily.
D. So why not look into the truth of biblical Christianity?

52 J On Guard
 CHAPTER 3

W H Y D OE S A N Y T H I N G AT A L L E X I S T ?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.… All things
came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. (John 1:1, 3)

Keokuk was a great place for a boy to grow up. On the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, in the
southeastern toe of Iowa that hangs down over Missouri, Keokuk is Mark Twain territory. As kids, we
had every kind of pet we could catch: frogs, toads, snakes, salamanders, rabbits, birds, stray dogs and
cats that wandered by our house, even a bat and a possum. You could see the stars clearly at night in
Keokuk, too. I remember as a boy looking up at the stars, innumerable in the black night, and thinking,
Where did all of this come from? It seemed to me instinctively that there had to be an explanation why
all this exists. As long as I can remember, then, I’ve always believed in a Creator of the universe. I just
never knew Him personally.
Only years later did I realize that my boyhood question, as well as its answer, had occupied the
minds of the greatest philosophers for centuries. For example, G. W. Leibniz, codiscoverer of calculus
and a towering intellect of eighteenth-century Europe, wrote: “The first question which should rightly
be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?”1
In other words, why does anything at all exist? This, for Leibniz, is the most basic question that
anyone can ask. Like me, Leibniz came to the conclusion that the answer is to be found, not in the
universe of created things, but in God. God exists necessarily and is the explanation why anything else
exists.

Leibniz’s Argument
We can put Leibniz’s thinking into the form of a simple argument. This has the advantage of making
his logic very clear and focusing our attention on the crucial steps of his reasoning. It also makes his

53
 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was accusation that he had stolen Newton’s ideas
a German philosopher, mathematician, and and published them. Today most historians
logician. He invented differential and integral agree that Leibniz did invent calculus
calculus at about the same time Sir Isaac independently.
Newton did. In fact, he spent the last five
years of his life defending himself against the

argument very easy to memorize so that we can share it with others. (You’ll
find an argument map at the end of this chapter.)
There are three steps or premises in Leibniz’s reasoning:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation
is God.
3. The universe exists.
That’s it! Now what follows logically from these three premises?
Well, look at premises 1 and 3. (Read them out loud if that helps.) If
everything that exists has an explanation of its existence and the universe exists,
then it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
Now notice that premise 2 says that if the universe has an explanation of its
existence, that explanation is God. And 4 says the
universe does have an explanation of its existence. So
from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
TALK ABOUT IT
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s
Which of the three premises have you heard existence is God.
atheists challenge? On what basis did they
Now this is a logically airtight argument. That is to
do so?
say, if the three premises are true, then the conclusion is

54 J On Guard
unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if the atheist or agnostic doesn’t like the conclusion.
It doesn’t matter if he has other objections to God’s existence. So long as he
grants the premises, he has to accept the conclusion. So if he wants to reject the
conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false.
But which one will he reject? Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere
seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! So the atheist is going to
have to deny either 1 or 2 if he wants to remain an atheist and be rational. So
the whole question comes down to this: Are premises 1 and 2 true, or are they
false? Well, let’s look at them.

Premise 1
Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

An Objection to Premise 1: God Must Have an Explanation of His

Existence
At first blush premise 1 might seem vulnerable in an obvious way. If everything
that exists has an explanation of its existence, and God exists, then God must
have an explanation of His existence! But that seems out of the question, for
then the explanation of God’s existence would be some other being greater Necessary or
than God. Since that’s impossible, premise 1 must be false. Some things Contingent
must be able to exist without any explanation. The believer will say God
Things that exist necessarily
exists inexplicably. The atheist will say, “Why not stop with the universe? The
exist by a necessity of their
universe just exists inexplicably.” So we seem to reach a stalemate.
own nature. It belongs to
their very nature to exist.
Answer to the Objection: Some Things Exist Necessarily Things that exist contingently
Not so fast! This obvious objection to premise 1 is based on a misunderstanding can fail to exist and so need
of what Leibniz meant by an “explanation.” In Leibniz’s view there are two an external cause to explain

kinds of things: (a) things that exist necessarily and (b) things that are why they do in fact exist.

produced by some external cause. Let me explain.

(a) Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It’s

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 55
 impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that numbers,
sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to
exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature.
(b) By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist
necessarily. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar
physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.
So when Leibniz says that everything that exists has an explanation of
its existence, the explanation may be found either in the necessity of a thing’s
nature or else in some external cause. So premise 1 could be more fully stated
in the following way:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in
the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
But now the objection falls to the ground. The explanation of God’s
existence lies in the necessity of His own nature. As
even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to
TALK ABOUT IT have a cause. So Leibniz’s argument is really an
If He exists at all, why is it impossible for God argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.
to have a cause? Far from undermining Leibniz’s argument, the
atheist’s objection to premise 1 actually helps to
clarify and magnify who God is! If God exists, He is
a necessarily existing, uncaused being.

Defense of Premise 1: Size Doesn’t Matter

So what reason might be offered for thinking that premise 1 is true? Well,
when you reflect on it, premise 1 has a sort of self-evidence about it. Imagine
that you’re hiking through the woods and you come across a translucent ball
lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there.
If one of your hiking partners said to you, “Hey, it just exists inexplicably.
Don’t worry about it!” you’d either think that he was crazy or figure that he
just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion
that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

56 J On Guard
 Now suppose you increase the size of the ball in this story so that it’s the
size of a car. That wouldn’t do anything to satisfy or remove the demand for
an explanation. Suppose it were the size of a house. Same problem. Suppose Fallacy
it were the size of a continent or a planet. Same problem. Suppose it were
A fallacy is an error in
the size of the entire universe. Same problem. Merely increasing the size of the reasoning. Fallacies can be
ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation. either formal or informal.
A formal fallacy involves
The Taxicab Fallacy breaking the rules of logic.

Sometimes atheists will say that premise 1 is true of everything in the An informal fallacy involves
an argumentative tactic that
universe but is not true of the universe itself. Everything in the universe has
is illicit, such as reasoning in
an explanation, but the universe itself has no explanation.
a circle. The “taxicab fallacy”
But this response commits what has been aptly called the “taxicab fallacy.”
would be an informal fallacy.
For as the nineteenth-century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your
desired destination! You can’t say everything has an explanation of its existence
and then suddenly exempt the universe.
It would be arbitrary for the atheist to claim that the universe is the
exception to the rule. (Recall that Leibniz does not make God an exception
to premise 1.) Our illustration of the ball in the woods showed that merely
increasing the size of the object to be explained, even until it becomes the
Cosmology
universe itself, does nothing to remove the need for some explanation of its
existence. Cosmology is the study of
the large-scale structure
Notice, too, how unscientific this atheist response is. For modern
and development of the
cosmology (the study of the universe) is devoted to the search for an
universe. The Greek word
explanation of the universe’s existence. The atheist attitude would cripple kosmos means “orderly
science. arrangement” or “world.”
Pythagoras may have been
Another Atheist Fallacy: It Is Impossible for the Universe to Have the first person to use this
an Explanation word to refer to the universe.

So some atheists have tried to justify making the universe an exception to

premise 1. They say that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 57
 of its existence. Why? Because the explanation of the universe would have to
be some prior state of affairs in which the universe didn’t yet exist. But that
would be nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything.
So the universe must just exist inexplicably.
This line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. For it assumes that the
universe is all there is, so that if there were no universe
there would be nothing. In other words, the objection
TALK ABOUT IT assumes that atheism is true! The atheist is thus
It’s hard to imagine nothing. We can imagine begging the question, arguing in a circle.
empty space, but empty space is something, Leibniz would agree that the explanation of the
not nothing. Try to imagine that only God universe must be a prior state of affairs in which
exists. Not the universe, not empty space, not the universe did not exist. But that state of affairs is
even time. What goes on in your head when
God and His will, not nothingness.
you try to conceive of this? Now suppose that
So it seems to me that premise 1 is more
not even God exists.
plausibly true than false, which is all we need for a
good argument.

Premise 2
If the universe has an explanation of its
existence, that explanation is God.

