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.

Proof of God from the First Cause

Sometimes, less is best. This is a brief proof, among many, for the existence of God. It is sometimes called the Cosmological Argument:

1.     All things that have come into existence are caused to exist by other things.

2.     If there is no eternal uncaused Causer, then nothing can exist.

3.     Therefore, there must be an eternal uncaused Causer - God.

PREMISE #1: To deny this is absurd. To illustrate, if I tell you that my cup of coffee just appeared without any cause, you would think me crazy. This is because we never see uncaused things materialize out of nothing.

We reasonably assume that there are causes for any phenomena. That’s why we do science – to discover the causal relationships. Therefore, to deny that phenomena require causes is to reject science.

PREMISE #2: It follows that something or Someone must be uncaused and therefore eternal to explain the existence of everything else.

However, eternal can’t be a something – the universe or some part of it. Matter and space cannot exist apart from time, but time could not have been eternal. This would have required that an infinite number of years to have already passed for us to be here in the present – a logical impossibility. Big Bang cosmology also rules this out.

Besides, the law of entropy argues against an eternal universe, since by now, everything would have dissipated.

CONCLUSION: This leaves us face-to-face with a Being who transcends time, space, and materiality.

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!