Is there a God?
(Note: This is a book excerpt. Click to see the table of contents or the next page. Also, feel free to follow the author for more on the books release. Copyright 2020)
Chapter 3
One of the strongest arguments for the existence of a God is known as the Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument, or the argument from a first cause, comes in many forms. One of its most popular forms is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, put forth like this:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
If we accept premise one and premise two to be true, then we must accept the universe had a cause. The argument dates back to the days of Aristotle. Indeed, you’ve probably already heard of, or at-least conceived of the argument before. Our daily experience lends this argument an almost intuitive feel. How could the conclusion not inevitably call upon a supernatural creator, something outside the realm of science, something uncaused and pre-existent to everything we know?
People often bring up this argument in support of God. It is easy for anyone to observe the natural world, and see that “nothing comes from nothing.” The Greek philosopher Parmenides made this distinction when the earth was still flat. That “nothing comes from nothing,” and everything we observe “seems” to have a cause, is the foundation of the cosmological argument.
To use an example, you’ll never see a suspension bridge appear out of thin air. Someone made that bridge, or maybe we should say, the bridge had a cause. Engineers labored devoutly, and with their own reason and intellect, they scoured over mathematical equations to make sure it would be safe. But if we push the causes back further, the origin of causes for the bridge can be traced back indefinitely. One particular beam was made, or should we say caused, by a plant that molded the molten iron. Before the molding of the iron, this iron had to be brought to the factory, namely by a truck from an iron mining company. As we continue to trace the causation behind the bridge, we eventually land on the fact that the iron itself was formed by well-known geological processes. We do this back until the beginning of time, when… mysteriously, there is no cause! We do not know what caused the universe in which this bridge began to exist. But that can’t be, everything we know of has a cause…? So maybe God did it, right?
To most, God seems like a reasonable explanation for this first cause. After all, if everything we observe in the natural world has a cause or something that precedes before it, then it must be that the first cause of the universe had to be supernatural. Nature tells us nothing comes from nothing, and therefore, our universe arising from nothing had to be a supernatural event. This is the line of reasoning behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Of course, one might find it interesting to see how the religious fall in line with the cosmological argument. If they’re a Christian then they are inclined to believe it supports a Christian God. If they’re a Muslim then they are inclined to believe it supports a Muslim God. But the Cosmological argument does not proclaim which God is the true God, if anything all it does is proclaim that there is at least one “God.” The Cosmological argument says nothing about whether the cause of the universe has brothers and sisters. The Cosmological argument says nothing about whether the cause of the universe had brown hair, blue hair, or no hair. It says nothing about whether his name is Jesus, Allah or Jim Beam. In fact it doesn’t even say God is a he. The Cosmological Argument leaves it as open as to whether God is a he, she, it or thingy majig. For all we know, the Cosmological argument could be evidence for the great shiskamobob.
What’s more, we cannot assume premise one and premise two. Premise one claims that whatever begins to exist has a cause, but we were not present at the beginning of the universe to know that this is the case. And in regards to premise two, it could very well be that the universe has always existed in some shape or material form and that that is perfectly natural. Even though we cannot explain how this would be, we have to remain humble and admit that there may be aspects of the universe we either do not yet understand or never will. To say that we cannot understand the first cause of the universe, and therefore a God must have done it, is actually much more irrational than simply saying we cannot understand the beginning of the universe. By saying God created the universe, you are using something you do not understand (i.e., God) to explain away something you do not understand (i.e., the beginning of the Universe).
I’ll repeat that again because it’s important. By saying God created the Universe, you are using something you do not understand, that is God, to explain away something else you do not understand, that is the beginning of the Universe. If we warrant that it’s possible for something we do not understand to exist, namely an immaterial or timeless God, then we must warrant it’s possible for a timeless and material Universe to always exist. Neither of these two possible beginnings can be explained rationally and therefore neither of these two positions form a rational argument. No one can explain the existence or presence of a God anymore than they can explain the existence of a universe in the absence of a God.
Or, as Clint Eastwood says in the movie Magnum Force,
“A man’s got to know his limitations.”
Can we believe that our fallible brains are capable of knowing everything? Can we say the origins of our universe have a chance of being definitively determined? Can we find a library on earth which could contain all that has been said on this subject? If there is one thing that humans resolutely disagree over, it is how and for what purpose our universe might have been created. The answer one gives to that question is often a product of their culture and place in history. Those who defy this norm are plentiful, but even they do not agree on the matter. In this domain we see the religious argue with the religious, the scientists argue with the scientists, the historians argue with the historians, and the charlatans argue with the charlatans. Be wary of the man or woman who claims to know how the universe came into existence. Ask yourself, is it likely that this man or woman has the answer, or is it more likely that they have far surpassed their limitations?
We do not know what caused the universe. And you know what? That is okay. “I don’t know,” is an honest answer.
Faith
At this point in the book, many would argue that faith is the substance which should fill this void of doubt or skepticism. The idea is that God wants us to choose him, that he wants us to be given the chance to believe one way or the other. This is to say, God does not want his presence to be so known that we feel forced or obligated to believe. From a religious standpoint, this line of reasoning makes sense. Nevertheless, there are some important points that we should be mindful of.
For one, there is a difference between blind faith and faith that is backed by reason. If you think it is okay for you to blindly believe in your God, then do you believe it is okay for others to blindly believe in theirs? If it is okay for the baptist preacher to blindly believe in his God, then is it okay for the aspiring martyr or terrorist to blindly believe in theirs? One cannot hold a double standard here. If you are going to believe in a religion, then please, I ask you to consider the arguments for and against your particular religion. Do not just blindly accept the texts and precepts.
If a later edition of this book addresses various religions in a more in depth manner, then I will post those conversations into the appendix. For now though, I’d rather leave the truth value of different religions on the table. But again, remember that religions make a direct claim on your reality. As we discussed in chapter one, our belief about our reality and our past directly affects our morality. Religion is a heavy hitter when it comes to directing the course of your life. While it may lead you into the right direction, and while that is for you to decide, please bear in mind that it leads many people in the wrong direction, and it is not always healthy.
The Physicists and Scientist Steven Weinberg is claimed to have penned the following words which are applicable here:
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
I agree with Mr. Weinberg, but I do think the following point should be mentioned: religion is not the only phenomenon that can make good people do bad things. Human morality can be influenced by a significant number of hindrances. Whether it be alcohol, a bad job or a simple delusion like the wrong political ideology, there are many things in this life which can influence us in a negative way. Unfortunately, these hindrances not only affect ourselves, they also affect others around us. If this book does anything for you, my hope is that it will at least make you more skeptical of outside influences.
Everyone has a confirmation bias. Psychologists have long proven this. We search out information which confirms our beliefs. When we’re not doing that, we’re watching our favorite TV show. If we don’t like a particular song, we don’t listen to it. If we don’t like a particular sport, we don’t watch it. If we don’t like a particular food, we don’t eat it. Similarly, if I like the bible and I know the quran stands in contradiction to it, then why would I ever pick up a quran? Few Christians have read the quran, just as few muslims have read the bible. Questioning our favored beliefs is just as unnatural as questioning anything else we might favor. Make those beliefs the most important thing in your life, or play the game of telling a person that questioning their beliefs is wrong and you’ll see how quickly this problem can be amplified.
But that aside. What follows is some practical advice on how we can live better lives, regardless of the religions we either do or do not follow.
