The Bigger Cause
Observation: The Universe had a beginning, so what was the cause?
Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. If the universe began to exist, then it has a transcendent cause.
Premise 3. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
This is a deductive argument, and this specific one is a version of the Cosmological Argument. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. Premise one is common sense, and follows from the law of cause and effect, which science and rational thought is based upon. Premise two is simply based on the fact the universe cannot create itself, so if it began to exist, then the cause must be something beyond itself (transcendent). Premise three was shown to be true in the previous discussion on the universe’s beginning. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
The next logical step is: What was the cause of that beginning? Again, there are only two possibilities.
Hypotheses (The Claims of Different Worldview Models)
Below is what different worldview models claimed before all the tests came in.
Agnostic Model – Agnostics either claim they do not know, or claim it is impossible to know what the cause of the universe is.
Atheist Model – There was no cause. The universe is eternal, and therefore needs no cause. This was accepted as fact by the scientific community, and was a primary belief of atheism. Once the beginning was proven, atheists now try many ideas of natural causes, which we will cover later.
Biblical Model – The cause (God) that led to creation is outside of space, spiritual or immaterial (not made of matter or energy of the universe; supernatural), outside of time, eternal, an uncaused first cause, all-powerful, miracle-working, personal, and acted with a purpose.
Buddhism, Hinduism – Buddhists believe similar to atheists. Depending on the time period as Hindu beliefs change, Brahma, the creator, is part of the universe with no beginning, or in a cyclic universe born from a lotus in Vishnu’s navel, or hatched from a cosmic egg.
Tests & Data, Analyses, Conclusions
What do we know about the cause of the universe?
A video from a science documentary (https://vimeo.com/145795089) explains the beginning well.
The bottom-line is the biblical model was shown to be accurate, while all competing beliefs, including atheism, agnosticism, and the general view of science were shown to be entirely inaccurate on a fundamental issue.
The entirety of the universe, all the matter, energy, space, time, all natural and physical things making up the universe, had a beginning, which is shown by the blue boundary line in the image below. So, if all natural things, even time, had a beginning, and therefore exist on the right side of the box, then what caused or brought those things into being from nothing, MUST be outside or beyond those things (properties 1 & 2), and be on the left-side of the box.
The cause cannot be natural as it brought about nature; material, as it brought all matter into being; subject to time, as it brought about time. If the cause were part of those things, then it too would need a cause. “The world began abruptly in an act of creation. … That there are what I or anyone would call super-natural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact”,[1] said Astronomer Robert Jastrow, and echoed by astronomer, physicist, mathematician Sir Arthur Eddington, and others.[2]
Also, something outside of time, which itself did not have a beginning, is on the left side of the box, and therefore, does not require a cause, but can be an uncaused, eternal, first cause (point 3). Scientists and philosophers wrote of the need for an uncaused, first cause, but just thought the uncaused, eternal, first cause was the universe. Now the universe, or anything in it, is not an option, as it all had a beginning – all natural stuff is on the right side of the blue line – and was caused.
[1] Robert Jastrow, as quoted by B. Durbin, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, Vol. 26, 6 August 1982, p. 15.
[2] Eddington, Arthur. “The Expanding Universe,” Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1940, p.117.
(Property 4) A cause needs to be greater in power and order than its effect, and the effect in this case is the sum of all power and order in the universe. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of the best proven laws in all science, basically states the universe started with a certain amount of usable energy to do work over time, which is power, and a certain amount or capacity for order, and every moment both usable energy and order decrease (entropy always increases), which means both were highest at the beginning & the cause must be greater in power and able to account for the order in the universe.
(Property 5) The law of conservation of matter & energy states matter/energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, yet all the matter and energy was created at the beginning, from nothing. That is miraculous, or outside natural limits of the universe, and at least miraculously rare in our universe.
Realize – These properties match the biblical description of God given thousands of years earlier.
What does the supernatural, eternal, all-powerful, miracle-working cause of the universe sound like? Saying it sounds like God is not ad hoc, me reading science back into the Bible, because this exact description of God was predicted by the Bible thousands of years ago. Again, if you want to claim this is not unique, find another example that predicts a number of clear, specific claims, against all science & other beliefs of the time, and is proven accurate thousands of years later by modern science.
Further, (Property 6) The cause of the universe must be capable of choice, which means the cause is a personal being. This is discussed in the next article, but whatever cause you choose to believe, must be sufficient to explain other applicable discoveries, including: (a) the fine-tuning found throughout the universe (discussed in the next set of articles), (b) the predictive model provided by the Bible (discussed briefly above), (c) more.
In addition to what the Bible claimed about the beginning of the universe (covered in the previous article), the properties of the first cause given above were similarly provided thousands of years prior to modern science discovering the same. Predicting what will be discovered, particularly when going against all competing models (other religions and belief systems, including atheism, agnosticism and the general view of science) is a standard and prominent support for the reliability of the model. Humanity alone is not capable of providing what the Bible provided, if this were not true, then we would have other comparable examples. One cannot rationally walk past this point, unless other examples show the Bible is not entirely alone in this. Name other books, or anything ever produced by humans, that matches the number, and level of clear, accurate predictions, given so far in advance of scientific recognition.
Furthermore, the next article will cover why a personal purposeful agent is the only cause in scientific and philosophical peer-reviewed literature that is a potential cause of the universe, as all the other options are shown to have fatal flaws, and no supportive evidence.
How can you believe in the supernatural, or miracles?
Science has shown the cause of the universe is outside of, or beyond nature – that is what supernatural, or transcendent, means – beyond the natural.
And the greatest miracle already occurred (the beginning), and is proven by science.
What is a miracle? Some event violating natural laws and common experience. The entire universe popped into existence from nothing, which violates the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy, and is certainly miraculously unique. The whole universe coming into existence from nothing – if a God has done that – then any other miracle, like Jonah, walking on water, or the virgin birth is simple in comparison. In addition, the evidence for Christ’s resurrection will be given later.
This is just a “God of the gaps” argument.
A “God of the gaps” argument is when people, for example, don’t understand what makes the sun go around the sky so they claim it is Ra in his chariot, or don’t understand the cycle of seasons or lightening, so in the absence of knowledge, they fill in the gap with a made-up story about a god.
That’s exactly what we don’t have here. This is not an argument from a lack of knowledge, we are arguing from what WE DO KNOW about the beginning and cause of the universe, and then using the same logical approach we use in every area of science and life – abductive reasoning, which is just determining the best explanation of the evidence. No god was made up to fit what modern science found, the Bible already made its claims thousands of years prior to the discoveries, as in a predictive scientific model. However, notice those who reject God as the cause have tried to fill in the cause with a natural explanation, which is “Nature of the gaps” thinking, as they have no evidence to go on.
If God created the universe, what created God? Who designed the Designer?
God was not created, but instead is an eternal, uncaused, first cause.
The reason why these questions come to mind is because we think the cause of the universe is comparable to the things in the universe, which is a mistake in logic known as a category error. God (or whatever the cause of the universe is) is in a different category than anything in the universe. As noted in question 5, the universe, and all natural things, had a beginning and are physical objects bound and subject to the dimension of time. The cause of the universe, on the other hand, didn’t have these properties, and if it did not have a beginning, then it is a candidate to be the necessarily uncaused, first cause.
Scientists and philosophers had expected an eternal, uncaused, first-cause, most just assumed it was the universe itself.
The argument we make for a cause of the universe is the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause (law of causation; basis of science).
Premise 2: The universe began to exist (ALL evidence supports this).
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Everything in the universe had a beginning, therefore, it is all contingent (depends on something else to cause it all to exist), yet something outside of nature and time does not require a beginning, and is capable of being the uncaused first-cause. The reason philosophers have recognized the need for a first-cause is to avoid the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes (it is impossible to go infinitely backwards with every cause needing a cause as we would never reach “now”).
