You Can’t Prove God? FALSE. The Kalam Cosmological Argument & More

Intelligence can breed contempt, so I must often repent of my petty nature when I laugh with contemp at those who say there is no evidence for God. As you will see, there is plenty of evidence for God that I will be discussing below. But before I do, let me first tell you what is not a good example of evidence for the existence of God. There is nothing that makes my soul cringe more than hearing, “Yeah, but you can’t prove God DOESN’T exist” when people argue that, “You can’t prove God exists.”. When I hear Christians say the former argument or non-Christians say the later argument it enrages me. I that I feel like challenging and beating them in one on one in a Wakandan combat ritual and then shouting, “IS THIS YOUR ARGUMENT?”. Surely, we can do better.

Image result for is this your king?

Jokes aside, what if I told you there is evidence for God and that any rational person could see it. This evidence I will share is not evidence that is contrary to science and logic, but instead it is evidence that is rooted in science and logic. Be patient with me and read this through as I attempt to take an argument you could write whole books about and break it down into a simple blog post.

Let’s talk about something called the “Kalam Cosmological Argument”, or what I will call the KCA because I am lazy. Kalam is actually a word with medieval Islamic roots, but the KCA is mostly associated with the apologist William Lane Craig. An apologist is someone who uses reason and logic to defend their faith in a view, and William Lane Craig is one who is famous for using this argument against atheist in debates. Two other Apologist, Frank Turek, and Norman Geisler wrote a book that refers to Craig’s use of the KCA a lot,and I will be quoting it throughout this article. The book is called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”. The books main point is to walk through the essence of truth, through the argument for God, and then arguments for the Christian God, so if you have deep and intellectual objections to what I will state below I can almost guarantee that the book mentioned will cover it. So, let’s talk about the KCA.

The KCA is put fairly simply into a three-part argument by Frank and Norman. They break the argument up like this: (1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause, (2) The Universe had a beginning, and therefore (3) the Universe had a cause. (Page 75). Part one is a fundamental scientific principle called “the Law of Causality” which states that every cause has an effect. This is not an appeal to some meta-cause like “The universe is God’s way of creating us to have a relationship with him.”. Although I believe that, that is not what I mean by cause, that is more of a purpose. I literally just mean it happened, and it is an effect that must have been caused. If part 2 is provable then part 3 is a non-deniable result.

Part 2 is where I usually get the most pushback during Evangelism (sharing the truth about God). Many people learned science in high school just enough to regurgitate information on to science test so that they could pass their science classes. Which, to be fair, is what I did in most of my general education classes in college as a Finance and Business Analytics major. Due to this lack of actual knowledge about Science, many people (including myself at one time) looked at the OLD age of the universe that is commonly reported and say, “Meh, it has basically been here forever, and it probably always will be.” But that viewpoint is not only unscientific, but it is also proven to be untrue.

Albert Einstein published his Theory of General Relatively which proved the universe had a starting point and that it will have an ending point. He was originally so taken back at his finding that he smudged his own numbers to disprove the actual findings of his research when he first published it. Shortly after the scientific community called him out on it and he caved, publishing the real truth. Yes, the universe has been here for a while, but not for all eternity. As a side note, I am not well educated enough to argue for a young nor an old earth as some Christians do. So until I study it more, you will only see me talk about it if I am doing it in order to flirt with a Christian woman who may be interested in talking about it.

Now let’s get back to the Big Bang, Atheist and Christian Scientist alike agree the universe had a beginning,and scientist named it “The Big Bang”, and it is a common accepted truth in the scientific community. It explains how the universe came into being, but it fails to explain how or why the Big Bang theory happened. Perfectly measured life coming out of non life takes a miracle. Some people jokingly call this the “virgin birth” of the universe.

