What Caused God?
Answering the Atheists and Agnostics on the Origins of God
© Brian Tubbs
Nov 13, 2006
If God caused the universe, what caused God? Read the article to find out if this question is even legitimate.
The strongest argument for the existence of God is that the universe must have an ultimate “first cause,” and that God qualifies perfectly as this ultimate cause. Atheists and agnostics have countered the cosmological or causality argument in a way exemplified best perhaps by Bertrand Russell. Asked Russell, “What caused God?” After all, if everything, including the universe, needs an ultimate cause, why except God? What caused God?
As this article will demonstrate, this argument against the existence of God is little more than semantic gamesmanship. They subtly redefine God into a physical or energetic force within the space-time continuum that we inhabit and argue out from there accordingly. This article will show how foolish and desperate this argument against God really is.
The Universe Began to Exist
Before we claim that God originated the universe, we must understand how preposterous it is to think that the universe itself has always existed. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down. It is literally running out of energy. This means that it can’t be eternal. An eternal universe would already have used its energy up, if that is one of the features of its existence.
Moreover, we have learned from the fields of mathematics and philosophy that it is logically nonsensical to assume an infinite number of events or moments. An eternal universe, and with it an eternal number of moments, is simply impossible. Thus, we can accept the overwhelming view of modern science that the universe began to exist (most scientists estimating that origin to be roughly 14-15 billion years ago) and that it will eventually end.
Given the fact that the universe began to exist, it must have had a “cause” that originated it. To deny this is absurd and to ignore it makes one an agnostic. A person cannot declare that there is no creator-god and then evade or acknowledge uncertainty in response to a question about universal origins. He or she can’t do that, and remain rational, that is. Uncertainty equates to agnosticism, not atheism.
Nevertheless, the universe began to exist. What must have caused it? Answering this question will lead us to the nature and reality of God in the same way that understanding gravity and the dynamics of space has led us to discover Black Holes.
The Necessary Being
The cause of the universe would be its ultimate cause. Since the universe is the boundary within which we understand space, time, matter, and energy, it can safely be said that the cause of the universe would be what the ancients called a “Necessary Being” – that is, a being which is necessary for another to exist.
A true “Necessary Being” must be sufficient to cause all of the contingent beings stemming from it. Put another way, a pencil cannot cause a piece of paper. An ant cannot cause a skyscraper. The cause must be greater than the caused. It must be capable of accomplishing the creation. That means, as philosopher Winfried Courdan writes, the ultimate Necessary Being would be “uncaused, unsustained, and undetermined.”
Some readers of this article will undoubtedly feel that this argument represents what some philosophers would call “special pleading” – i.e., changing the rules in order to accommodate a disputed conclusion. Walk through the logic again, and you will readily see this is not the case.
If there is a Necessary Being (meaning an ultimate cause to all the contingent beings which have ever existed, including the universe), then that Necessary Being would, by its very nature, be independent, uncaused, infinite, and unrestricted by time and space.
There is no other way to contemplate a Necessary Being. Remove one or more of these characteristics, and you no longer have a truly Necessary Being. The real question isn’t whether these features are appropriate to assign to a Necessary Being. The real question is whether there is a Necessary Being.
The answer, once again, is that there has to be a Necessary Being. Existence makes no sense without one. Saying there is no Necessary Being is as irrational as watching a pen drop and then claiming there is no such thing as gravity.
Only God Qualifies as a Necessary Being
Once again, the existence of a Necessary Being is as certain as anything can be. The fact that a person may not have directly experienced this Being or the fact that it does not live up to any personal or emotional expectations has NO BEARING whatsoever on the reality of that Being. Thus, the reality of evil and suffering in the world or the apparent chaos in certain parts of the galaxy is not relevant to the issue at hand.
The existence of God is simple logic. If the universe began to exist (and it did), it needs a cause. Only an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause is sufficient to account for the universe. Therefore, such a being exists. Period.
Can we fairly call this Necessary Being “God”? In order to answer that, we must once again look to the features of this Necessary Being. It would be timeless or eternal. It would be infinite and omnipresent. It would itself be uncaused and completely independent. This sounds strikingly similar to the God described in the major religions of the world, especially Judaism and Christianity, religions to which the author is most familiar.
