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 doesn’t have an eternal existence.
From this same video, Re: Proof God is Real Chris postulates that time couldn’t be infinite; otherwise we could never have arrived at our time today. Therefore, all things, including time, has had a beginning, because even if other membranes caused the existence of the membranes that caused our universe to exist, ultimately there had to 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—contains the laws of physics etc. that 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. This idea or understanding points to an intelligent source for our universe—not merely a Big Bang 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 our universe can be understood, that it is not a random thing without any sense to its existence or reason for the things that occur within it, that 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.