04. Beginning at the Beginning

A few weeks ago I made the rather obvious observation that since we’re here having this discussion, the universe must actually exist.

If you’re a philosophy major, you might argue that we might only think we’re here but we’re actually only imagining it.

Ok, let’s abandon that train of thought before our collective brain stems reach out of our ears and choke the idiocy out of us.

Since science has now proven what theologians have said for thousands of years, namely that the universe has a beginning a finite time ago, one must ask the question, “How did the universe get here?”

Indeed, science has made a few theories regarding the how but not the why.

In the words of the 17th century mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Ok, you’ve got me… He probably said it in German, but I don’t know 17th century German and I doubt many of my readers do either. If you DO know how it’s said in old German, please leave it in the comments so we can all learn something new. Or old, in this case.

The only answer I have for Leibniz’s question is what Moses wrote:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

–Genesis 1:1 (NIV)

In defense of that, Leibniz devised the following argument for the existence of God.

Leibnizian Argument from Contingency

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God

In my opinion, the only part of that argument that may require some explanation is the first one.

Can you think of anything that exists that doesn’t exist because of something else?

You exist because of your parents. They exist because of their parents, etc…

Your (insert manufactured item) exists because of the factory it was made in, etc…

That reasoning can be logically scaled up to the point where it’s the universe itself that’s needing an explanation for its existence.

“But what about God?” You say…

Great question.

God is an eternal, uncaused, metaphysically necessary being and therefore needs no explanation for His existence.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of Leibniz’s argument. It makes sense but I find the Kalam Cosmological Argument much more satisfying intellectually.

Next week we’ll be examining the Kalam Cosmological Argument in detail.

Stay tuned for more ways to help reach others with the Good News.