If something cannot come from nothing where did god come from

Tags

Creation Divine Existence God God's Existence God's Self-Existence Intelligent Design Meaning

Author : Wayne S. Walker

“…God who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps truth forever.” (Psalm 146:5-6).

As noted in our last article, while we cannot prove the existence of God absolutely, we can show from the evidence that it is more reasonable to believe in God than to disbelieve. This article begins an examination of the evidence upon which reasonable men can base a faith in God.

One piece of evidence is the fact that the universe exists. To explain this fact, we are faced with a couple of choices. Either something came from nothing, or something has always existed. If the latter is true, then either matter is eternal or mind (intelligence) is eternal. Even though some have denied that the universe actually exists, saying that it only seems to be here, to do so is absurd because our own senses indicate that there is such a thing. The immediate question that comes to mind is, how did it come about?

The axiomatic principle of cause and effect states that something cannot come from nothing, that every effect must have an adequate cause. The wristwatch that I wear on my left arm did not just happen all by itself, someone had to build it. Therefore, our first choice is answered. Something did not come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. What is it? Is it lifeless matter? Or is it intelligent mind?

In dealing with this question, Bertrand Russell, a noted unbeliever, once said in a debate on the British Broadcasting Company, that the universe is “just there, and that’s all.” However, this kind of response does not satisfy inquiring minds who want to know. The principle of cause and effect further affirms that a series of effects must have a beginning, a first cause capable of producing it. There is a scientific law, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in the universe is running down, as from a starting point. It is now believed by most scientists that the universes is losing energy and slowly running down. This leads to the conclusion that matter is not eternal. There is only one alternative. There must an eternal, intelligent Mind which serves as the first cause to explain the existence of the universe.

The Bible offers this same argument. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4). Thus, God is presented as the divine First Cause by which was brought into existence the universe and everything that is in it, which in turn obviously serve as evidence for His existence. Paul wrote, “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.” (Romans 1:20).

Hence, Christians firmly believe what Moses wrote, that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). No more reasonable explanation has ever been offered. The only power great enough to be the cause of all that we see and know is the God of the Bible. “Praise the Lord, for He hath spoken; Worlds His mighty voice obeyed. Laws which never shall be broken, for their guidance He hath made. Hallelujah! Amen!”

This entry was posted in Evidence. Bookmark the permalink.

I have heard a few atheists object to this argument by questioning the veracity of the basic metaphysical principle that something can only come from something on the grounds that we have never experienced nothing to know whether or not it is possible for something to come from nothing, and thus we cannot know that it’s impossible for something to come from nothing.  While we may not have any direct experience of something that comes into being from nothing, it does not mean it’s not possible.  Indeed, in the case of the universe it was not only possible, but it actually happened.

There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning.  For starters, the objection assumes that the principle in question is an empirical principle formulated by inductive observations of a large collection of somethings (a posteriori).  Since every something we encounter was caused to exist by a prior something, we conclude that something only comes from something.  It is possible, however, that our experience is limited, and if we encountered a larger collection of somethings we would find at least one example of a something that came into being from nothing.  This characterization of the metaphysical principle misses the boat by a long shot.  It is an a priori metaphysical principle whose truth is wholly independent of our experience.  A mere reflection on the notions of “nothing” and “something” makes it clear that something cannot come from nothing.  Nothing is the absence of any and all things: no matter, no energy, no substance, no potential.  For something to come into being, it has to at least have the potential to do so.  Since nothingness lacks even potentiality, it is not possible for something to come into being from absolutely nothing. 

Then there is the problem of begging the question.  These atheists appear to be reasoning as follows:

(1)   If the metaphysical principle is true, then the universe has a cause and its cause is God
(2)   God does not exist
(3)   Therefore the universe does not have a cause
(4)   Therefore the metaphysical principle is false (i.e. it is not evidence for God’s existence).

The crucial premise here is premise two.  It is presumed from the start that God does not exist, and this presumption is used to invalidate the metaphysical principle, which in turn invalidates the inference to theism from the origin of the universe.  The atheist begs the question because the existence or non-existence of God is what we are trying to determine, and thus the proposition “God does not exist” should not serve as a premise in the argument.  Would the atheist accept the following parallel argument?:

(1)   If the metaphysical principle is true, then the universe has a cause and its cause is God
(2)   God exists
(3)   Therefore the universe has a cause
(4)   Therefore the metaphysical principle is true (i.e. it is evidence for God’s existence).

No.  He would charge us with begging the question, and rightly so.  So why should we think premise two in his argument is true, particularly given the fact that the metaphysical principle constitutes an a priori reason to think God exists (to cause the universe to exist)?  The atheist must do more than merely assert that God does not exist; he must provide evidence in support of this claim. 

If the atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, then he can invalidate the theistic inference from the metaphysical principle by providing some independent reason to think the universe came into being uncaused from nothing.  This is problematic as well.  He can’t appeal to scientific evidence because the methods of science make it impossible to identify uncaused entities, and there are no physics of non-being.  He can’t appeal to logic either because there is no logical reason to think the universe had to come into being uncaused from nothing.  Reason moves us in the opposite direction.  The only reason for thinking the universe came into being from nothing is if one presupposes that God does not exist, which begs the question.

Finally, what if the logic of the atheist’s objection was applied to other matters?  Greg Koukl provides a great example.  What if I said “I exist” and someone asked me how I know that?  I would respond by pointing out that if I didn’t exist, I could not contemplate whether I exist or not.  Since I am contemplating it, I must exist.  What if the person responded to my reasoning by saying, “You have never known what it is like not to exist and thus cannot know whether it is possible to contemplate your existence if you do not exist.  You would have to experience non-existence in order to know that it is impossible to contemplate your own existence while not existing before you can claim that your ability to contemplate your own existence proves that you exist.”  We would rightly find this response to be foolish and obviously flawed.  In the same way we can know that one must exist to contemplate their own existence, we can know that something can only come from something else.  These are obvious rational intuitions that need not, and should not be doubted unless we have overwhelming reasons to do so.