This is a fun one.
Will take a quick break from marching through How To Pray So That You KNOW You’ll Get Your Answer for a Friday Q&A.
Many years ago, I wrote an article as a response to a prompt asking, “How can you prove to me that God does exist without using the Bible or nature?”
I copied my answer below. In response to that, a man I will call N. wrote back in the past few weeks to challenge the central arguments of the answer. What followed was a great back-and-forth on whether or not our universe proves the necessary existence of its creator.
Enjoy, friends!
How can you prove to me that God does exist without using the Bible or nature?
You exist. Therefore, God exists.
Let me explain.
You exist.
That means you came from somewhere. You didn’t cause yourself to exist. Someone else caused you to exist: your parents.
That means your parents came from somewhere. They didn’t cause themselves to exist. Someone else caused them to exist: your grandparents.
And down the chain of causality we go, until we hit the beginning.
Our universe exists.
That means our universe came from somewhere. The universe didn’t cause itself to exist. Someone else caused it to exist: God.
Logically, it goes something like this:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
Everyone agrees with Premise 1 and Premise 2. That requires that the conclusion follows, because the logic is valid. The universe must have a Cause.
God exists.
But at this point, people object, because the conclusion is not what many people want.
Could the universe cause itself to exist? That breaks causality as well as basic logic.
Could the universe be eternal? Nothing about our universe is eternal. Everything we’ve discovered about our universe is limited by finite amounts of time, energy, matter, and space. The claim that the universe is eternal runs contrary to everything we’ve discovered about the nature of our universe.
Could the universe have been caused to exist by another universe? That doesn’t answer the question, but only moves it back a step. The prior universe still requires something to create it.
The conclusion is unavoidable: something had to cause the universe to begin to exist. This Cause has to be uncaused itself, as well as being powerful enough to create a universe. This Unmoved Mover therefore bears two of the intrinsic qualities of God: being eternal and being divinely powerful.
Or as the Bible declares:
For God’s invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
You exist.
So God exists.
N. Wrote:
Everyone agrees with Premise 1 and Premise 2.
No, we really, really, really don’t. You’ve been talking to the wrong “everyone”.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Does it? Have you ever seen anything “begin to exist”?
The universe began to exist
Did it? The current instantiation of the universe appears to have a beginning, but that doesn’t say anything about what was there before.
The universe must have a Cause. God exists.
And this is where your argument falls on its arse.
How do you get from “a cause” to “god”?
Even worse, how do you get from “a cause” to “the specific god that I was brought up to worship”?
Your precious Kalam Cosmological Argument is best summed up as follows:
I have no understanding of quantum mechanics, and cannot countenance the idea that the cosmos itself could be uncreated and eternal, so instead I posit that an uncreated, eternal, self-aware entity created it.
Because Occam’s Razor isn’t a thing.
(And 99% of the time, my arrogance is such that I claim that entity to be the deity I was brought up to worship.)
My Response:
Hello N.,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said:
Everyone agrees with Premise 1 and Premise 2.
No, we really, really, really don’t. You’ve been talking to the wrong “everyone”.
You do.
You said:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Does it? Have you ever seen anything “begin to exist”?
Of course. A painting begins to exist. The canvas and tubes of paint are not a painting. The painting begins to exist when the painter begins purposefully applying pain to the canvas.
Similarly with any story that begins to exist, or countless other examples.
A painting that begins to exist requires a painter. No painting begins to exist by itself.
You said:
The universe began to exist
Did it? The current instantiation of the universe appears to have a beginning, but that doesn’t say anything about what was there before.
Suggesting this is only one of many “instantiations” of the universe is an interesting idea, but lacks any concrete evidence. It’s a “blind faith” belief — maybe there were other instantiations of the universe, but you have no idea, and no concrete evidence of it.
You agree that our current, finite universe began to “appears to have a beginning.” You agree with this because it does have a beginning.
You accept both Premises 1 and 2.
Everything that begins to exist is caused to exist.
The universe began to exist.
You said:
The universe must have a Cause. God exists.
And this is where your argument falls on its arse.
How do you get from “a cause” to “god”?
Even worse, how do you get from “a cause” to “the specific god that I was brought up to worship”?