Many atheists or agnostics will still argue that God needs a first cause or a creator. This is because they have often redefined God into a form of matter or energy. God is neither. According to the Bible anyway, God is Spirit (John 4:24). Indeed, the Genesis account of Creation identifies the “Spirit of God” (Genesis 1:2) as the driving creative force for our universe. There is no scientific law which demands that a spiritual being requires a cause.
Logically, only a spiritual or supernatural being is capable of serving as the ultimate, first cause of a universe characterized by time, space, matter and energy.
The bottom line is that God exists. Denying this is simply absurd. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can dive into the more relevant questions of how we can know God and what this God has to say to us.
The copyright of the article
What Caused God? in
Protestantism is owned by
Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish
What Caused God? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 16, 2006 7:52 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"The bottom line is that God exists. Denying this is simply absurd. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can dive into the more relevant questions of how we can know God and what this God has to say to us."</i>
.
To me, the bottom line is that you have made a quantum leap from the idea that there has to be some 'necessary thing' that pre-exists existence to the idea that 'we can know God and what this God has to say to us'. And, so, you are correct in asking the question. I'm no Atheist and I do imagine that there is some Supreme Being; but, if we're going to use evidence, then we need a discussion about the nature of that 'necessary thing' and how 'it' must relate to what we say is creation. Basing our choices and conclusions on biblical accounts is far afield from what you have laid down in your paper which, by the way, is pretty good.
.
Nov 16, 2006 8:16 AM
Pink :
.
Here is a streaming video able to be watched by anyone.
.
I recommend it to all:
.
http://mitworld.mit.edu/stream/23/
Nov 16, 2006 3:01 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
<i>I'm no Atheist and I do imagine that there is some Supreme Being</i>
So, you're kind of an Agnostic. Charles Darwin (an Agnostic) also believed in some kind of Supreme Being, but thought He/It just put things in motion and let it all go.:)
Nov 16, 2006 3:14 PM
Pink :
.
If my options were to choose between biblicalist teachings and atheism, I would choose the latter.
.
Does that help you understand me at all?
.
Nov 17, 2006 1:24 PM
Pink :
.
I'm still working on the Dawkins book, Brian.
.
The guy is a deep thinker and comes up with some ideas that take a little study. I'm on my third read of the section I'm reading now titled, 'Psychologically Primed for Religion'.
.
Did you get a copy of the book, yet?
.
Nov 17, 2006 1:40 PM
Pink :
.
He touches on the ideas of what caused God in this section.
.
Nov 17, 2006 2:47 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I've read a lot of Dawkins - in terms of online articles, etc. There's a lot on the Internet, incl excerpts from his latest book. But I haven't yet bought the book. I'm waiting until the end of the semester. Trying to be disciplined. Of course, that discipline broke down today, when I bought <i>The Rising Tide</i>, Jeff Shaara's latest historical novel.
Nov 18, 2006 1:50 PM
Pink :
.
Dawkins gets into the ideas of how human beings get to be religious using a loose knit analogy of memes for genes.
.
He is sure to make the point that it isn't an absolute truth; but, the similarities are quite apparent. The word, meme, is not a common word and while most readers probably know what it means, I'm showing what wikipedia has for it here:
.
<b>Meme, noun: - </b><i>"a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one generation to another by nongenetic means (as by imitation) (Example: 'Memes are the cultrual counterpart of genes')"</i>
.
It's a little rigorous; but, the comparison comes through just fine.
.
Prior to this, Dawkins, talks about how the brain is divided into 'modules' where information about certain behaviors appear to be stored. He posits that a combination of various behaviors makes way for religious thinking. Actually, for anyone who takes the time to understand what he is laying down, it makes very good sense and helps us understand religious as an evolutionary development of society.
.
Nov 20, 2006 4:05 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I have heard and read these things before. I will give Dawkins the respect of hearing him out (or 'reading' him out, I should say), but it doesn't sound like he's breaking new ground here.
The one "twist" he puts on it is his implication that religion is a virus.
Nov 20, 2006 4:47 PM
Pink :
.
Right. He doesn't claim that he is breaking new ground. He is providing a survey of ideas.
.