I will give you a little more evidence to chew on. According to the scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: the universe has finite resources in it and eventually, they will run out. This term, which I can say with my lisp in case you wer wondering, is widley accepted as evidence that supports the earth having a beginning and ending. This creates an important question. If the universe were running for all eternity with finite resources, wouldn’t it have run out of energy by now? Also, consider this: we can’t have a “now” if time is infinite, “Now” would never happen, if we didn’t have finite points in time. My friend and mentor Grant Forrester told me to think about it like unlimited dominos knocking each other over. If that happened, we would never reach a point where the last domino (now) would fall (exist). The real question I want to ask now is how much evidence would you need to believe if scientist and atheist alike both support the the idea that the universe had a beginning? So, if this second point is proven, so is the third. The universe had a cause.

Science also tells us before the Big Bang, there was no time, matter nor space. This would mean that the Big Bang, which happened in the blink of an eye, yielded: a massive, complex and calculated universe in which matter came to exist out of nothing. To believe there is no God is to believe that nothing, yielded a vastly complex and balanced something: our universe. Let me drop this on you too. In 1989 NASA released the Cosmic Background Explorer, COBE, which was a satellite that was sent out to research background radiation in the universe. NASA discovered what Stephen Hawking (the super atheist himself) considered “the most important discovery of this century, if not all time”. The ripples of radiation in the universe were so precise that they showed that the Big Bang was so well calculated that there was precisely enough matter to allow the galaxy to form, but not too much matter which would have caused it to collapse on itself.

Finally, now I would like to make the argument for God officially. As Greg Koukl puts it, “The Big Bang needs a Big Banger.”. He, nor I, are suggesting that the Big Bang needs to partner with Skrillex nor David Guetta and put out a “Banger”, a youth term for a song that sounds good. What is being suggested is that if we start at Nothing: no time, matter, nor space; we can not simply jump to a perfectly calculated Something. We can not have the Big Bang as an effect, without a cause. There must be an uncaused first that would have to be outside of time, space, and matter. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alone hold these truths about God. Let’s call them the Abrahamic religions.

Despite the memes and cliché artist rendering we see of God in art and on the internet, followers of these faiths believe (or would believe if they understood the views of their faith), that God is outside of space, time, and matter. They attest that God always was, is, and always will be. He is the uncaused first cause, that sustains all life and existence. Now I have not yet argued that this is only the Christian God, but to be fair Christianity attest to the same God as the Jews and Muslims. The key differnce is that we have quite a few strong contradictory claims about God and his nature. These claims, however, are not on the topics stated above such as whether God has existed forever outside of time, space, and matter.

The evidence seems pretty cut and dry. When I shared these views with an agnostic student at my university the other day during some Evangelism with my friend Tanner, the agnostic student admitted to me that I had convinced him that there was practically a 0% chance that the universe could exist if there wasn’t a God. So now I want to ask you, how do you feel about the evidence I have laid in front of you? I am praying that you will be open and honest!

Email me questions, comments concerns, complaint, or anything else you’d like at my blog email, or at the contact page.

Bonus Contest: Deism, Really?

Another fun point I will lightly touch on is a brief and non-comprehensive argument against Deism. Deism basically states that God created the universe, the Earth, and all of us and now he sits back and watches like a divine watchmaker. As I have said before I am just pointing you to better resources and Frank and Norm have better content refuting this in their book mentioned above. My question for a Deist is why God would go through the trouble of creating a perfectly balanced universe (Cosmological Argument)? As Astrophysicist Hugh Ross said that the probability of any of the estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe being able to sustain life is extremely low. There are roughly 122 natural forces that would need to be perfectly calculated to 1/ (1,(insert 138 Zeros) in order to sustain life. This is a BRIEF example of something called the Teological Argument for God’s existence. This comes from page 106 of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”.

As a Christian I believe God created and designed this universe for his Glory and that he created us to glorify him. God is Jealous for our affections because he knows his love is the only thing that will satisfy us. As John Piper often says, “God is most glorified in him”. Why would God create creates to reflect his love, in his image (rational, morale, etc.) and communal and not seek to love them and have a relationship with them.

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