WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE GOD EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Why should we believe in God? Most of us have struggled with that question at some point in our lives. I mean, God is supposed to be invisible, right? So how can you possibly know God exists if it's impossible to see Him? A lot of people think it's just a little bit too "convenient". You may think that the "definition" of God is conveniently stacked so it is impossible to either prove or disprove His existence. That way, nothing can shake a believer's ill-conceived belief system.
Some people who don't believe in God think they have investigated the issue quite a bit. They have their list of reasons for their unbelief and they will argue them vociferously. Other people are undecided, and maybe have never really looked any further than their every day experience. No angels have ever appeared in their dreams and told them that they're about to have a baby, so they feel like they really don't have any reason to believe. Maybe you're in this category. Maybe you genuinely want to believe, but without evidence, you just can't do it. Or maybe you're a hard-core atheist or agnostic and you're just reading this article for a few laughs. Well, no matter what led you to click on the link that sent you here, this article is for you.
We're going to talk about God solely from the perspective of logic and cosmology. If you are put off whenever someone tries to convert you to Christianity by taking out a Bible, this article is for you. You will not find one single reference to the Bible here (although you will have to suffer through one reference to Star Trek). I understand that if you are a non-believer, you probably don't put too much credence in the validity of the Bible anyway (validity, I might add, that also can be proven, but that would be jumping two articles ahead). Therefore, I willingly take up the burden of convincing you that God exists without even cracking open His book.
There's one more thing you need to understand. You won't walk away from this article a Christian. Also, despite what the catchy title says, you won't walk away from this article 100% convinced of the existence of a divine God. The complete argument for God's existence actually takes up the first two articles on this site, and the argument for Christianity takes a lot more. However, this article is the first step in both those arguments, and if you truly approach it with an open mind, you should walk away at least ready to entertain the possibility that God exists.
Atheism and agnosticism
For those of you who are really new to all this, let me explain the difference between an "atheist" and an "agnostic." An atheist is someone who firmly believes that there is no such thing as God in any form. An agnostic is someone who is noncommittal. They claim that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. They don't claim that God does not exist (as does the atheist), but rather they claim that it is impossible to prove that He does.1
Both of these positions suffer from the same logical problem; they rely on proof of a negative. It is much easier to prove that something is true than to prove that it is not. This is because if you can observe only one example of a phenomenon, then you know it is true. However, in order to disprove it, you have to eliminate every single possible theory by which it could be true.
Let me provide an example. Suppose two researchers living in Antarctica set out to prove that the sun exists. They each prepare themselves for a one-month long study during which they will be looking for the sun. One researcher schedules his study during the "sunny season" (i.e., the time of year when the sun is up in Antarctica 24 hours a day). He is able to call off his research on day one. He sees the sun on the first day, and therefore knows that it exists. Even if the sun subsequently sets and he doesn't see it for a long time, he will still remember seeing it before.
The other researcher schedules his study during the "dark season", when the sun may not be seen for months at a time. He doesn't see the sun during the entire course of his study, and concludes that it does not exist. Is his conclusion correct? Of course not. The mere fact that he didn't see the sun doesn't mean that it does not exist. In order to prove that the sun does not exist, he would have to disprove every possible explanation of its existence. In other words, he has to disprove every explanation for why he may not have seen it (such as the fact that he was simply sitting at a place on the earth where the sun doesn't shine for extended periods of time). This is the inevitable problem with proving a negative (i.e., proving that something does not exist). It requires you to disprove an infinite number of possible explanations for the failure to observe a phenomenon.
The same is true in the assertion that God does not exist. Atheists typically advance an argument similar to, "since I have never seen evidence of God, He cannot exist." 2 This is obviously a logically flawed argument. Just as the researcher who scheduled his study during the dark season cannot conclude that the sun does not exist, the atheist cannot conclude that God does not exist based upon a perceived lack of evidence alone. 3 In order to prove that God does not exist, they would have to disprove an infinite number of possible explanations by which He could exist, even if they personally have not seen the evidence.
Recognizing the impossibility of this task, some people have turned to agnosticism. These people know that they could never affirmatively prove that God does not exist. So instead they try to say, "If it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, then it is also impossible to prove that He does." They refuse to believe in God because they have convinced themselves that it is impossible to prove He exists. The irony is that in their efforts to avoid the logical problems with atheism, they have committed the same logical error. To prove that anything is "impossible" is to prove a negative. Atheists claim that God is "impossible", and therefore seek to prove a negative. Agnostics claim that proof of God's existence is "impossible", and therefore they seek to prove a negative too.