I don’t get to “the specific God that I was brought up to worship.”
I only get to God — whose existence and basic properties you can logically deduce from the beginning of the universe.
Whatever caused the universe to begin existing:
Must exist outside the universe, as it began the universe.
Must be powerful enough to create a universe
Must be uncaused itself
That yields an eternal (uncaused), omnipotent (powerful enough to create a universe), external Cause to the universe.
What else do you know of that is said to be eternal, omnipotent, and exist outside the universe?
You said:
Your precious Kalam Cosmological Argument is best summed up as follows:
I have no understanding of quantum mechanics, and cannot countenance the idea that the cosmos itself could be uncreated and eternal, so instead I posit that an uncreated, eternal, self-aware entity created it.
Because Occam’s Razor isn’t a thing.
(And 99% of the time, my arrogance is such that I claim that entity to be the deity I was brought up to worship.)
Occam’s Razor cuts my way.
It cuts off a wild series of “instantiations” of the universe, none of which are in evidence.
The simplest explanation of a universe that appears to have begun is that the universe DID begin to exist, and something outside the universe caused it to begin existing.
N. Writes Again:
Ah, yet another theist demonstrating their mystical ability to read people’s minds.
Not.
Of course. A painting begins to exist.
No, someone moves paint about onto a canvas, producing a painting. Nothing began to exist here; stuff was moved about into a different configuration.
You agree that our current, finite universe began to “appears to have a beginning.”
But that is not something “beginning to exist”.
You accept both Premises 1 and 2.
No, I reject them.
Moving matter into different configurations, or converting energy into matter, is not the same as an entire universe starting. You’re committing a category error by conflating them.
Just because we can’t see past a certain point doesn’t mean there is nothing to see. The parsimonious explanation is to not assume that this was the Ultimate Beginning Of Everything.
Must exist outside the universe, as it began the universe.
I would accept that, but I reject the need for the universe to have an external cause in the first place.
Must be powerful enough to create a universe
You’ve seen that demo where a barely-visible domino creates a cascade that ends with a human-sized domino falling over?
So, no “powerful enough” required.
Must be uncaused itself
Only to prevent an infinite regress.
I posit that the cosmos itself is uncaused.
Occam’s Razor cuts my way.
Only if you get rid of your “intelligent deity”; why would anything that exists ab initio have intelligence of any kind?
What else do you know of that is said to be eternal, omnipotent, and exist outside the universe?
The only thing I can think of that fits those criteria is “something some people made up to answer questions that would be better answered by ‘I don’t know - yet’.”
In other words, it’s a comfort blanket.
The simplest explanation is that the cosmos has always existed, and that there are limitations to how we see things that restrict our view to the current expansion period.
My Second Response:
Hello N.,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said:
Ah, yet another theist demonstrating their mystical ability to read people’s minds. Not
I’m not reading your mind.
I’m reading your words.
You said:
Of course. A painting begins to exist.
No, someone moves paint about onto a canvas, producing a painting. Nothing began to exist here; stuff was moved about into a different configuration.
Yes, moving paint about a canvas produces a painting.
In your own words, these actions are “producing a painting.” You’ll find “producing” is a synonym for “creating.”
The painting began to exist when the paint began to be moved about the canvas. Before those actions, the painting did not exist. After they completed, it did.
We refer to paintings like the Mona Lisa as created things. The Mona Lisa did not exist before it was painted. After it was painted, it does exist. It is a unique object with unique properties imbued upon it by its creator.
It’s the same with a book. Or each comment you type on Quora.
Your comments are not mere configurations of pixels. That might be how they’re conveyed to others, but they are more than that. You create the comments. Before you type them, they did not exist. After you typed them, they did exist. They accomplish purpose: you intend them to convey meaning.
Your own actions, and the expectation of what kind of result your actions will produce, prove that you do, indeed, believe things begin to exist, and that they must be caused to exist.
You have to cause your comments to exist.
If you don’t, they don’t exist.
You’re proving my points by living them out each time you reply.
You said:
You agree that our current, finite universe began to “appears to have a beginning.”
But that is not something “beginning to exist”.
And now you’re appealing to blind faith, like any religious person.
You agree the universe appears to have a beginning.
