1. God Makes Sense of the Origin of the Universe
Typically atheists and agnostics held that the universe was eternal and always in existance, case closed. Great leaps in astronomy and astrophysics demolished these ideas, rendering them false and dated. Now the consensus that is held by the majority of science is that around 13-15 billion years ago there was an explosion (the Big Bang) that caused the universe to exist. As a result of this explosion, physical space, time, and the universe’s matter and energy were created. This means the Big Bang theory requires the universe to be created from nothing, to paraphrase the Cambridge University astronomer, Fred Hoyle (Astronomy and Cosmology). Which can be very awkward for any atheist, as Anthony Kenny of Oxford University points out, “a proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the…universe came from nothing and by nothing.” However, atheists and skeptics alike will hold that nothing cannot come from nothing in any other circumstance, “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” (David Hume). Kai Nielson, an atheist philosopher, also states, “Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang…and you ask me, ‘What made that bang?’ and I reply, ‘Nothing, it just happened.’ You would not accept that. In fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible” (Reason and Practice). If one would not accept a little bang coming from nothing, why should one accept a Big Bang coming from nothing? Sir Arthur Eddington, an eminent physicist, concludes, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” Summarizing the points above, it is clear the Kalam Cosmological argument matches with the facts.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existance.
The cause must be an uncaused cause, outside and not limited by time, immaterial, and changeless. The cause must be uncaused and eternal because there cannot be an infinite amount of causes and past events (infinite regress), it must be outside time and must be changeless in order to create time, and it must be immaterial in order to transcend space, which this cause has created. Thus the universe only makes sense with God as its cause.
(This material is summarized from Dr. William Lane Craig’s many arguments for the existance of God)
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 5, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Five Good Reasons for God’s Existance « Brooks’ Weblog
[...] 1. God Makes Sense of the Origin of the Universe [...]
July 6, 2008 at 5:08 am
lilboy
Again and again, atheists do not hold beliefs. They don’t even have a write-protected holy scripture.
“God” does not make sense of the universe; it only stops enquiry about it. Allow me to give an example:
- The universe has a cause. What is the cause? Answer is? “God”.
There, end of enquiry. End of search. End of learning.
July 6, 2008 at 6:14 am
Neil
Nice summary, Brooks. Very simple and clear. I like the quotes from the atheists. It is amazing how many of them will tie themselves in knots rationalizing things like this away. They’ll talk about some experiment that supposedly shows how something might come from nothing, as if it would be possible and that it would be the logical view to hold.
July 6, 2008 at 7:18 am
brooksrobinson
Neil:
Thanks for the feed back, I’ll have at least four more of those reasons in the coming days.
July 6, 2008 at 8:23 am
Neil
I see the first comment brought out the straw man about not having scientific inquiry if you acknowledge the obvious truth about the first cause argument. Of course, that isn’t reconciled with all the scientists who had Christian backgrounds. Christianity applauds and encourages reason and learning. We can – and have – discovered much of how God put the universe together. These atheists never demonstrate how that notion stops learning. Ironically, they are the ones in denial who use their worldview to avoid learning about God.
July 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
God doesn’t necessarily have to be the Jewish Christian God that I’m implying here. It could be Plato’s divine nous or some other eternal creator being that has always existed. The premise of the argument none the less requires an uncaused eternal being. Combining this reason with the other four reasons (that I have listed in the previous post) one will end up with the personal creator God that Jews and Christians worship. Provide with me compelling arguments as to why I should believe the universe came from nothing and by nothing and you have yourself an argument worth viewing.
July 6, 2008 at 7:41 pm
lilboy
brooksrobinson:
I love it when I get a response. So thanks!
In this context, I was only using the term “God” as an external agent who has caused the origination of the universe.
I might move on into the other 3 arguments in your previous posts, but for now, let’s focus on this argument here.
First of all: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
This had to be obvious, right? But no, not really. Just what is it that has led you to believe that to exist, something must have a cause? Put it in another way – have you ever witnessed the beginning of existence of anything?
Secondly: 2. The universe began to exist
Where did you get that information from?
Lastly: 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence that did not begin to exist
This argument is invalid, since statement 1 and 2 are dubious.
Let’s continue to write to each other. I enjoy this. =)
July 6, 2008 at 7:42 pm
lilboy
Sorry… please delete one of the posts. ^_^”
July 6, 2008 at 8:56 pm
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
“Just what is it that has led you to believe that to exist, something must have a cause?-have you ever witnessed the beginning of existence of anything?”
Not everything that exists has a cause. Instead, as the premise states, whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. God is in existance but is eternal and therefore has no cause. I’ve witnessed many things come into being, such as the making of crafts in school, therefore I am a cause for that specific craft coming into a purposeful existance.
Aristotle’s causes, which answer the “why something is” question:
* the material cause is the stuff from which the thing is made;
* the formal cause is the pattern or structure it has;
* the efficient cause is the agent that imposed this form on that matter; and
* the final cause is the purpose for the thing.
Causation is a philosophical axiom that has existed since the days of Plato and Aristotle.
“Where did you get that information from?”