The point you make regarding a 'virus' is not original either. I can't bring it to mind at the moment; but, I recall something I read some time ago that shows memes as being analgous to viruses. That makes sense a virus being something that mimics life; but, in fact, is not a life form itself. Maybe you can see his point if you consider 'other' religions rather than Christianity as being viruses?
.
Think so?
.
Nov 21, 2006 8:28 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Ahhhhh....this is where I think folks like you and Migisi one-dimensionalize Christian conservatives. I do NOT see other religions as "viruses." I don't thin of them that way at all.
In Romans 1-2, Paul wrote that God has implanted in every human heart an awareness of the divine and a desire to learn more. Paul explains that, for this reason, no one is without excuse. Everyone has enough of an awareness of God to seek God out.
I believe that religion is mankind's attempt to do just that. As with ANY venture, some are more committed to the search than others. Some are more successful in the search than others.
Hence, you have different religions and different sects and denominations within each of those religions.
I do believe, according to the Bible, that people must come to God through Jesus - BUT I also believe that God "is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
Do I know exactly how that's all going to be reconciled? No. Do I need to know? No. I just need to follow, by faith and to the best of my ability, God's leadership in my life and the teachings in His Word.
Nov 21, 2006 9:29 AM
Pink :
.
I have to leave; but, I'm going to respond to your last post first.
.
You wrote:
.
<i>"I think folks like you and Migisi one-dimensionalize Christian conservatives."</i>
.
I can't speak for the 'Nut; but, I get your point. That does happen and I probably do it a lot. Many people who participate here come with an extra rigid view of Christianity. We had one who logged in as "The Thorn" and he had an animated revolving sword in each one of his posts. Another claimed he was an "old timer in the Lord" and they both strongly advocated a rigid line. You seem a little less opinionated; so, it may not be fair to address you as though you were one of 'them'.
.
However, that being said, one thing I have noticed is that even moderate and many very liberal Christians never take these people to task. As such, they give tacit approval to the radicals of the far right. Could this be why people like me often expressa one dimensional approach to Christians like you--because you don't stand up against the radicals?
.
Are many 'Christians' afraid of what God might do to them if they stand up against radicalism in public?
.
Nov 26, 2006 4:47 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Well, I can't speak for anyone else but me, but I think a lot has to do with personality. I myself don't like to get into shouting matches or verbal slugfests with people. I don't like confrontation in general, in fact. So, I sometimes let things go that I shouldn't. But not always. I have stood up to folks here at the Suite, for example, on some issues - and that includes people that agree with me. I agree with Wendell, for example, more often than not on the religious issues -- but I called him out for saying of you (at one point) that you "don't believe in anything." I think that was clearly over-the-top. By contrast, when you said to Wendell to "shove it," I kept quiet. And probably shouldn't have. I think that was wrong too.
I do get defensive (as you've seen) when I sense I'm being unfairly attacked or criticized, but I also try to be fair-minded to others. I strive for consistency.
In general, I am the kind of person who wants everyone to hug. :-) Naive, I know.
Nov 26, 2006 5:00 PM
Pink :
.
<i>In general, I am the kind of person who wants everyone to hug. :-) Naive, I know.</i>
.
And, so, that's why you use the label, one dimensional christians?
.
Nov 27, 2006 5:43 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I don't think I used the label. I was clarifying that it seemed like you and Migisi were one-dimensionalizing conservative Christians. I think that was a fair assessment of some of the claims you all make. It does indeed seem like you lump conservative evangelical Christians together in one group and flail away at them.
Obviously, you have to use labels to some extent in order to keep posts short. I'm not faulting you or myself for that. It's just that I think we all have to realize that our labels are flawed and imperfect - and don't always fit.
Nov 27, 2006 7:46 AM
Pink :
.
I've always been for giving to others.
.
Labels are words, of course. No problem.
.
I don't think, so much, it is that 'claims' are being made; but, that people are trying to work out their confusions and unsettling questions they have--in their minds--that just won't go away. Migisi put it quite well when she spoke about people being stuck at a place where they cannot go backwards and cannot go forwards. Some of us are standing up and saying, "Well, what about this?". And, the way we might do that is by making 'claims'. And, some 'good guys' like you do their best to try to overcome our questions. Too many just run and hide.
.
16 Comments