But instead of admitting that it does have a beginning, you appeal to blind faith: maybe it doesn’t have a beginning. Maybe something we’re blind to exists back there. You believe it by blind faith, and assert that you’re right — devoid of proof, devoid of logic, simply positing a blind faith position and insisting that it might be true.
You said:
You accept both Premises 1 and 2.
No, I reject them.
Again, you live them out every time you reply to me.
Your replies to me did not exist until you caused them to begin existing.
Your actions caused your comments to begin existing.
They are not mere “configurations.” You intend them to be unique, to convey unique meaning.
You create them.
You said:
Moving matter into different configurations, or converting energy into matter, is not the same as an entire universe starting. You’re committing a category error by conflating them.
I’m not talking about mere configurations or conversions. You are the one who limited the conversation down to that scope.
A beginning is a beginning, whether it’s the beginning of a comment or the beginning of a universe. Both need to be began by something that isn’t them.
You said:
Just because we can’t see past a certain point doesn’t mean there is nothing to see. The parsimonious explanation is to not assume that this was the Ultimate Beginning Of Everything.
I’m not appealing to what we can’t see.
I’m appealing to what we CAN see.
That’ll become more clear as we continue.
You said:
Must exist outside the universe, as it began the universe.
I would accept that, but I reject the need for the universe to have an external cause in the first place.
The universe is finite.
It must have an external cause.
Your assertion that the universe always exists fails to find any evidentiary support.
Everything about our universe is finite. Everything about it and every part of it are bound by finite limits of time, matter, energy, and space.
Even potentially infinite things, like the digits in pi, are not practically infinite. Make every atom in the universe a supercomputer, network them together, and have them calculate the digits in pi for a trillion trillion trillion years. They’ll have calculated a finite number of digits — not an infinite one. We are so bound in finitude that we cannot cross from finite to the infinite.
A finite universe cannot have existed forever. It’s a contradiction in terms. A finite thing cannot have existed infinitely.
You said:
Must be powerful enough to create a universe
You’ve seen that demo where a barely-visible domino creates a cascade that ends with a human-sized domino falling over?
So, no “powerful enough” required.
I have.
Now you’re the one making a category error.
That example demonstrates stored kinetic energy. It does not demonstrate creating anything. Nothing in that example is created. The energy is stored as the dominoes are set up, and released in cascading order when the example starts.
It has nothing to do with power required to create.
It’s a non sequitor.
You said:
Must be uncaused itself
Only to prevent an infinite regress.
I posit that the cosmos itself is uncaused.
The universe can’t be uncaused.
It’s finite.
Finite things can’t have existed infinitely.
Finite things begin to exist.
Like your comments. Each one is finite. Each one begins to exist when you start typing it.
Finite things can’t have existed infinitely.
They require something external to them to cause them to begin.
You said:
Occam’s Razor cuts my way.
Only if you get rid of your “intelligent deity”; why would anything that exists ab initio have intelligence of any kind?
Why wouldn’t it?
Again, I’m appealing to what we CAN see, not what we can’t.
What we CAN see is a finite universe that appears to have begun at a set point.
What we CAN see is that whenever someone begins to create something — such as when you sit down to type out a comment — intelligence is behind the creation. Intelligence is behind the decision to begin creating something that did not exist before.
You said:
What else do you know of that is said to be eternal, omnipotent, and exist outside the universe?
The only thing I can think of that fits those criteria is “something some people made up to answer questions that would be better answered by ‘I don’t know - yet’.” In other words, it’s a comfort blanket.
Again, I’m appealing to what we CAN see, not what we can’t.
I’m not appealing to an “I don’t know, therefore God” answer.
I’m appealing to what we CAN see: a finite universe which logically requires an external, infinite source.
You said:
The simplest explanation is that the cosmos has always existed, and that there are limitations to how we see things that restrict our view to the current expansion period.
The universe is finite.
It’s impossible for a finite thing to have existed infinitely.
N.’s Final Comment:
To be honest, I don’t have the time to respond in detail, though I appreciate the effort you’ve put in. I doubt we’ll ever be able to agree on this matter.
Just a couple of points:
You agree the universe appears to have a beginning.
