Proof of God from the Requirement for a First Uncaused Cause

This is only one of many of the theistic proofs. It goes like this:

1.         An infinite regress of causes (a never ending series of causes or explanations) is illogical and therefore impossible.

2.         This problem of infinite regress of causes can only be resolved if a first uncaused cause exists.

3.         THEREFORE, an uncaused Causer must exist.

Premise #1:  An infinite regress of causes is illogical and therefore impossible.

Any phenomenon requires a sufficient cause(s). However, if there is a causal infinite regress, there cannot be a sufficient cause(s).  Cause (or explanation) X is never adequate to explain any phenomena because cause X requires the prior cause V, which requires its own cause V, ad infinitum (to infinity), implying that there is never an adequate explanation or any ultimate answer.

Also, since a causal series usually posits multiple causes for any one effect, the number if infinite series would be multiplied at each causal stage.

Besides, science has never identified a temporal (in this universe) uncaused cause, suggesting that there is no temporal cause that can resolve the problem of an infinite regress.

Also, actual infinities are logically impossible. An infinite number of causes requires an infinite amount of time or years. However, if this universe existed eternally, it would be impossible to ever arrive in the present. Why? Because accomplishing an infinite number of years would be required to ever arrive in present time from infinity in the past! However, it is impossible to count or fulfill an infinite number.

This suggests that both time and causation are finite, and that a first uncaused cause must exist. If science has concluded that the universe is only 14 billion years old, then temporal causation must also be limited by these years.

This means that an infinite causal series is not possible.

PREMISE #2:  This problem of infinite regress of causes can only be resolved if a first uncaused cause exists.

This uncaused Cause can answer the problem of infinite regress. How? Because the buck stops there, with Him! He is the beginning of all causation and doesn’t Himself require a cause.

This Causer must be eternal. Otherwise, He too would require a cause. He must also exist beyond time, space, and matter. If this uncaused Causer is trapped within time, then He couldn’t be eternal. This is because time could not have existed eternally. Therefore, He must transcend time, space, and matter.

CONCLUSION: There does not seem to be any other way to resolve the problem of infinite regress, and this is a problem that requires resolution. Therefore, an uncaused Causer must exist.

This proof, of course, is not perfect. Our knowledge is limited, and there might exist another possible explanation. However, based upon our limited common-sense understanding, our Lord seems to be the only way to resolve the problem of an infinite regress.

A Unifying Theory of Everything

Where did the universe come from? Some cosmologists want to hypothesize that it sprang into existence from “nothing.” However, their “nothing” is something. Alexander Vilenkin believes that “something is in place beforehand – namely the laws of physics.” However, he admits:

• It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics come from. We don’t even know how to approach it. (Steve Nadis, “Starting Point,” Discover [Sept. 2013])

Perhaps Vilenkin doesn’t know how to “approach it,” because he is starting with the wrong paradigm. Certainly, from a naturalistic, atheistic perspective, this question is a “great mystery.” However, this might be more than a mystery but a veritable impossibility:

1. The laws of physics are elegant, universal, and immutable. Only a cause of equal or greater magnitude could explain their existence and uniform functioning. This consideration alone should eliminate naturalism.

2. A natural explanation is impossible because the natural is not yet in existence to cause the natural laws. Nothing is in existence!

3. Invoking any natural cause would also suffer from the problem of infinite regress – What causes the cause, and then, what causes the cause of the cause, ad infinitum! The only way to avoid this conundrum is to invoke the transcendent – an eternal Causer who doesn’t require a cause!

4. It is also hard to understand how the unchanging laws of physics could arise from what is always changing. It is equally hard to envision how they can remain unchanging in our ever-expanding universe of molecules in motion.

The naturalistic paradigm clearly does not prove fruitful here. However, there is one other paradigm that does offer a cogent explanation:

• In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth!

Who Made God?

Often, after I mention “God,” I will hear the challenge, “What evidence do you have that there is a God?”

Sensing a hostile close-mindedness, I’ll often answer in generalizations:

• The evidence for God is all around us. All of my senses proclaim the artistry, design and wisdom of God.

“Well, who made God?” For anyone who has read the militant atheist Richard Dawkins, this retort is predictable. Sometimes, it is followed by an explanation to impress upon me the weightiness of this seemingly childlike response:

• “God” is no explanation at all for design if you can’t account for God’s origin. You’re just merely passing the buck without any explanation whatsoever.

While, for an anti-theist, this challenge is quite satisfying, it hides many problems within its confident assertion. For one thing, the theist freely admits that we can’t explain God – the infinite, eternal, and uncaused Being. In fact, such an explanation is logically impossible! It is impossible to explain something or Somebody who precedes everything else – all causation.

Let me try to explain. If we were to explain the origin of the sun, we might want to mention the natural forces and matter that pre-date the sun. This is because any explanation requires causal agents or forces that exist prior to the thing or event we hope to explain. If these agents do not exist prior, then they can’t be used to explain the thing we want to explain. This is because the cause must precede the effect!

Therefore, if God came before all else – time, energy, space and matter – then these can’t be expected to explain God’s origin. In fact, nothing can be invoked to explain His origin!

Furthermore, if time, energy, matter or space could be called upon to explain God, then, according to the logic of the non-theist, our explanation would be invalid because we then would find ourselves unable to explain our explainers – time, energy, matter, and space – because these would require their own explainers! This is the problem of “infinite regress.”

There is even a more fundamental problem with this atheistic challenge. It requires that any explanation be complete or exhaustive. It rejects our explanation of an Intelligent Designer to explain design because we lack complete knowledge about Him – and we do lack this complete knowledge.

However, we lack complete knowledge about everything. Does this mean that we are unable to even give an explanation for anything? Of course not! Why do plants grow? Because of the sun and water! Although this explanation is incomplete, it doesn’t make it meaningless or irrelevant. Actually, this explanation can be very helpful. It instructs me to water my plants and to not plant them in complete shade.

The atheist will retort:

• This analogy doesn’t work. We do know a lot about the sun and water. Whereas, you know nothing about your God.

Of course, the atheist cannot prove that we know nothing about God. Nor can he offer the slightest bit of evidence in support of this claim. In addition to this, even if we do know a lot about water and the sun, we still are miles away from a complete knowledge. We are still baffled even by the nature of time, space and matter!

Perhaps this places God back-on-the-table!