What Caused God?

Answering the Atheists and Agnostics on the Origins of God

© Brian Tubbs

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? 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?
.
Page:
16 Comments

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo