Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Today would have never arrived if there were infinite days and no beginning. All matter is constantly changing and thus entropy demonstrates that energy is becoming less usable. Causality affirms everything that began to exist has a greater cause. Therefore, the universe began to exist, and the universe must have a cause.
The Beginning
The universe is full of effects for which every effect must have a sufficient greater cause. The universe is mass and energy in motion. Mass is stored energy, and energy is the ability for motion. Motion is an effect that must have a cause because an infinite regress is impossible, and so every motion is set in motion and is not eternal, and therefore, all motion was set in motion. This is all to say again that the universe had a beginning as everything within the universe had a beginning.
Causality
The universe had a beginning with only three considerable causes. Either the universe exists by necessity, began by chance from nothing, or was created by a Creator. Does the universe exist by necessity? Nothing exists by necessity that begins to exists or that would have already existed and always existed. Furthermore, the universe is contingent and thus cannot exist because of necessity. Something could possibly exist by chance. However, the probability that the universe came to exist from nothing is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing. An effect cannot exist without a cause. Something cannot come from nothing. Could one cause have created all material things — the universe? Every effect has a cause and every material thing is changing thus showing that nothing material is eternal. Therefore, there must exist one great cause at the beginning of the great chain of cause and effect that consists of the universe. This cause must transcend matter to have caused matter to exist. Therefore, the cause must be metaphysical — supernatural.
Identifying the Cause
Is the cause of the universe something or nothing? There must exist something since nothing has no effect. Does the cause create an effect? The cause must create or there would be nothing. Is the creating cause mindless or a mind? Natural laws operate the same way repeatedly and only upon what already exists. If the cause were mindless, then it would operate repeatedly without choice. However, for the cause to create something unique, then the cause must operate as a mind and by choice. Since chance cannot create anything with complex order without intelligence, no creator can create with order without a mind. The cause must be personal. The Creator must be a being, an intelligent person. Must the creator have enough intelligence to cause the grand effect of everything that exists? This must certainly be true since no part of the universe can originate from chance. Can the Creator create without power? No. The Creator must have all power as the great original cause for the grand effect of the universe. The Creator must be all-powerful. This Creator is an all-powerful personal Being who caused the universe and transcends the universe. By definition, this is God.
Conclusion
The premises above leave one undeniable conclusion that all physical effects have one metaphysical all-powerful supremely intelligent Creator who is the great cause and genesis of everything in existence. This confirms Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Also Psalm 19:1 affirms, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” In Romans 1:20, the apostle declared, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Nature’s God should compel more questions: “Would the all-knowing Creator contain and be all Truth?,” “Would He know all virtue and be the example of all virtue and the epitome of virtue?,” and “Would He be below and submissive to virtue or greater than virtue having created virtue, or would He be virtue in His essence?”
Read more: “Love Exists Because God Exists.”
I don’t really care what you believe Che though I do for your poor blind soul. The very fact of the matter is that “in the beginning” did not start with an effect, but must have started with a cause. But, you won’t admit anything nor address any of the fact nor show how I’m flawed in reasoning, but you’d rather assert error. This is not as much a scientific discussion since origins science can never be observable and, or testable. This is philosophic and logical to an honest heart. You’re a liar to yourself and to the world. I know that frustrates you.
Again, your belief in time possibly being eternal or being cyclical is impossible, since asserting such would mean that cause and effect are eternal, which is impossible as has already been shown.
LikeLike
I understand that you believe that causality started without a cause, an atemporal void or high-energy vacuum. Alright, you’re statement is made.
LikeLike
I’m starting to think that you’re not actually reading my posts. I clearly stated earlier:
Also this:
This would actually be the scientific objection to God as the Creator – because if God is the prime cause, what caused God?
Creationism requires the suspension of cause and effect in the special case of God. All I’ve been trying to get you to do is show a good reason for why God should be exempt from causality that doesn’t also apply to any of the other candidates for a prime mover that I have mentioned so far. Thusly, you’ve offered only two:
1. God is special.
2. I can’t understand how anythinge else could have done it.
The first is a case of special pleading, so I don’t think I need to focus on it too much. Your second reason is also worthless, because you cannot honestly tell me that you understand how God created the universe either. So we’re back to special pleading again.
For the record, I don’t accept any of the theories I’ve been presenting to you either. I simply don’t know what the first cause was – although I’m as certain as I can rationally be that whatever it might have been, it wasn’t a creative intelligence. This is for the very simple reason that a creative intelligence is complex enough that it would require a cause of its own, and so it could never explain anything.
On top of that, I’m not even convinced that there was a first cause. Maybe time is eternal. Maybe time is cyclical. It’s hard to tell.
So I’m not giving you these theories because I think they are good theories. Quite to the contrary. I think they’re terrible theories. I’m giving them to you to show you that the theory of an intelligent creator is just as illogical, just as unfounded, and just as unsatisfactory as all the rest of the theories that I’ve been suggesting to you.
If you can give me a good reason why the theory of an intelligent creator is superior to the participatory anthropic principle, please do give it.
If you can’t, then accept that your logic and your argument are both flawed. This by no means disproves the existence of God – it merely shows that the elimination of probabilities is in no way a proof of the existence of God.
LikeLike
I’ll check it out from the library. Thanks Gordy.
LikeLike
Scott, have you read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins? It’s an absolutely incredible book! I’ve read it 5 times already. Now, I don’t agree with most of his arguments because he belligerently tries to fit God inside the “science box”, he makes some pretty good idea nonetheless and really forces one to at least reprocess their defenses.
While I’m still a 6-day Creationist, Dawkins should should be read by everyone, including Creationists.
LikeLike
What would the eternal something be? Is it matter but not without energy and energy not without motion and motion not without a cause? There’s nothing left to be the eternal cause but a void, nothing, or something metaphysical. We know how something never comes from nothing and how effects come from no cause. Yet, you exclude cause and effect without reason.
What possibilities can there be? You’ve had more than enough comments to present one, but in so doing you have to discard cause and effect though you nor anyone has ever observed the non-existence of such, so one would have to lay aside reason and science. In looking for the cause, is it something or nothing? It must be something since nothing has no effect. It must be either internal or external, but as we’ve noticed, it cannot be internal being self-made. Does the cause create an effect? It must. Is the creating cause a Creator or a non-creator? The cause must be the Creator. Can a Creator create without intelligence? No. The Creator must have enough intelligence cause the grand effect of all existence. Can the Creator create without power? No. The creator must have power and enough to for a sufficient cause for the grand effect of the Universe.
You believe that time is only an illusion. Come on. Did time came from nothing too? No. Time is the order of events, which both certainly exist. Then, everything within time is an illusion according to you. This is the abyss that many would rather wonder in than truth. Then again is there truth? Is anything really true? That’s another stupid question. Answering “no” means there is truth and that makes “yes” the only right answer, so there must be truth.
LikeLike
Oh – in the car analogy, you’ve also reached the conclusion that you’re out of gas, but you’ve tried to show that because of your logic you don’t have to check the gas tank. Even if you logic pointed soundly that the gas tank was empty – which it does not – you would still be required to test your conclusion by actually taking the meter reading.
This ties into your argument, because even if your logic was sound, you would still have to support your conclusion of a divinely intelligent creator with some hard evidence.
LikeLike