The First Cause



How can we tell that there is a God simply from looking at the evidence of the universe? There is a very interesting argument known as the Kalaam argument, which basically traces the existence of God and/or intelligent design through the natural universe. The argument (also known as the cosmological argument) consists of three parts. I will outline them as follows:

Part One - Nothing currently exists without being caused. Ever try to conceive of something without being able to imagine a cause? Look around you. Maybe you are working at a desk while you read this. How did the desk get there? Because someone created it. For everything that exists, there was a cause. This is common sense really, so lets move on to the next point.

Part Two - The Universe Exists. With the invention of the Hubble telescope, man was able to see in much greater detail the galaxy in which he exists. This is a humbling and daunting thing. Galaxies, nebulae, stars, and the universe are all vast... we are so small. There isn't much left to explain here: anyone can see that the universe currently exists!

Part Three - Therefore, the Universe Has a Cause. This seems like no big deal at first, right? But think about it, science tells us that there was a Big Bang that occurred stemming from something called a singularity. Materialists and Atheists used to maintain that the universe has always been, and will always be. We now see much scientific evidence to the contrary. The universe had a beginning and will have an ending. It is winding down. The real question then is who or what caused the universe?

Fine then. There is still a loophole though, right? So what if the universe was caused; that just pushes back the question farther to ask "who caused God?" Not so fast. Lets move back to the example of the desk for a moment. If I created the desk that you see in front of you, then I am necessarily outside the desk. In other words, it is possible to create something and then be apart from that something - to exist outside of the boundary and control of that thing which was created. This is how God can exist without a cause. Time and space did not exist until He created them for us. It is His creation, so He is not subject to its rules. This is difficult to envision for us because we know of no such conditions here on earth. But in fact that is just what the Bible relates to us through scripture. That God has no beginning and no end. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I personally could imagine no other force able to create such a complex system as a universe. Can you?

Comments

  1. The Kalama Cosmological Argument? Really? I swear everyone seems to throw out the same arguments repeatedly. Did you look up flaws of the Kalama argument? Counter Arguments? Here, let me help you out.

    Let’s see, where does the first problem arise? Ah yes, part one. You write, “For everything that exists, there was a cause. This is common sense really, so lets move on to the next point.” That may be true of desks and chairs; however, it is certainly not necessarily true for everything. What if the universe has no cause? What if it has always been? “Oh, but the singularity, the big bang,” you say, “those things surely show that the universe has a beginning.” No, they do not. First off, the singularity is a point in time, traced so far back, that we cannot trace our universe back any farther. Why? Well because general relativity fails at that point and physics, as we know it, stops being relevant. That does not mean that there was a beginning. Second, the Big Bang Theory does not preclude a beginning to the universe either. Ever heard of “The Big Crunch” or more importantly “The Big Bounce”? The Big Bounce theory posits that our universe may be and/or may have always been continuously expanding and contracting. This theory does of course have its own points of contention, but the significance here is that there are possibilities which you are failing to consider.

    Alright, part two. Well… I’ll grant you all of that.

    As for part three, I answered most of that above.

    So, let’s go on to the conclusion. I personally can’t see any flaws point by point, but overall the conclusion you draw is rather presumptuous. You are no where near proving that your “force that created the universe” is the god of the Bible. It could be any other god. In fact, it doesn’t even need to be a god that got the universe going. You say at the very end of your conclusion, “I personally could imagine no other force able to create such a complex system as a universe. Can you?” The fact the neither you nor I can conceive of such a force does not mean such a force doesn’t exist and saying so is a logical fallacy. That fallacy is known as an argument from ignorance, or more specifically an argument from personal incredulity.

    Well thanks for your time. I hope the above proves insightful and useful to you. If you have any questions for me feel free to send me an email.
    crypstopiza@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment, good stuff. I actually had a discussion with an atheist the other day (not to say that you necessarily are one), he also upheld the point that certain evidance only proves there may be a creator - not necesarily the God of the Bible, or even a single God at all. I answered as follows: the evidance points to at least a beginning (or an end to scientific knowledge as you pointed out, a.k.a a "beginning"), and the rest God has revealed about Himself to us in the Bible. We have this knowledge through direct revelation, because He told us so. When you take this in comparison to the other, and also what the Bible says about the 2 ideas - you get monotheism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well to clear up some ambiguity, yes, I am currently and atheist. However, I don't agree with the atheist in your story who holds that "certain evidence only proves there may be a creator". I would say instead that current evidence does not rule out the possibility of a creator, but it isn't proof of that possibility. Also, not only am I saying that such a cause (if it exists) is "not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a single God at all", I'm saying that it might be nothing more than a natural phenomena. By that I mean something which required no intelligence whatsoever. If that is what you were saying I apologize for re-stating it, but again, I'm trying to clear up ambiguity here. I wasn't quite certain if you meant non-intelligence or if you meant multiple gods when you said "not necessarily ... a single God at all".

    Again, even labeling the point at which our science seems to fail a "beginning" does not mean that nothing preceded it and/or that the universe came from nothing. That also means that labeling the point as such does not mean our universe needed a cause or that it had one.

    Finally, your leave off with some remarks about God's revelations about Himself to us from the Bible. Are you saying that God revealed Himself through the Bible, which one can know because that is what the Bible tells us?

    The same closing couple of sentences apply here as to my above comment, but I would like to make a correction and I don't see and edit option. My email is cryptospiza@gmail.com, not crypstopiza@gmail.com. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Part One - Nothing currently exists without being caused. Ever try to conceive of something without being able to imagine a cause? Look around you. Maybe you are working at a desk while you read this. How did the desk get there? Because someone created it. For everything that exists, there was a cause. This is common sense really, so lets move on to the next point."

    It is also common sense that nothing that exists is uncaused. Ever try to concieve of something that was uncased? Sure, you might say God. But assuming your conclusion in a premise is simply begging the question, and would be "an illogical faith" as opposed to "a logical faith".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts