Does God really exist? Who or what is God? Is there proof? Why is there something rather than nothing? These are the sort of questions that put me on a journey to find God.
In this post, I’m going to discuss and try to summarize the evidence and main arguments that convinced me that God exists and that God is the ultimate reality. No religious arguments or revelation will be discussed in this post, it’s all reason.
Much of what I’ll explain I learned first from people like Frank Turek (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist; Stealing from God) and William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith), but eventually I found the most solid arguments in Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, and others (classical theism), as presented by Bishop Robert Barron (Word on Fire) and philosopher and former atheist, Edward Feser (The Road from Atheism; The Last Superstition; Five Proofs of the Existence of God).
I made this chart to try to illustrate the arguments I’ll elaborate in this post. I used a person as an example (“you”), but it can apply to anything.
(*) By causes I mean events, beings or things. I will use these terms interchangeably.
As the chart summarizes, everything that exists, existed, will exist or could exist hypothetically, must derive its existence from a First Cause, which we call God. Following the physical and scientific evidence, but ultimately relying on metaphysical arguments, I found that God is a necessity for everything else to exist.
Someone might say that what I’m claiming here is just an example of the ‘god of the gaps’. For those unfamiliar with that term, it states that theists like to introduce God whenever science can’t explain something. But that’s not what I’m presenting here, and I think that we first have to clear that stumbling block out of the way.
Science vs Scientism
Yes, there have been instances in history where science eventually explained what people initially thought were miracles. But the idea that God is just filling in the gaps of scientific knowledge, presupposes that scientific methods are the only means to answer meaningful questions. This belief that ‘only science can know anything about anything’ is called ‘scientism’. The problem is that such a claim cannot even be demonstrated by scientific methods. It’s just a self-defeating assertion that some people take on ‘faith’.
Unfortunately, this faith that only science can know truth, is held by many scientists and has become very popular in academia, especially among non-scientists. Scientism is like saying that a metal detector can find any type of material on earth, and that rubber and other substances don’t really exist simply because your metal detector can’t find them.
The bottom line is that science has limits and there are questions, that in principle, it can’t and will never be able to answer. One of those questions is the existence of God.
Causality (or causation), Composition and Instrumentality
Look around you. Everything in the world is the effect of some cause. We normally don’t walk around thinking of this, but if you stop for a minute you wouldn’t think that things ‘just appeared’. Even if you don’t know how something got there you would most definitely say that there must be an explanation for its existence and its place, i.e. there must be a cause.
If everything that came into existence (or happened) today has a cause, then whatever that cause was must also have a cause or explanation, and that one cause must also have a cause and so on. In other words, there is a regression (or a chain) of instrumental temporal causes that led to the present reality. I illustrate this in the left column of the chart.
On the other hand, as I illustrate on the right column of the chart, there are substantial or intrinsic causes that allow us (and everything else) to exist right now at this very moment. If you think of everything in the world as a composite of parts, then our existence depends on the existence of our parts. A person depends on the brain, heart, etc. And a car, a chair or whatever, depend on their parts to exist, and each part on its materials, and its chemicals, its molecules, its atoms, and so forth.
Therefore, at this moment you are composed and sustained by many ‘layers’ of instrumental parts/substances (substantial causes), many dependent realities, that go down to the subatomic (quantum or strings) realities which in turn depend on the forces, constants and laws of physics.
What do I mean by instrumental? This means that every cause in the long chain of causes that led to this moment in time, or that sustains everything in being at this very moment, is an instrument of the previous cause. For example, a stick moves a stone, but your hand moves the stick, your hand is moved by motor neurons in your brain, your brain depends on a series of prior causes to work, and those causes depend on others, and so forth. Or you are here, because of your parents, which wouldn’t have existed were it not for your grandparents, and so forth. In other words, any actual cause in the long chain of causes is an instrument and derives its power from the previous cause.
To summarize (and as illustrated), whether it is going back a regression of causes in time, or going down a regression of substantial causes at this very moment (let’s say like a tower of deeper realities), we exist because of a regression of instrumental causes.
But here is the key. At some point, the long regression of instrumental causes had to be caused by (or begin with) one, simple, uncaused and principal (as opposed to instrumental) First Cause. Otherwise we would have an infinite regression of causes which is not logical (I will discuss this further down). One and simple, because it must have no parts or substances that compose it. Uncaused, because it must owe its existence to nothing else. Principal, because it must derive its power from nothing else, but from within.
Therefore, in order for anything to exist, there must be one, simple, uncaused and principal First Cause.
If this is not clear yet, just bear with me please.
Contingency, Dependency and Necessity
Logic so far indicates that all the ‘links’ in the long regression of causes (temporal or substantial) depend on some other cause (see chart). Whereas the First Cause, which is the uncaused and principal cause of everything, must depend on nothing else to exit or to exert its power. Therefore, the First Cause is independent in existence and in power.
Being dependent on something is synonymous with being contingent on something. Consequently, a contingent cause (be it an event, being or thing), cannot explain its own existence, but it owes its existence to something else.
This means that every ‘link’ in the regression of causes exists contingently. But like we saw, the First Cause cannot be contingent (i.e. dependent). Therefore, the First Cause is non-contingent. Since the First Cause exists non-contingently and is uncaused, but all the other causes depend on it to exist, then the First Cause must exist by necessity (or necessarily).