It is common knowledge in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and any other field dealing with cosmology that the universe is roughly 15billion years old.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
“This argument is invalid, since statement 1 and 2 are dubious.”
You really haven’t proved the first two statements dubious. You’ve just asked questions about them.
Brooks
July 7, 2008 at 4:49 am
lilboy
brooksrobinson:
Thanks for deleting the redundant post. There is a difference between the two actions:
1. Causing something to exist
2. Reshaping/rearranging something into a more meaningful form
I suppose you would agree that the craft, and Aristotle’s Four Causes would belong to the latter example?
When we discuss about “God” causing the existence of the universe, does this also refer to the latter example?
To save time, I typed an answer to two possible responses, and hope dearly that you don’t answer something in between “yes” and “no”. =)
Read this if your answer is “yes”
Then God would just be working on already-existing materials. Consequently, God would not make sense of the origin of the universe.
Read this if your answer is “no”
Then it’s back to my earlier question: have you ever witnessed the beginning of existence of anything?
July 7, 2008 at 10:20 am
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
“There is a difference between the two actions:
1. Causing something to exist
2. Reshaping/rearranging something into a more meaningful form”
There is to a certain point, I will agree. I was merely demonstrating my own personal causation of objects, I was also demonstrating the fact that this principle has been in existance since the days of Aristotle. The bottom line is we are either all movers(causes) or the moved (the cause) or both(which all creation is both) in some sort of way through out life. Parents cause their children’s existance, scientists are the cause of clones or other experiments, just as I am a different kind of cause for a craft I have created. The sun is a cause in the support of life on earth, just as our atmosphere is also a cause. The sun is caused by its gases reacting so on so forth. God is the first cause, and hes an uncaused cause, for there has to be a first mover who is not caused, that put everything in place, or you get infinite regress, which violates philosophical axioms.
“When we discuss about ‘God’ causing the existence of the universe, does this also refer to the latter example?”
God created everything from nothing. “Creatio Ex Nihilo”
“Then it’s back to my earlier question: have you ever witnessed the beginning of existence of anything?”
Whether I have witnessed the beginning of existence of anything or not has nothing to do with anything (which anyone has if they’ve witnessed the stages of human development from the beginning). You haven’t witnessed the evolution of species, thus how could you hold that evolution reigns true?(not saying you do but is an example) You haven’t personally seen *insert country here* so you can’t honestly say that country exists, this is the logical process to which you are following. The age of the universe is irrelevant in this matter, the important issue is the majority of the fields dealing with cosmology hold that the universe was not in existance at some point in time (so far the experiments hold to 13-15billion years ago).
But once again, you haven’t done anything to render my first 2 statements dubious.
July 8, 2008 at 9:29 am
lilboy
Hi brooksrobinson,
Sorry for the late response. Been slaving in my uni lab for some time… Thanks for the trouble for having made such a long explanation. I’ll try to understand your arguments, but forgive me if I miss anything out.
I don’t plan to render your 2 statements dubious; I only want to understand them. It’s mainly the first statement that’s dubious to me; and consequently the rest of the two.
From your first paragraph:
I can agree with you that for everything in this world, there are causes and also consequences. However, I would like to go one step further, in saying that everything is as it is, due to a blend of causes, and at the same time causing a blend of consequences. I’ll elaborate this using your example of support of life; albeit a narrowed scope: a plant seed.
For a plant to come into being, more than one cause is required. For example: If there is enough water, but without nutrients and sunlight; the seed will not sprout. If there is sunlight, but no water; the seed will not sprout. If all water, nutrients and sunlight are sufficient, but the temperature is too low; the seed will not sprout. And there are many more “cause” that may come into play, for a plant to come into being. In the same way, the being of the plant causes as many consequences as you’d wish to think of. (Food and shelter to bugs, making someone happy, hold soil from erosion, etc. you can think of the rest.)
From this observation, it would seem that everything has not a cause, but a blend of causes. And everything themselves causes a field of consequences, which causes an effect on each other; hence a blend of consequences – they are difficult to isolate. My argument would therefore be this: If everything observable has countless causes and consequences, why would there be a need for an external agent (aka God) that is exempted from a need of causes? And if both of us have not seen the beginning of existence of anything, why is it still logical that something has to “begin to exist”?
Good night. =)
July 8, 2008 at 9:45 am
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
Everything that exists in a temporal state needs a cause or multiple causation’s because you cannot have infinite regress. In other words, you cannot have an infinite universe because that would mean there’s an infinite amount of events up to this point today, to this point yesterday, this point tomorrow, and this point 50years ago. Infinity is only an abstract idea. Let me demonstrate, if you had an infinitely long desk filled with an infinite amount of books of various colors and you pulled out all the red books, you would still have infinity. You would still have infinity if you pulled out all of the green books with the red books. Now if you pulled out all of the books but three, you’d have only three but what you discover is that infinity is self contradictory. Infinity-Infinity gets you no red books but still infinity, Infinity-Infinity-infinity gets you no red or green books but still infinity, infinity-infinity gets you three books left. So as you can see infinity is a self contradicting idea and thus cannot be true except in abstract mathematical equations. This is straight from Aristotle’s Metaphysics, so this isn’t some sort of new philosophical idea, its been around since the dawn of philosophy. It has only been confirmed though in the last 30 or so years, with the creation of the Big Bang theory and the experiments that went along with that.