The fundamental flaw with both atheism and agnosticism is that they both seek to prove a negative. Therefore, they both fall apart upon the introduction of proof of God's existence. After all, you cannot claim that God does not exist, or that it is impossible to prove His existence, when faced with the precise proof you demand.
The evidence for the existence of God is vast, and far too much for one article. Therefore, this article is only going to take us so far. It is only the first step toward belief in the God of the Bible. However, this article will provide the evidence for some of the most fundamental truths about God. Specifically, it will prove that something created the universe. It will also prove three things about that "something": (1) it exists outside the universe, (2) it is not subject to the laws of our universe, and (3) it is eternal (i.e., it has existed before the dawn of time).
Cosmology, General Relativity, and the Big Bang
In a nutshell, "cosmology" is just what it sounds like, the study of the cosmos. Scientists in this area often study the origin of the universe and how it behaves. Albert Einstein made a great contribution to cosmology with his theory of General Relativity. Basically, Einstein demonstrated that time, space, and matter are all related and all relative. A full description of the entire theory would take up an entire book in and of itself, but we'll hit a few of the high points that are relevant to this argument.
Imagine if you are standing on a moving train holding a tennis ball. Now when you drop the ball, to anyone onboard the train the ball appears to drop straight to the ground. But imagine, if you will, someone standing on the ground outside the train. If that person could see the falling ball on the train, it would seem to be moving in a parabola. The ball moves forward at the same rate as the train while it is also falling downward. The result is a parabolic curve:
Einstein described these two phenomena in terms of fixed versus non-fixed coordinate systems. This will take you on a flashback to high school geometry. Do you remember plotting points on an x and y axis like this?
This helps us plot points in two-dimensional space. There are numbered points along each axis, starting in the middle and going out in either direction (positive numbers on one side and negative numbers on the other). Any particular point on this grid has two "coordinates". For example, if a point has coordinates (3,4), that means that you count out three points along the x-axis, then go up 4 points along the y-axis to arrive at the designated point.
Of course, we don't live in a two-dimensional world, so if you want to depict the real world, you need to add a third axis that comes out perpendicular to the other axes. This is usually depicted as follows:
In this scenario, each point has three coordinates, one for each axis. This allows us to plot a point in three-dimensional space. This is called a "system of coordinates."
Now let's go back to our train example. The world surrounding the person standing on the ground next to the tracks could be depicted as a three-dimensional system of coordinates. When the train is viewed from the perspective of this man, the train appears to be moving through that system of coordinates. But if you were to ask the man on the train, he would also see the world around him with its own system of coordinates. That system of coordinates is moving along with the train. But from the perspective of the man on the train, the system of coordinates belonging to the man on the ground actually appears to be in motion.
Think of it this way. To the man on the ground, the man on the train appears to be moving away rapidly. But to the man on the train, the man on the ground appears to be moving away rapidly. Now most people are probably tempted to say, "yes, but there is a difference; the man on the train is REALLY moving whereas the man on the ground is standing still." Using Einstein's lingo, the man on the ground is in a "fixed" (i.e., non-moving) system of coordinates, but the man on the train is in a "non-fixed" system of coordinates. But wait just a moment. Is the man on the ground really standing still? No, he is not. The man on the train is standing on a moving object, but so is the man on the ground! He is standing on the earth, and as we all know, the earth is rotating and racing rapidly through the cosmos. So the earth only APPEARS to have a fixed coordinate system when viewed by someone within that system. Someone in outer space looking at the earth would think that the person on the ground was in motion just like the man on the ground thinks that the person on the train is in motion.
So is the person in space in a fixed coordinate system? According to General Relativity, the answer is "no." There are no fixed coordinate systems. Even space itself is non-fixed. In fact, one of the most significant implications of Einstein's theory is that space HAD to be either expanding or contracting. It cannot be fixed. We'll talk about the implications of this for the existence of God later, but first let me tell you a little bit more about relativity and its explanation about the interrelationship of time, space and matter.