Atheists Agree with Premise 2

What, then, about premise 2, that if the
Logical Equivalence
universe has an explanation of its existence, that
Two statements are logically equivalent if it is impossible for explanation is God? Is it more plausibly true
one to be true and the other false. They are either both true or than false?
both false. One of the most important logical equivalences is
What’s really awkward for the atheist
called contraposition. It tells us that any statement of the form
at this point is that premise 2 is logically
“If P, then Q” is logically equivalent to “If not-Q, then not-P.”
equivalent to the typical atheist response to
The example in the text of statements A and B is an example
of contraposition. Leibniz’s argument. Two statements are logically

58 J On Guard
equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false.
They stand or fall together. So what does the atheist almost always say in
response to Leibniz’s argument? As we’ve just seen, the atheist typically
asserts the following:
A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.
This is precisely what the atheist says in response to premise 1. The universe
just exists inexplicably. But this is logically equivalent to saying:
B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is
not true.
So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). Abstract versus Concrete Objects
But (B) is virtually synonymous with
Philosophers distinguish objects as being either abstract
premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying
or concrete. The defining difference between them is that
in response to premise 1 that, given atheism, abstract objects are causally effete or impotent, whereas
the universe has no explanation, the atheist concrete objects can cause effects in the world. Various
is implicitly admitting premise 2, that if the objects have been identified by different philosophers as
universe does have an explanation, then God abstract, principally mathematical entities like numbers,

exists. sets, and functions, but also propositions, properties, fictional

characters, and even musical and literary works.

Another Argument for Premise 2: The

Cause of the Universe: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind?
Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of
what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and
energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that
cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time.
Amazing!
Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description:
either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But
abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract.
The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the
existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers
understand God to be.

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 59
 I hope you begin the grasp the power of Leibniz’s argument. If successful,
it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial,
Ultramundane means beyond
the realm of our world.
personal Creator of the universe. This is not some ill-conceived entity like
Mundane comes from the the Flying Spaghetti Monster but an ultramundane being with many of the
Latin word for world or traditional properties of God. This is truly mind-blowing!
universe—mundus—and
does not necessarily imply Atheist Alternative: The Universe Exists Necessarily!
boring!
What can the atheist do at this point? He has a more radical alternative open
to him. He can retrace his steps, withdraw his objection to premise 1, and
say instead that, yes, the universe does have an explanation of its existence.
But that explanation is: The universe exists by a necessity of its own nature.
For the atheist, the universe could serve as a sort of God-substitute that exists
necessarily.
Now this would be a very radical step for the atheist to take, and I can’t
think of any contemporary atheist who has in fact adopted this line. A few
years ago at a Philosophy of Time conference at Santa Barbara City College,
I thought that Professor Adolf Grünbaum, a vociferous atheistic philosopher
of science from the University of Pittsburgh, was flirting with this idea. But
when I raised the question from the floor whether he thought the universe
existed necessarily, he was positively indignant at the suggestion. “Of course
not!” he snapped, and he went on to claim that the universe just exists without
any explanation.
The reason atheists are not eager to embrace this alternative is clear. As we
look about the universe, none of the things that make
it up, whether stars, planets, galaxies, dust, radiation,
TALK ABOUT IT or what have you, seems to exist necessarily. They
could all fail to exist; indeed, at some point in the past,
Do you know anyone who believes that the
when the universe was very dense, none of them did
universe or the world is a God-substitute (like
Gaia or the Force from Star Wars)? What leads
exist.
them to believe that? But, someone might say, what about the matter
that these things are made of? Maybe the matter exists

60 J On Guard
necessarily, and all these things are just different configurations of matter.
The problem with this suggestion is that, according to the standard model
of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny fundamental particles
that cannot be further broken down. The universe is just the collection of
all these particles arranged in different ways. But now the question arises:
Couldn’t a different collection of fundamental particles have existed instead
of this one? Does each and every one of these particles exist necessarily?

I II III

u c t g
up charm top photon

d s b g
Quarks

down strange bottom gluon

ne nm nt z 0
electron neutrino muon neutrino tau neutrino weak force

±
e m t w
Leptons

Bosons

electron muon tau weak force

Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the
elementary particles are just configurations of matter which that could have
been different, but that the matter of which the particles are composed exists
necessarily. He can’t say this, because elementary particles aren’t composed
of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a particular particle
doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.
Now it seems obvious that a different collection of fundamental particles
could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were
the case, then a different universe would have existed.

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 61
 To see the point, think about your desk. Could your desk have been
made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in
the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and shape. Rather I’m
asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been
made of ice. The answer seems to be obviously, no. The ice desk would be a
different desk, not the same desk.
Similarly, a universe made up of different particles, even if they were
identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe. It
follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.
Now someone might object that my body remains identical over time
Analogies and despite a complete exchange of its material constituents for new constituents.