No, I agree that the universe (not the cosmos) observably has a point where our ability to observe breaks down. That is not necessarily “a beginning”.
Regarding the “beginning to exist” argument: every “beginning to exist” you cite is a rearrangement of something that already exists. (If you want to label that “creation”, that is within the limits of the English use of the word.)
However, the “beginning to exist” that you apply to the universe is not a rearrangement of something pre-existing, but a “bringing out of nothing”.
We do observe that in reality: virtual particles becoming real. And you know what? That observable effect observably has no cause.
The universe can’t be uncaused. It’s finite.
a) Is it finite? Observations fail, so there could just as easily be something infinite stretching back.
b) I did not refer to the universe as being infinite, but the cosmos. They are two different things.
As for whether an intelligent (and hence complex) being could be a “brute fact” when a simple division between positive and negative energy cannot… if you can’t see why Occam’s Razor favours the latter, we will definitely never agree.
(At least you didn’t claim “timeless” as one of the properties of your creating entity; that one is ridiculously easy to counter.)
My Final Response:
Hello N.,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said:
You agree the universe appears to have a beginning.
No, I agree that the universe (not the cosmos) observably has a point where our ability to observe breaks down. That is not necessarily “a beginning”.
My friend, you’re really splitting hairs here to try to avoid the word “beginning.”
There is indeed a point beyond which our ability to observe breaks down.
This point is at the start of our temporal existence.
What others call… a beginning.
You try to avoid the word like the plague, still appealing to the blind faith that something might be back there that might let it not be a beginning that might let you avoid the obvious logical conclusion, if indeed it is a beginning.
You said:
Regarding the “beginning to exist” argument: every “beginning to exist” you cite is a rearrangement of something that already exists. (If you want to label that “creation”, that is within the limits of the English use of the word.)
However, the “beginning to exist” that you apply to the universe is not a rearrangement of something pre-existing, but a “bringing out of nothing”.
We do observe that in reality: virtual particles becoming real. And you know what? That observable effect observably has no cause.
Virtual particles do indeed have a cause. It just isn’t a cause as we’re used to.
The quantum vacuum is a bubbling sea of energy fluctuations. These fluctuations are what produce particle/anti-particle pairs.
They very clearly have a cause.
Which proves my point.
They begin to exist.
Because something causes them to begin existing.
You said:
The universe can’t be uncaused. It’s finite.
a) Is it finite? Observations fail, so there could just as easily be something infinite stretching back.
Saying “observations fail” is a cheeky way to avoid saying “every observation and measurement we’ve ever taken of our universe and everything about our universe is finite.”
Again, you rest your hopes in the blind faith that there might somewhere be something that isn’t finite about our universe.
You said:
b) I did not refer to the universe as being infinite, but the cosmos. They are two different things.
My friend, if you want to insist on separations of definition in two words that people often use interchangeably, you’ll need to provide the definitions you’re using.
I’m fairly confident I know which distinction you’re referring to, but without you stating it, how could I know for sure?
You said:
As for whether an intelligent (and hence complex) being could be a “brute fact” when a simple division between positive and negative energy cannot… if you can’t see why Occam’s Razor favours the latter, we will definitely never agree.
A simple division between positive and negative energy requires a pre-existing universe in which to exist.
In other words… complex.
A single, eternal, uncaused entity is FAR simpler than presuming an entire universe in which to exist before your positive and negative division can occur.
You said:
(At least you didn’t claim “timeless” as one of the properties of your creating entity; that one is ridiculously easy to counter.)
I posit “infinite,” which is the logical necessity.
A finite universe requires a pre-existing infinite, uncaused source, or else it could never come into existence.
This is why you posit an infinite universe. An infinite, uncaused entity does not need to be created.
But our universe isn’t infinite. It is finite, as a whole and in all of its parts.
That requires something else to be the infinite, uncaused source.
I remembered a verse in the Bible where Jesus said that anyone who believes can do the same things that Jesus did. Can you give me any examples of people receiving food from heaven and feeding a crowd? I won't go into "resurrections" or complete healings, as these phenomena can be caused by certain reasons that Christians can attribute to miracles. Have there been any such cases? Although no... Has anyone besides Jesus walked on water? Show me such cases, for example, now that we can document it?