At the beginning of this discussion of General Relativity, I mentioned that Einstein showed how time, space and matter were all related and all relative. Here is what I meant by that. Picture our tennis ball again. How far does it travel while it falls? In other words, how much space does the ball traverse along the x-axis before it hits the floor of the train? The answer to this question will depend upon which system of coordinates you are in when you are viewing the ball. From the train's system of coordinates, the ball does not move along the x-axis at all. It just falls straight to the floor. But when viewed from the earth's system of coordinates, the ball moves along the x-axis at the same rate as the train. It moves in the parabola motion illustrated above. From the perspective of that system of coordinates, the ball traverses a significant amount of space along the x-axis before it hits the ground. From the system of coordinates for the man in outer space, the ball crosses even more space before it hits the floor. Thus, the very concept of space is relative. It depends on the system of coordinates from which you view the subject.
Time works the same way. To illustrate this point, picture two bolts of lightning striking the train track. One bolt strikes 10 miles behind the train and one strikes 10 miles in front of the train. At the time they strike, our man on the ground is standing right next to the train. The train is still in motion, so immediately after the lightning strikes, the train moves away from our man on the ground.
Now did these lightning strikes really occur simultaneously? From the perspective of the man on the ground, we would say "yes." After all, the light from each bolt will reach him at the same time. The light from each bolt travels the same distance (10 miles) in order to reach the man on the ground. So they both reach him at the same time.
But what if we examine the two bolts from the perspective of the man on the train? The train is constantly moving away from the bolt that struck behind it, but toward the bolt that struck in front of it. As a result, the light from the bolt in front of the man on the train will reach him BEFORE the light from the bolt behind him. The light coming from behind takes longer to catch up to the train, whereas the train is closing the gap between it and the bolt in front of it, so the light from that bolt takes less time to reach this man. The result is that the man on the ground would say that these lightning bolts were simultaneous, but the man on the train would say they were not.
Now this is a very basic introduction to General Relativity. It is just meant to give you a very general understanding of how time, space and matter are relative (hence the word "relativity" in General Relativity) depending on the system of coordinates from which you view events. Following these very basic principles through to their logical (and mathematical) conclusion, Einstein came to some very profound results. For example, Einstein theorized that large bodies of matter actually warp the space and time around them. For a two-dimensional example, picture a large sheet that you and a colleague are holding tightly between you creating a perfect two-dimensional plane. The sheet represents space. Now place a bowling ball (i.e., matter) in the middle of the sheet. The sheet bends and dips in the middle around the bowling ball. The presence of the bowling ball causes the sheet around it to be distorted. This is admittedly a simple, two-dimensional example of a three-dimensional concept, but it illustrates Einstein's point.
Matter does not just occupy space. It warps space around it. The same is true for time. This theory actually forms the basis for the Star Trek principle of warp drive. Picture a piece of paper 11 inches long. Now imagine you have a miniature Starship Enterprise trying to travel from one end of the paper to the other. The paper represents space. Through normal space, the Enterprise would have to travel the full 11 inches.
Now when Captain Kirk tells Scotty to initiate the warp drive, what he does is create an artificial large body of matter (i.e., the "warp bubble"). Essentially, he "fools" space into thinking there is a large body of matter right in the middle of it (much larger than the Enterprise itself). This causes the paper to bend and the two ends of our piece of paper to be brought closer together.
The result is that the Enterprise has to travel a much shorter distance to get from one end of the paper to the other (bearing in mind that the Enterprise is located inside the artificial large body of matter, so it does not need to travel all the way around the warped space).
This principle has been confirmed through astronomical observation. For example, if you look at a distant star through the corona of the sun, the light from the star will appear to be distorted. When you look at the same star when its light is not traveling adjacent to the sun, the star appears normal. This has led scientists to conclude that the space immediately around the sun (i.e., a large body of matter) is warped just as Einstein predicted.4
Now as I mentioned above, one of the implications of General Relativity was that the universe would have to be either expanding or contracting (because there are no "fixed" coordinate systems). At Einstein's time, the general scientific consensus was that the universe was static. Therefore, he included something called the "cosmological constant" in his equations. This was basically a "fudge factor" that would allow the universe to remain static even if the rest of his equations were true.
Later astronomical observations, though, confirmed that Einstein's original calculations were correct. The universe was expanding (he would subsequently call the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder"). Specifically, all distant galaxies from the Milky Way exhibit "red shift." If an object is moving away from you, the light coming from it is slightly shifted toward the red spectrums, so that it will appear slightly redder than if it was stationary. The light from objects coming toward you is slightly shifted toward the blue spectrums. The effect is too miniscule to be noticed by the naked eye in relation to objects here on earth, but it is noticeable in distant galaxies, showing that these galaxies are moving away from us.5 Most significantly, this red shift is observed in all directions. The Milky Way is not the center of the universe.6 The conclusion, then, is that the distance between galaxies is expanding, supporting Einstein's theory that space itself is expanding.
Again using a two-dimensional example to illustrate a three-dimensional concept, picture an inflatable rubber ball that is not quite fully inflated. The surface of the ball represents space. Ignore the inside of the ball. The universe is thought to be eternal in the sense that if you start out at one point on the ball, and start traveling in one direction, eventually you will travel all the way around the ball and get back to your starting point.7
To illustrate the expansion of the universe, place two stickers at different places on the ball, a few inches apart. Now start inflating the ball more fully. As you blow more air into the ball, the distance between the two stickers will increase. This is similar to how space is thought to expand.
If we were to run the expansion in reverse backwards through time, eventually the entire universe would close in on itself and come together at one point. This is the basis for Big Bang theory. The idea is that at some point in the past, all matter, time, and space were compressed into one point, then exploded in the Big Bang and began the expansion we see today.8
The Big Bang as evidence for God
This begs the question of what happened before all time, space, and matter were compressed at one point and gets into something called the "Kalam cosmological argument." This argument states as follows:
(1) Anything that comes into existence has a cause.
(2) The universe came into existence.
Therefore,
(3) The universe has a cause.
Big Bang theory suggests that the universe, at some point in the past, came into existence. Running time in reverse, all space, time and matter would collapse into one point until they cease to exist.
If the universe itself came into existence at some point, something had to cause it to come into existence. This gets into part (1) of the Kalam argument. In our experience, nothing spontaneously comes into existence. Think about it. Can you provide even one example in which something goes from a state of non-existence into a state of existence without some agency initiating the change? Left to their own devices, objects in nature tend to maintain the status quo. In order for change to come about, something has to initiate that change. For example, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich will never make itself. In order to change from slices of bread, peanut butter, and jelly, into one unified sandwich, a causal entity (i.e., a person) must be involved. If the universe similarly came into existence at some point in the past (as Big Bang theory requires), then something must have caused it to exist.
Now some skeptics may argue that we cannot "know" that a cause is required for the universe even if it did come into existence at some point in the past. After all, we have no affirmative evidence of such a cause. In fact, I am assuming the existence of a cause in order to argue for what I believe is the source of that cause (i.e., God). To a certain extent, this objection would be correct. We cannot know with 100% certainty that the creation of the universe required a cause. But this objection misses the point.
We are not trying to prove the existence of God to 100% certainty. For reasons I explain in the next article, requiring 100% certainty of God's existence would be setting up a double standard between knowledge of God and every other kind of knowledge we claim about our existence. What we are exploring here is what is the best explanation for the phenomenon of our universe based upon the evidence that is currently available. Can you provide me with even one single example of something going from a state of non-existence to a state of existence without some causal entity initiating the change? If not, you must concede that based on our currently available evidence and understanding, the best explanation for the creation of the universe is that some causal entity was involved. For more information on this point, see the article, "Does the Universe Require a Cause? An in-depth analysis of the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument" in the "Philosophy & Misc." section.
I would also point out that the general responses to the Big Bang (as will be discussed later in this article) typically concede that if the universe came into existence it would require a cause. Instead, the responses take one of two approaches. Either they try to (1) argue that the universe is eternal, and therefore never "came into existence", or (2) concede that the universe came into existence, but argue for a natural as opposed to a supernatural cause.
Therefore, if the Big Bang is true, there must be some causal entity that created the universe (whether that causal entity be natural or supernatural). Notice that this argument does not prove the existence of a supernatural creator. It is theoretically possible, based upon this argument alone, that the universe was created by some natural entity. Similarly, we cannot conclude that the creative entity was intelligent based upon this argument alone. However, we can conclude a few things about this creative entity from the Big Bang:
1. The creative entity pre-existed the universe. In order to cause something to come into existence, the causal agent must pre-exist the thing it causes. Therefore, the entity that created the universe must have pre-existed the universe.
2. The creative entity is not subject to the laws of our known universe. The laws of the universe did not exist until the universe itself existed. Because the creative entity pre-existed the universe, it also pre-existed those laws, and therefore cannot be subject to them.9
3. The creative entity is eternal. Recall that time, matter, and space were all created at the Big Bang. General Relativity showed that they were all interrelated. If time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, and if the creative entity existed prior to the Big Bang, then the creative entity existed prior to time, and cannot be subject to it. 10 Whatever this entity is, it has existed eternally.
