I admit, this question I received from a student in my 4th
grade Sunday School class made me smile. Still, it’s a fair question, if not
entirely correct.
Atheists love to go after this. The idea of a supernatural being
Who has always existed—isn’t that unscientific?
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote Five Ways that the
existence of God can be demonstrated. The first three are cosmological (that is,
having to do with the nature and origin of the universe), the fourth is more abstract,
and the fifth is teleological (having to do with purpose). Read them for yourself!
1. Motion. Aquinas argues that everything that is in motion needs to be moved by something else. His analogy of fire is a little confusing, but considering that Aquinas died over four centuries before Newton published his Laws of Motion (Principia, 1687), which state that an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force, this is actually pretty brilliant. This means that there must be a First Mover that needs nothing else to move it. This argument borrows heavily from Aristotle.
2. Causation. Next, he argues that everything has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. It doesn’t make sense to have a regressively infinite series of causes, because a series of causes must have a beginning. Therefore, there must be a First Efficient Cause, one which is uncaused. This Cause is God.
3. Contingency. Everything we see is contingent on something else for its existence. So why does something exist instead of nothing? If there used to be nothing, there would still be nothing—unless there is something in the universe that necessarily exists (that is, it is impossible for this thing or person to not exist). The being Who necessarily exists and on Whom everything else is contingent is God.
2. Causation. Next, he argues that everything has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. It doesn’t make sense to have a regressively infinite series of causes, because a series of causes must have a beginning. Therefore, there must be a First Efficient Cause, one which is uncaused. This Cause is God.
3. Contingency. Everything we see is contingent on something else for its existence. So why does something exist instead of nothing? If there used to be nothing, there would still be nothing—unless there is something in the universe that necessarily exists (that is, it is impossible for this thing or person to not exist). The being Who necessarily exists and on Whom everything else is contingent is God.
Taking these three arguments, it seems reasonable to believe
that there is a supernatural being who is the First Mover, is the First
Efficient Cause, and has always existed. What does atheism offer? Without God,
matter and energy would have had to always exist or spontaneously to come uncaused
into existence. Matter would have exploded, with nothing causing the explosion.
Plus, there is no explanation for why
anything exists at all, because there should be nothing.
See? It’s really naturalism that’s unscientific in
explaining the origin of the universe. The theory is implausible given the
basics of physics. (Someone who says that the laws of science didn’t always
apply has to take that assertion by
faith.)
So, who made God? The answer is that nobody made God. He is,
by definition, the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, and The One Who Necessarily
Exists. And there’s nothing unscientific about that.
“For from him and through him and to him are all
things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)
"What does atheism offer? Without God, matter and energy would have had to always exist or spontaneously to come uncaused into existence. Matter would have exploded, with nothing causing the explosion."
ReplyDeleteI've never debated an atheist who argued for spontaneous existence. Most argue for the existence of actual infinites-- a proposition which is much harder to argue against. While it's possible that I've merely just not debated anyone who advocates spontaneity, I doubt anyone would use that argument.
"See? It’s really naturalism that’s unscientific in explaining the origin of the universe."
Naturalism is called "naturalism" because it relies on the natural sciences. You might consider arguing that belief in God (or lack thereof) falls outside the realm of science, and therefore should not be subject to the same scientific process (hence the term "supernatural"-- being outside of nature).
Decently argued. I may be slightly jaded since I've utterly abandoned the cosmological argument, but decent argument nonetheless.
Thanks, Anthony! It's good to hear from someone with experience in the marketplace of ideas.
DeleteTrue, the idea of infinite time (with matter and energy always existing) is more plausible, but do the atheists you've debated believe in infinite causality or infinite contingency as well? That would be a fascinating discussion indeed.
I think we're on the same wavelength here. Because naturalism refuses to even consider the existence of God a possible explanation for the universe, naturalists settle for a conclusion that seems to violate the laws natural science has established. While you're right that the existence of God is not a scientific question, the Bible does talk about how creation testifies to the influence of a Creator.