
When it comes to the existence of God, sometimes I get tired of shouldering the entire "burden of proof." In fact, I think it's time that the atheist take his seat in the dock of truth while the Christian asks question after question demanding answers that can be scientifically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. What is evil? How did the universe really begin? I'll be calling this approach "anakrinetics," which comes from the Greek word "anakrino" meaning "to question or examine." Anakrinetics is simply apologetics on the offensive. I don't know. Maybe I'm being too aggressive.
In my experience, the vast majority of things believed and held to be true cannot be scientifically proven with absolute conclusiveness. God's existence is no exception. Evidence of His existence can be seen throughout nature and in every field of study, yet God will never be able to be plugged into an equation or formula just to satisfy the rationalist minds of an era. He cannot be contained by our conceptualization. That being said, I'll reluctantly take my place on the stand once again to discuss what I believe to be one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument communicates that, apart from God, there exists no plausible explanation for the beginning of all things. Theories such as the Big Bang and evolution attempt to explain how life developed, but they fail to address how it began. The theoretical “ramp” of cause and effect is constructed, but there is nothing to set it on - no starting point. The argument focuses on the vital issue of origins and holds to three primary premises: the universe had a beginning, this beginning was caused and the cause was personal.
The universe can accurately be described as a spatio-temporal world, confined by both space and time. These limitations of finitude place the universe and all that it contains in subjection to the laws by which it is governed. Philosophy, mathematics and science help us know and understand these laws. For example, we know through philosophy and mathematics that infinity exists only in theory, and that an actual infinity can be neither crossed nor realized. In an eternal universe, the present moment—or now—could never actually arrive. The present depends upon a starting point, and infinity has neither a beginning nor an end. This concept can be compared to jumping out of an infinitely tall bottomless pit: not only is it impossible to reach the end, but it is impossible to even get started. The jumper will fail to reach any measurable point of progression.
The Greek mathematician, Zeno, presented a paradoxical argument demonstrating a similar idea—that the concept of infinity renders movement mathematically impossible. To move from Point A to Point B requires crossing an infinite number of other points in between. Because the number of these other points is infinite, Point B will never be reached mathematically. However, Zeno’s Paradox recognizes that movement is possible in reality (i.e. Point B will eventually be reached), which proves that an actual infinity can never be realized. Because the present moment has arrived, and because progress is a reality, we know we are living in a spatio-temporal world where infinity exists only in theory. Thus, the actual universe could not have existed eternally. It must have had a beginning.
Science confirms this fact, as well. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics reveals that the universe is running out of its useful energy and it cannot be reversed (e.g. the sun cooling off). If the universe is eternal, the entropy process would have ended the universe infinitely long ago. Because it has not, and because it eventually will, the universe must have had a beginning.
The universe not only has a beginning, but that beginning is caused. Science tells us that nothing in this world comes into existence ex nihilo, or “out of nothing.” In other words, every effect in nature has a cause with which it is relationally associated. This is known as Causality. Many scientists point to the Big Bang as the great cosmological event that began life in this universe. According to this theory, a “primeval atom”—or some other primordial hot and dense condition—exploded at some finite point in the past and produced the ever-expanding universe of today. The problem: If the atom was material (which is assumed), and the point in time was finite (which is also assumed), then it becomes an effect that demands a cause. In other words, what caused the Big Bang? This question must be asked for every explanatory natural cause that is suggested, until we are faced with the philosophical problem of infinite regress. In other words, we are forced to ask the question, “And where did that come from?” for an infinite number of causes.
Claiming that a supernatural God began this process escapes the problem of infinite regress in that God is, by definition, “the uncaused Creator of everything.” As the eternal Author of the universe, He is not confined by its laws of space and time. Some may ask, “Who or what caused God?” This is similar to asking the question, “What does an invisible man look like?” By definition, a man who is invisible cannot be seen. If I ask what he looks like, I’m asking a question that changes his nature of invisibility, and he is no longer the thing I’m asking about. In other words, if an invisible man looked like anything, he would no longer be invisible. If I ask, “What caused God?” then I am inadvertently changing His very nature as the Uncaused Cause. The first natural effect must have had a supernatural cause.
This Cause is also revealed to be personal. Whatever caused the first natural event in the universe had to have the power to initiate motion without something happening to it first. A bicycle has many parts, most of which are connected and depend upon a previous part for motion. To initiate the collective movement of these parts, however, requires a free moral agent engaging in the volitional choice of pedaling. Whatever caused the beginning of the universe had to have the ability to choose to begin it, or refrain from beginning it, without any earlier cause forcing it one way or the other. God is this free moral—and personal—agent.
Although arguments such as these do not necessarily validate the specifics of the Christian faith, they help establish the foundation upon which Christian apologetics are built: There is a God and He is personal. More importantly, He desires a personal relationship with His creation – with you!