What designed the designer?
Some atheists or agnostics don't believe in a creator of the universe because they claim it produces a logical contradiction. You see, many "theists" (people who believe in God) argue that God must exist because the universe is simply too fine-tuned to have been created without the help of an intelligent agent. The laws of physics, for example, are extremely fine-tuned. If they were even a little different, life could not exist.11 However, atheists and agnostics respond that if all this complexity is "designed", then the designer itself must be even more complex than the universe. In other words, if the complexity of the universe requires an intelligent designer, then that intelligent designer must be even more complex than the universe it creates. After all, a non-complex being certainly could never create a complex universe. But if everything that is fine-tuned, or complex, requires a designer, what are we to do with our complex designer itself? The existence of a complex designer would require an even more complex designer to create the first one, which in turn would require an even more complex designer, ad infinitum. It would be a never-ending cycle (hence the atheists' objection). This begs the question of, "What designed the designer?"
At first glance, you may think that this argument is a better fit under my next article, which specifically deals with the evidence for fine-tuning. You'd be right in the sense that the atheist objection deals with a lot of the evidence cited in that article. However, the response to the atheist argument actually lies in the cosmological evidence we just discussed.
Ironically, the atheist argument is based in part upon the Kalam argument, just like the argument for God. It assumes that anything that came into existence requires a cause. In other words, if the entity that created the universe came into existence at some point, it too would require a cause (i.e., an even more complex designer). However, this assumes the creative entity ever "came into existence." Remember what the Kalam argument says. It states that anything that "came into existence" requires a cause. But we know through General Relativity that whatever the causal agent of the universe may be, it is eternal. It never "came into existence". It was always in existence (existing before time) and therefore does not require a cause. By requiring an eternal regression of causes (i.e., one designer caused another designer which caused another designer, ad infinitum throughout eternity), the argument of "What designed the designer" assumes an eternity of time past. But we know from General Relativity that this is not true. Time had a beginning. Eventually, logic necessitates the existence of an entity that exists outside the realm of time, which in turn removes the necessity for a cause for that entity. The answer, then, to the question, "What designed the designer?" is, " Nothing, it has always existed."
The problem with an eternal regression of causes
Allow me to provide a logical argument demonstrating why there must be a beginning to time. Bear in mind that if time had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin, and that something must exist outside of time; i.e., an eternal creator.
Imagine if I were to tell you today that I would give you one million dollars after an infinite number of days from now. You would know that you would never get the million dollars (even assuming you could live forever). This is because it is impossible to traverse infinity. You cannot travel from one end of an infinite amount of time to the other. The nature of infinity is that it is impassable.
Now run that same concept in reverse. There cannot be an infinite amount of time in the past because that would require us to have traversed infinity in order to arrive at the point where we find ourselves today. In order to have arrived at today, time in the past must be finite. This means time came into existence at some point, which necessitates a creator of time. Anything that comes into existence (in this case, time) must have a cause. Because the creator of time existed before time, it is eternal and does not require a cause of its own.
Alternatives to the Big Bang
In response to the cosmological evidence, some scientists have proposed alternative theories of the universe that would allow it to exist eternally. Perhaps the most famous of these is the oscillating universe model. This model theorizes that the universe is like a rubber band. It expands until it gets as stretched out as it can, then it collapses back in on itself, only to start expanding again. According to this theory, we are currently in a state of expansion, but will eventually find ourselves sucked back in, only to have another "Big Bang" and begin expanding again.
The problem with this model is that the evidence contradicts it. If the universe were really expanding like a rubber band, stretching to its maximum, only to collapse in on itself when it reaches its "breaking point", then we would expect that the rate of expansion would be slowing down over time (much like it gets harder and harder to stretch a rubber band the further you stretch it out). This, however, is not the case.12
Another model is the multiple universe theory (also called "inflation theory"). This claims that our universe is only one of many, and other universes pre-existed our own. Of course, this theory does not really address the question.13 If there are multiple universes, you then have to explain the creation of all those universes instead of just our own.
Finally, Stephen Hawking came up with a slightly modified version of the Big Bang Model. Picture the concept of the Big Bang as being represented by a large inverted cone, in which the expansion of the universe is represented by the expansion of the cone. Hawking came up with a mathematical model that would round off the bottom of the cone, implying that if you were to travel backward in time, instead of everything coming together at one point, you would travel around the round bottom and start traveling back up again (similar to the oscillating model). Even Hawking, though, admitted that his model is simply an interesting mathematical exercise and cannot represent reality. In order to round off the bottom of the cone, he used imaginary numbers in his equations (which are called "imaginary" for a reason; they do not exist in our physical universe).