However this is besides the point, the universe started, as the Big Bang states, from nothing and therefore isn’t eternal which is why it needs a cause. Its only fitting once you put all the five reasons together that you get the Judeo-Christian God.
Unless you can provide me with something that has come into existance from nothing, without a cause, there’s no reason not to accept premise one.
Thanks so far for the good dialogue.
July 9, 2008 at 7:20 pm
lilboy
hi brooksrobinson:
By now, our dialogue has gone much longer than your original post. I must admit that I’m treading unfamiliar zones here – with infinity, and ancient philosophy.
So basically, you are saying that everything has a cause(s), thereby agreeing with me. But everything has a cause(s) because we “cannot have infinite regress”?
We cannot have a real infinity, so the universe needs a cause. And that cause is the Judeo-Christian God, which is infinite?
July 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
“I must admit that I’m treading unfamiliar zones here – with infinity, and ancient philosophy.”
The philosophy still applies today, they just figured out ideas like this in the ancient days of Greece. Today though post-modern ideas have taken over, which essentially say there is no truth but your own. That’s completely false, but also another blog for another day.
“So basically, you are saying that everything has a cause(s), thereby agreeing with me.”
As the argument states in my entry, whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. God DID NOT BEGIN to exist therefore he has no cause, but is the first cause that initiates the various laws to which the universe operates by. So I’m not agreeing with you, unless your actually meaning to say everything that begins to exist.
The reason why God does not fall under the “infinity-contradiction” is because he exists beyond physical time and space. Infinity cannot exist within time and space(which is where the universe exists), but can exist outside time and space, where there is no time, if that makes sense. We get to the Judeo-Christian God simply because to create a universe you need a personal being who can make a choice to create a universe and time without any prior determining conditions. Then once you come to that realization, it becomes no big deal to accept the miracles that bestowed the Hebrews, whose concept of God was more developed than that of Aristotle, and they weren’t even know for their philosophy. You also get an understanding that God seeks not just his chosen people but others as well(for ex: Rahab the prostitute(Jericho) and the city of Nineveh in the story of Jonah. Then you get to the person of Jesus and reason number four, and combine that to my future reason five,”God can be immediately known and experienced,” and you get the Judeo-Christian God, which seeks a relationship with all. Which by the way Aristotle’s divine nous shares many characteristics of God, so there’s nothing to say that Aristotle did not go to heaven (unless he lived a completely immoral life contrary to his virtue ethics and not giving some sort of worship or attention to his “Divine Nous” which might as well be God).
July 10, 2008 at 9:54 am
lilboy
Hi brooksrobinson,
Here’s what I’ve gathered so far…
Me: Some phenomenon arises due to a blend of pre-conditions, and causes a blend of phenomena to arise.
You: Everything has a cause. There cannot be infinite regression, therefore an external agent that does not subscribe to the rules of this world is needed as the first cause.
Am I right?
July 10, 2008 at 10:10 am
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
Essentially yes, however the blend of what you call “pre-conditions,” can be considered a cause or have a cause unto themselves.
July 12, 2008 at 9:12 am
lilboy
hi brooksrobinson,
Cool. We have an understanding at this point.
I can’t agree with your “there cannot be an infinite regression, with the exception of…” argument.
I’m sure this has lots to do with the fact that the concept of infinity is currently beyond my scope of knowledge.
Can you enlighten me on this?
July 12, 2008 at 10:17 am
brooksrobinson
lilboy:
Well the concept is actually really simple if you think about it. Infinity first is only an abstract mathematical idea. You can’t have infinity in nature or the universe for its self-contradicting (As I showed in that previous example, infinity when plugged in as an equation can get you contradictory answers). You would get overlapping events, and so on so fourth. Between today and tom. there would have to be an infinite amount of time, just as there are an infinite amount of numbers after a decimal point in mathematics. There would also have to be an infinite amount of time between each minute of the clock and even each second. Infinity is thus an abstract non-existent idea. Mathematicians just like having fun with it. Thus it cannot exist in nature or time, for there is not an infinite amount of time in between each second on the clock.
July 14, 2008 at 8:06 am
lilboy
hi brooksrobinson,
Infinity is not meant to be plugged into equations. From what I understand, they are used to calculate limits, or to verify the convergence of a system’s behaviour. However, if applied correctly, infinity can also be used to describe our world effectively.
As in your example – yes, there is an infinite amount of time periods in a period. We use the term “infinitesimal” for each of these terms. Just thought I should point this out.
Well, one of the ways to illustrate infinity would be this: How much distance do we have to travel around the earth before we reach the edge of the world? Or along the mobius strip?
Philosophy aside, I assure you that the mathematical study of the concept of infinity has concrete contributions to our technology today. Oh, and mobius strips are useful too!
Oh, and I wouldn’t be so surprised if the universe loops around itself. As opposed to having an edge.