Disanalogies
We’re told that every seven years the matter that makes up our bodies is
virtually completely recycled. Still my body is identical to the body I had
An analogy is a point of before. Analogously, someone might say, various possible universes could
similarity between two
be identical even though they’re composed of wholly different collections of
things. A disanalogy is a point
particles.
of difference or dissimilarity
between two things.
The crucial disanalogy, however, is that the difference between possible
universes is no kind of change at all, for there is no enduring subject that
undergoes intrinsic change from one state to another. So universes made up
of different particles are not like the different stages of my one body. Rather
they’re like two bodies that have no connection with each other whatsoever.
No one thinks that every particle in the universe exists by a necessity of
its own nature. It follows that neither does the universe composed of such
particles exist by a necessity of its own nature. Notice
that this is the case whether we think of the universe
TALK ABOUT IT
as itself an object (just as a marble statue is not
Ask a physics teacher: Why do elementary identical to a similar statue made of different marble),
particles exist? Is it impossible for them not or as a collection or group (just as a flock of birds is not
to exist? (Be prepared for the possibility that identical to a similar flock made up of different birds),
your physics teacher doesn’t want to have this
or even as nothing at all over and above the particles
conversation.)
themselves.

62 J On Guard
 My claim that the universe does not exist necessarily becomes even more
obvious when we reflect that it seems entirely possible that the fundamental
building blocks of nature could have been substances quite different from
the elementary particles we know. Such a universe would be characterized
by different laws of nature. Even if we take our laws of nature to be logically
necessary, still it’s possible that different laws of nature could have held
because substances endowed with different properties and capacities than
our fundamental particles could have existed. In such a case we’d clearly be
dealing with a different universe.
So atheists have not been so bold as to deny premise 2 and say that the
universe exists necessarily. Like premise 1, premise 2 also seems to be plausibly
true.

Conclusion TALK ABOUT IT

Given the truth of the three premises, the conclusion How has this chapter shown that God:
is logically inescapable: God is the explanation of the Is unembodied Mind?
existence of the universe. Moreover, the argument Transcends the universe?

implies that God is an uncaused, unembodied Mind Created the universe?

who transcends the physical universe and even space

and time themselves and who exists necessarily. This conclusion is staggering.
Leibniz has expanded our minds far beyond the mundane affairs of daily life.
In the next chapter our minds will be stretched further still, as we try to grasp
the infinite and discover the beginning of the universe.

1. G. W. F. von Leibniz, “The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason,” in Leibniz Selections,
ed. P. Wiener (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 527.

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 63
 Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument

Pro Con

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of

its existence, either in the necessity of its Then God must have a
own nature or in an external cause. cause to explain Him.

No, God exists by the

necessity of His own nature.

This is a self-evident principle: story of finding The universe is an

a ball in the woods. exception to this principle.

Making the universe an exception is arbitrary

and commits the taxicab fallacy.

It is not arbitrary, since it is

impossible for the universe
to have an explanation.

You’re assuming the universe is all there is,

which begs the question in favor of atheism.

64 J On Guard
 Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument (cont.)

Pro Con

2. If the universe has an explanation of its

existence, that explanation is God.

This is logically equivalent I withdraw the statement.

to the atheist’s own statement that The universe exists by
if God does not exist, the universe a necessity of its own
has no explanation nature.

The universe does not exist

necessarily, since different
elementary particles could
have existed.

As the cause of space and time,

this being must be an unembodied,
transcendent Mind.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an

explanation of its existence.

This follows from 1 and 3.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the

existence of the universe is God.

This follows from 2 and 4.

