Existence of God - Cosmological Argument

While thinking whether God exists or not, it is obviously certain that we expect evidences in favour of it. A challenge we have is that God is still an abstract concept for us. We can neither apply any observational tests to prove or disprove him nor any analytical tests to prove or disprove his works. This ultimately rests on our faith [Heb. 11:6]. As a believer we cannot even use the Bible itself to prove his existence unless we provide tremendous credible and trustworthy evidences in its favour.

So, is God just really an abstract concept for us? Just because we cannot apply any lab test on him? I think, this is rather a lesser probability in comparison to higher probability of better evidences for his existence. We, living in modern world facilitated by modern science and spectacular discoveries, have a better premise to bring forward a case for his existence using Cosmological aspect.

Romans 1:20 is clear on General Revelation that God has revealed him even through the nature. Now the dice can turn to our favour! Let us then investigate the universe itself to detect whether it favours God’s existence or not. Particularly, we take two options: either the universe has a beginning or it is eternal.

If the universe is eternal then there is no need of God. Whereas a universe with the beginning has higher probability to require a beginner. Though we cannot put any test to God, let us draw our analysis from the effect which shall go backwards and end at a cause either it is God or something else.

Modern scientific investigation and discoveries have concluded overwhelming evidences for the beginning of the universe. To this worldwide accepted postulated theory, we call the Big Bang. Therefore, the universe must have a beginner. Yet we have dilemma whether the first cause is some specific cause such as Supernatural being or uncaused naturalistic process.

If we need to hold the later argument then the conclusion is the universe sprang into existence out of nothing. It exploded into being through natural processes. But can something be produced out of nothing? If there is nothing as cause then nothing shall also be the effect. It’s just like computing principle of Garbage in and garbage out. Some claim goes for alleged Quantum Vacuum. Here is again analytical issue with it. Whether quantum vacuum is something naturally physical or non-physical then it must also have a cause for its mere existence. If it is eternal, transcending the universe itself then it is essentially God.

There must be then someone or something beyond the created Space, Matter and Time. This cause either came from within the universe or is beyond the materialistic universe. The former cannot be possible since cause always transcends the effect in cause-effect relationship. To make it possible, the beginner itself have to make it prior to create the universe. If it is within the universe, then how can it exist prior to creating itself? This is absurdity in physical entity. Even in Eastern theistic belief system, they believe that God did not create the universe but became the universe. Here also, God must first exist eternally to become himself as the universe. This is not again embedded with the universe.

Hence, the cause must be beyond the physical nature to which we call Supernatural. Either the first cause was caused to exist by something else or it is independent upon anything else for its existence. The first cause cannot depend on infinite series of causes since this chain never terminates and completes. It’s just like asking who created God followed up by infinite series of question who then created the creator of the creator of the creator of God.

Simplistically concluding, the first cause had no dependence on anything else for its existence which then gives an idea of eternal cause. The principle of “Ockham’s Razor,” which states that one should select the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions, or has the least requirements, or is the least complicated without compromising any of the necessary data, points us in the direction of the latter choice – the First Cause does not depend upon anything else for its existence. The universe according to this postulation depends on a cause that is independent of anything else for its existence. This is one nature of God who is eternal.

The science of Big Bang cosmology – the first two laws of thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe (red shift), cosmic background radiation, the law of relativity, and so forth as well as a refutation of the oscillating and steady-state theories – combined with the philosophical reasoning of the cosmological argument and the impossibility of infinite regression demonstrates with confidence that the universe had a beginning.

Hence by deducing the case that infinite series of regress is not possible and things popping into existence suddenly from nothing has been never observed, it is logical to believe in an eternal cause who created the whole universe.

Just as Kalam Cosmological argument puts forward that a cause is necessary for anything that begin to exists, the universe must have a cause. In Genesis 1:1, we read “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. The point to be noted is that Genesis was not written from scientific perspective that’s why it may be a forced interpretation to read the Big Bang into this chapter. However, both the scripture and science agree on the beginning of the universe.

Dr. Ross of Reasons to Believe admits that Big Bang cosmology clearly aligns with the Biblical description of the universe. Both say the universe starts with a singular beginning, expands, and incorporates constant (in both time and space) physical laws that govern the cosmos. Additionally, if general relativity is correct, more recent observations imply that dark matter and dark energy comprise the dominant “stuff” of the universe. While not mentioned in the Bible, these dark substances display extraordinary design consistent with the biblical notion that one primary function of the universe is to support advanced life. The conclusion that Big Bang aligns with Biblical account of creation might be a concordist interpretation but it is to be clear that the Big Bang supports the beginning of the universe and we have to do further assessment to bring credible case to make it reasonable to believe God exists. The Big Bang postulation itself doesn’t speak of any existence of God except the origin of the universe from a singularity.

Something is better than nothing. We have at least something from scientific evidences and discoveries to bring the support for God’s existence although the entity ‘God’ itself is out of the box of science. Rather having nothing, we have many supporting ‘something’ that hints at some sort of cause which/who is beyond this universe. One of this supporting ‘something’ is Cosmological argument for God.

We may not satisfactorily provide hold-fast cases in favour of God but it is rather wise to come at certain conclusion from the observable universe and revealed natural environment that there is obviously someone or something beyond our dimension. The vastness of universe, complexity of the universe, diversity of the universe and astonishing management of this universe cannot let any human mind to remain silence. Either they come to conclude the credit to God or they arrive with some other alternatives for its explanation just as late scientist Hawking gave credit to the gravity. As a theist, we firmly hold and conclude that it is rather reasonable to believe supernatural cause i.e. God from our analysis.

References: