The Logic of God

24 Feb
from Google Images

from Google Images

In his video Re: Logic of God, Islam & Evidence for Rational Theists, (HERE) Chris raises the question, “Where does God come from?” While he agrees with the premise of a fellow You-Tube advocate that nothing comes from nothing, Chris believes his question refutes his opponents logic that God is the cause or Creator of all that exists.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is self-defeating. Obviously something or someone caused the universe and all contained therein to come into existence. We know from the laws of physics that for every activity there must be a cause. Naturalists believe the Big Bang is the cause for bringing the world into existence, but what caused the Big Bang. In another video Re: Proof God is Real (HERE) Chris theorizes ‘branes’ or membranes colliding together caused the Big Bang. Nevertheless, if this is so, something else must be the cause of the membranes, because we know from the laws of physics that all physical matter has a beginning. Physical matter decays and does not have an eternal existence.

From this same video, Re: Proof God is Real, Chris correctly postulates that time couldn’t be infinite; otherwise we could never have arrived at our time today. Therefore, all things, including time, must have had a beginning, because even if other membranes caused the existence of the membranes that caused our universe to exist, ultimately, there must have been an original cause for all physical things that have come into existence. For lack of a better phrase, that would be an uncaused Cause or God. There simply is no other frame of logical reference for that, because as Chris has already admitted, nothing comes from nothing. Conversely, we can infer from the laws of nature that everything (physical) comes from something or Someone (God).

In the second part of his video, Re: Logic of God, Islam & Evidence for Rational Theists, Chris questions the reasoning of his opponent that the universe is intelligible. Without having seen the video to which Chris is responding, I believe I can say, nevertheless, that Chris has misunderstood his opponent’s argument. In the brief 2 minute video Chris wonders if his opponent is arguing for a message from an intelligent Being (God), which he tells us he cannot find. In the video Chris gives the example that, if he sent a letter to someone, the letter represents or points to an intelligent source (i.e. Chris), but how does the universe show it has come from an intelligent source, if it doesn’t contain a discernible message from God?

Again, without having seen the video to which Chris intends his response, I believe the argument is that the very fact that the universe can be understood points to an intelligent source—i.e. because it contains such things as the laws of physics, which often not only takes a doctorate to understand properly, but even then the knowledge we have points to a greater degree of knowledge yet to be understood, shows it cannot be random. This idea or understanding points to an intelligent source for our universe—not merely a Big Bang, which itself was produced by the collision of two or more membranes which were produced by other non-intelligent sources and so on ad infinitum. Rather, it is, because we are able to study and understand our universe, that proves it couldn’t be a random thing. Randomness is simply not a lawful event. Instead, our universe seems to have sense to its existence; it seems to have a reason for the things that occur within it, and from this one can postulate an intelligent source. After all, is there anything in the natural order of things we can study that shows it has been produced by chance or has no direct cause?

If nothing within our laboratory (our universe) tells us that anything comes from nothing, or that an observed action doesn’t have a cause, or that something intelligible doesn’t point to an intelligent source, then honesty compels us to say: everything that we know exists comes from something else outside our universe. Therefore, there must ultimately be a single cause for all that exists, and, because our universe can be understood, that ultimate cause of everything must be intelligent.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 24, 2015 in atheism, naturalism


Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: