A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of course there is no God).
(and if God is not God, then of course there is no God).
The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
So why then doesn't God need a cause? Because the atheist's contention misunderstands the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn't need a cause. "But wait," the atheist will protest, "if you can have an eternal God, then I can have an eternal universe! After all, if the
universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause." Yes, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and therefore didn't have a cause. In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: either the
universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. (Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; we have only two choices: the universe, or
something that caused the universe.) The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. For all the scientific and
philosophical evidence tells us the universe cannot be eternal. So, by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option-something outside the universe is eternal.
When you get right down to it, there are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by
something else (it can't be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything). According to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must
be caused by something else-by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but it is not based on those religions-it is based on good reason and
evidence.
universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause." Yes, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and therefore didn't have a cause. In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: either the
universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. (Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; we have only two choices: the universe, or
something that caused the universe.) The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. For all the scientific and
philosophical evidence tells us the universe cannot be eternal. So, by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option-something outside the universe is eternal.
When you get right down to it, there are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by
something else (it can't be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything). According to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must
be caused by something else-by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but it is not based on those religions-it is based on good reason and
evidence.
So, what is this First Cause like? One might think you need to rely on a Bible or some other so-called religious revelation to answer that question, but, again, we don't need anyone's scripture to figure that out. Einstein was right when he said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is
blind." Religion can be informed and confirmed by science, as it is by the Cosmological Argument. Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence
we've discussed in this chapter. From that evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:
• self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the
First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must
be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is
without limits, or infinite;
• unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of
nothing;
• supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such
incredible precision;
• personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness
into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has
no ability to make choices).
blind." Religion can be informed and confirmed by science, as it is by the Cosmological Argument. Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence
we've discussed in this chapter. From that evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:
• self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the
First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must
be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is
without limits, or infinite;
• unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of
nothing;
• supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such
incredible precision;
• personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness
into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has
no ability to make choices).
These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God. Again, these characteristics are not based on someone's religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from the scientific evidence we reviewed, and they help us see a critically important section of the box top to this puzzle we call life.
Made with Bullet