Dawkins quote of “Who designed the designer,” assumes God and the universe are
comparable to a computer-maker and the computer. However, aside from the category mistake mentioned already, another one is involved here because unlike the universe, computer and computer-maker, God is a non-physical entity, not composed of complex parts functioning together – an entirely different category.
Isn’t science against religion?
Science and Christianity mutually support and benefit each other. A great example is the whole issue of a beginning of the universe. Scientists and religious leaders have disagreements, but science and the Christian model not only support each other, but also the relationship is symbiotic, meaning if both are turned to a topic, each can corroborate the other, and help address errors that people bring into either. The Christian claims can be tested like other scientific models, as has been shown in these sections. Furthermore, in science and other areas of life, we look at trend-lines of evidence, as trends are able to overwhelm opinions, hopes, misinformation, biases, etc. The trends noticed are continuously increasing evidence validating the Christian model and invalidating every other model. These trends are tremendously telling invalidations, or at least serious warning signs against every worldview belief system, but provide continuous biblical verification.
Aren’t Christians just supposed to have “blind faith?”
Why do you believe that?
Christians are expected to have a reasoned faith, and those who look for reasons, find them.
People misunderstand “faith.” Definitions are needed, and better if the definitions can be kept simple:
REALITY = The way things are.
BELIEFS = The way we think things are.
TRUTH = Telling it like it is. Telling the reality of a situation.
If your BELIEFS fit REALITY, then they are TRUE, and a solid foundation to base your life on.
FAITH = The act of trusting/believing in something, based on reasons.
Faith has 3 parts: (1) The object of trust (for, example, a chair); (2) the content of the faith (the chair will hold me up when I sit on it); and (3) the reason(s) for the trust (rarely ever dropped by a chair, looks sturdy, the Punk’d prank show has been off the air for years).
The same is true with any faith, including worldview beliefs. It is intellectually dishonest to claim only belief in God uses faith. Belief in God (called theism), belief there is no God (atheism), belief we cannot know if God exists or not (agnosticism) are ALL faith beliefs.
- A REASONED FAITH is trusting in something based on the evidence.
- A BLIND FAITH is trusting in something without any evidence.
- A DELUSIONAL FAITH is trusting in something against the evidence.
With just this one section in astronomy, we find the biblical model has proven, scientific reasons supporting its accuracy. Only having a reasoned faith greatly increases your probability of being on solid ground. If you reject the Christian faith, what reasons and evidence support your faith?
The Bible calls for a Reasoned Faith. Why?
Many, who claim to know and follow the Bible, neglect the clear direction to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you to give a reason of the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15) Why did God use checkable events through the Bible to demonstrate authority and accuracy, and validate claims, if God just wants blind faith? God tells us we can know he exists by looking at nature. The Bible states that God will “equip us to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” (2 Corinthians 10:5) Why would he equip us if he didn’t also expect us to use that equipment? Why give us the ability to reason, if he wanted us to turn off our brains? Jesus may love the faith of a child, but is that blind faith? No, it is speaking about the lack of humility and submission adults sometimes show, thinking they know better than God.
A child jumps into the scary deep-end of a pool because that child has reasons to trust dad, who is there waiting and says it will be all right – the child has reasons to trust. And that is what God wants, we will never be on the level to totally understand on God’s level, so it is important we develop a level of trust.
WHAT’S NEXT
We have seen only the Biblical God fits the properties required for a cause, and did so with predictions made thousands of years before science discovered these facts. Further, every other belief system not founded on the Bible was disproven on this foundational issue of origins (where did we come from).
Now, we will look at every other possible option for the cause of the universe, and display some amazing facts:
- The question of what caused the universe is much simpler than people think.
- In all of scientific and philosophical peer-reviewed literature, there are only 4 general options for the cause of the universe.
- 3 of those options have been shown to have fatal flaws and have been rejected by the scholarship – leaving only 1 unfalsified, and more, having evidential support.