Of course, any model of an eternal universe will inevitably fail the logical test outlined above about the impossibility of traversing infinity. No matter what fantasy you concoct to cling to your belief of an eternity of time past, you will inevitably always come back to the same point. If time in the past is eternal, we could not have arrived at the present day. We have arrived at the present day, so time in the past must be finite.
Conclusion
You do not need to crack open a Bible to know that something created the universe. Cosmology and logic tell us that much. This article has not taken you far enough to know all there is to know about that creative entity. But you do know that whatever it is, it exists outside our known universe, is not subject to the laws of our universe, and is eternal, three characteristics typically attributed to God.
If you want to know more, the next step is to read my article on "Was the universe created by an intelligent God or by a random natural cause?" This will present the evidence for how we can know that this mysterious causal entity is actually an intelligent agent.
Footnotes
1 Some people use the term "agnostic" more broadly than this. Many people who consider themselves "agnostic" simply state that they have never seen sufficient evidence to convince them that God exists, but they remain extremely skeptical about His existence. While it is true that "agnostic" means "without knowledge" and people in this category claim not to have knowledge of God's existence, ultimately I place them in the "undecided", not "agnostic" category. After all, these people, while skeptical, do not rule out the possibility of being convinced of God's existence. To call them "agnostic" results in an impossible line drawing problem. Someone who is not 100% convinced of God's existence, but who strongly leans that way certainly could not be called an "agnostic". So if that person is not an "agnostic", where do you draw the line? What if someone is only 50% convinced? 40%? 30%? At what point in time does this person all of a sudden become an "agnostic"? There can be degrees of indecision under the category "undecided", but there are not degrees of agnosticism. 2 Admittedly, atheists would deny that this is how they make their arguments. But if you analyze what they actually say, it is almost always based on an alleged lack of evidence, as opposed to affirmative evidence that God does not exist. 3 Of course, I disagree with the atheist claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and I will provide some affirmative evidence for His existence later in this article and the next. 4 This also provides the theoretical basis for black holes. The basic premise being that when a star collapses, it leaves a black hole, which acts as a large body of matter pulling time and space toward itself. If you were to position yourself outside the gravitational field of the black hole and watch an object going into it, that object would appear to slow down and eventually stand completely still (because it is moving so imperceptibly slowly), never entering the hole itself. 5 This is not true for some closer galaxies because the Milky Way itself is a large body of matter that warps space and causes a gravitational pull. Therefore, galaxies that are close to one another actually pull themselves toward each other. 6 In fact, there is no such thing as a true "center" to the universe. See the example of the rubber ball in the next paragraph to understand why not. Just as there is no "center" to the surface area of a ball, there is no center to the universe. 7 Some scientists propose different shapes for this example other than a ball, but the basic principle remains the same. 8 A "Big Bang" of this magnitude would leave trace levels of radiation in the universe that should still be detectable today. Scientists have indeed found evidence of this trace radiation further supporting Big Bang theory. 9 If you define "natural" as something subject to the laws of our known universe, then this implies that the creative entity was "supernatural". I leave open the possibility, though, that there could be "natural" laws to whatever state pre-existed our universe. 10 On several occasions I have used the phrase "prior to the Big Bang", or some equivalent expression. Of course, time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, so it would be inappropriate to think of "prior" to the Big Bang as referring to an earlier point in linear time. Instead, the main point is that this creative entity must exist in whatever state exists outside the laws of time and space of our known universe, a state whose existence is required by the knowledge that there was a beginning to the universe. 11 Even though many scholars argue that the complexity of the universe itself is evidence for the existence of God, I do not believe that this argument is necessary. Cosmology proves the existence of an eternal causal entity. However, once you acknowledge that this entity exists, the complexity of the universe does provide evidence that the creator is an intelligent entity (see my article on "Was the universe created by an intelligent God or by a random natural cause?"). 12 If anything, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. See the discussion of the "cosmological constant" in the article "Was the universe created by an intelligent God or by a random natural cause?" for more details. 13 This argument is admittedly usually used in the context of explaining the fine-tuning of the universe (see my article on "Was the universe created by an intelligent God or by a random natural cause?").
(c) 2010 Ten Minas Ministries, Inc., P.O. Box 827, Havre de Grace, MD 21078; (410) 935-0701