W H Y D OE S A NY T H ING AT A LL EX IS T? J 65
 Pe r s ona l In t e r l u de

A P h i l o s o p h e r ’ s J o u r n e y o f Fa i t h ,

Pa r t O n e

Having become a Christian during my junior year in high school, I was soon faced with the decision
of picking a college to attend. Sandy, the girl in my German class who had shared with me her faith
in Christ, suggested that I apply to Wheaton College, where her older brother Paul was a student.
Studying at a Christian college really appealed to me as a young believer, so I applied and was accepted.
You have to understand that I had never been a part of the Christian subculture before, so attending
Wheaton was for me like a foretaste of heaven—professors prayed before class, there was daily chapel,
you never heard swearing or filthy talk in the locker room, and so on. I was bowled over!
But the truly priceless gift that Wheaton gave to me was the integration of my faith and learning. I
saw that as a Christian I didn’t need to stick my brains in one pocket and my faith in the other pocket
and never let them see the light of day at the same time. Rather I could have a Christian worldview—a
Christian perspective on science, a Christian perspective on history, a Christian perspective on the arts,
and so on. It was at Wheaton that I caught the vision of sharing my faith in the context of presenting
an intellectual defense of the gospel, to appeal to the head as well as to the heart.
Unfortunately, Wheaton was at that time surprisingly weak in apologetics. My theology professor
Robert Webber taught us that there are no good arguments for God’s existence and that the traditional
proofs had all been refuted. Though I was skeptical about his claim, I more or less bought into what he
said on the basis of his authority.
Then just prior to graduating from Wheaton I picked up a copy of a book by Professor Stuart
Hackett called The Resurrection of Theism on a clearance table at the college bookstore. I must confess
that I wasn’t even sure what the title meant! Later during the fall, when I got around to reading the

67
 book, I was absolutely stunned by what I read. In contrast to what I had
been taught at Wheaton, Hackett, with devastating logic, was defending
arguments for God’s existence and providing refutations of every conceivable
objection to them.
The centerpiece of Hackett’s case was an argument that struck a deep
chord in me: It is rationally inconceivable that the series of past events be
infinite; there must have been a beginning of the universe and therefore a
transcendent cause that brought it into being. Reading Hackett’s book was
a shocking, eye-opening experience for me. I had to find out if he was right.
During my senior year at Wheaton, a chapel speaker named John Guest
had challenged us seniors to take a couple years out after graduation to share
our faith full-time with university students while we were still about the
same age. That made sense to me, so I decided to put off my plans to go to
seminary for two years and joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. I
was assigned to the staff team at Northern Illinois University.
One of the other members of the team was a young, single woman named
Jan Coleman, a graduate of the University of North Dakota. Vivacious and
outgoing, she projected confidence, independence, and strength. She was
sold out to Christ and committed to evangelism. Not only that, but with her
slim figure, waist-length dark brown hair, and big brown eyes, she was—well,
let’s just say very attractive! She even told me she wanted to go to seminary,
precisely where I was headed. Well, a girl like this was way out of my league,
but I couldn’t help but be attracted to her. Miracles still happen, for as I
worked with the guys and she with the gals, we fell in love and were married
by the end of the school year.
We then set our sights on the master’s degree program in philosophy
spearheaded by Dr. Norman Geisler at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
north of Chicago. One of the program’s entrance requirements was the
Graduate Record Exam in philosophy, so over the next year in preparation for
the exam I read and took detailed notes on Frederick Copleston’s monumental
nine-volume History of Philosophy. It was there that I discovered the long

68 J On Guard
history of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian thought about the argument that
Hackett was defending. I determined that if I could ever do doctoral work in
philosophy, I would write my PhD dissertation on this argument.
We spent two great years at Trinity, studying under men such as Paul
Feinberg, David Wolfe, John Warwick Montgomery, David Wells, John
Woodbridge, J. I. Packer, Clark Pinnock, and Murray Harris. I earned twin
master’s degrees in philosophy of religion and in church history. Our time
at Trinity turned out to be a crucial stepping-stone in the path God had set
for us.
Jan and I have found that in our life together, the Lord usually shows
us only enough light along the path to take the next step without knowing
what lies further down the trail. So one evening as Jan and I were nearing
the end of our time at Trinity, we were sitting at the supper table, talking
about what to do after graduation. Neither of us had any clear idea or
leading as to what we should do.
At that point Jan said to me, “Well, if money were no object, what would
you really like to do next?”
I replied, “If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to
England and do a doctorate under John Hick.”
“Who’s he?” she asked.
“Oh, he’s this famous British philosopher who’s written extensively on
arguments for the existence of God,” I explained. “If I could study with him,
I could develop the cosmological argument for God’s existence.”
But it hardly seemed a realistic idea.
The next evening Jan handed me a slip of paper with John Hick’s address
on it. “I went to the library today and found out that he’s at the University of
Birmingham in England,” she said. “Why don’t you write to him and ask him
if you can do a doctoral thesis under him on the cosmological argument?”
What a woman! So I did, and to our amazement and delight Professor
Hick wrote back saying he’d be very pleased to supervise my doctoral work on
that subject. So it was an open door! The only problem was, the University of

A Ph i l o s op h e r ’s Jour n e y of Fa it h, Pa rt One J 69