Is this a ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy? Am I inserting a First Cause because I can’t explain things? Or is it because it follows logically from the way things consistently operate in our universe (which we can confirm empirically) that the uncaused First Cause must be necessary for everything to exist. The alternative would be an infinite regression of contingent causes, which again, is illogical.
I’ll elaborate a little more. Consider that anything that exists contingently could’ve been different, could cease to exist, could’ve not existed at all, or could potentially exist. Think of your car, your house, your country, yourself, earth or the solar system. Even the universe could’ve been different or could’ve not existed. Had the physical laws and constants of the universe been different, the universe would’ve collapsed (scientists know this well). Or had the forces of nature been different, our world would be different or might not have existed. So, the laws of nature are also contingent and therefore need a cause or explanation. What about mathematics? Where does it come from? Could there be a universe where 2+2=5? It’s possible. So, math too needs an explanation.
Even the multiverse (the theory that our universe is just one among an infinite number of different universes), which exists only hypothetically, would also be contingent and in need of explanation. This is beyond the scope of this post but some scientists speculate that this multiverse has 11 dimensions (according to String Theory). Well, why 11 and not 6 or 20? This means, the multiverse too, could be different or could not exist at all (which is what many scientists think).
Ultimately, we have only two options to explain our present reality: 1) an uncaused, non-contingent (independent) First Cause; or 2) an infinite regression of contingent causes. The latter is illogical, so then the First Cause must be the explanation.
I cannot emphasize this enough: the long chain of contingent causes, whether it is temporal or substantial, MUST owe its existence to one, uncaused, principal, necessary and self-existing First Cause. What do I mean by self-existing? The answer to that is next.
Essence and Existence
This one is tricky and a little hard to summarize in a few words, so please bear with me for the next few paragraphs. I’ll make the connection with the whole argument.
It can be said that the reality of everything that exists can be defined by what it is (its essence or nature) and by the fact that it is (its existence). Essence and existence are distinct features of a being (or thing, I will refer to both as being for simplicity). For example, the essence of your phone is that it is an electronic device of certain brand, model, etc (what it is), and its existence is the fact that it exists (that it is).
Existence is the one feature that different beings that exist have in common (they all exist). Essence is the one feature that differentiates beings from one another (they all have a different essence).
Obviously, beings that don’t exist anymore (eg extinct species, deceased people, destroyed objects or buildings, etc) can only be defined by their essence (what they were). So, for a contingent being, its essence and its existence are distinct features of itself, because its essence remains (what it is or was), but its existence doesn’t remain necessarily (it may exist or it may not exist anymore).
A contingent being’s essence cannot equate its existence because that would mean that we could know a contingent being entirely by virtue of its essence, or entirely by virtue of its existence, and that’s not true. I can describe the essence of an animal you’ve never heard of in detail (eg the thylacine), but you wouldn’t know if it exists or not. Similarly, I can tell you that my father is still alive, but unless you know him or I describe him to you, you wouldn’t know his essence.
On the other hand, for a non-contingent being, its essence and its existence cannot be distinct features of itself because that’s what characterizes a contingent being. Which means that for a non-contingent being, its essence must equate its existence. In other words, for a non-contingent being, its essence is its existence. And as I said above, the First Cause must be the necessary, non-contingent cause of everything that exists.
Therefore, the essence of the First Cause is its existence. In other words, the necessary, uncaused First Cause is ‘existence’ (or ‘being’) itself. This is what theists call God.
We can conclude then, that God is not just one more being among many in the universe, or a being outside the universe living in a special realm. God’s essence is God’s existence. His very nature is ‘to exist’ or ‘to be’. God is ‘existence itself’, or as St. Thomas Aquinas said, ‘the sheer act of being’, or ‘pure subsistent existence’ (ipsum esse subsistens). In other words, God just is. He cannot not exist.
But why can’t there be an infinite regression of contingent causes, rather than a First Cause?
I’ll illustrate. Imagine a railroad train with multiple boxcars (let’s make this analogous to our universe with a chain of multiple contingent causes, with the last boxcar being our present reality). What moves the last boxcar? The boxcar before it right? And that one is moved by the one before it, and so forth. So far, we don’t have an explanation of why the boxcars are moving, only that one is being pulled by another one. An infinite number of boxcars would never explain why the last boxcar (or any) are moving. You need an independent First Cause, say an engine, to move the first boxcar and subsequently all of them.
Therefore, we can’t have an infinite number of realities, we need a first reality, or more accurately, an ultimate reality.
But why can’t the universe be the eternal First Cause?
Well, because the universe is contingent as we saw, and as such, it needs an explanation for its existence. This is regardless of the Big Bang, which according to cosmology, is the beginning of the universe. Even if some scientific theory in the future discards the Theory of the Big Bang (which is highly unlikely) and we go back to the previously held eternal, static model of the universe, the universe would still need an explanation.
But forget astrophysics and let’s use logic. An eternal universe would mean that time (which is part of the universe) is also eternal, which implies that there were an infinite number of past events. Well, if that were the case then today could’ve never happened. But today is happening, so time cannot be eternal and therefore, the universe cannot be eternal. Say what!?
I’ll illustrate. Let’s say that you are the last runner in a 4 x 100m relay running towards the finish line (this will represent the present time). But in order for you to hold the baton, you had to receive it from the 3rd runner, and in turn he had to receive it from the 2nd runner, and this one from the 1st runner. Without the 1st runner you can’t run your race. Now, imagine that you are the last of a 100 x 100m relay. Obviously, it would take a lot longer for you to run your race. How about being the last of 500,000 runners? Do you see where I’m going? Now, how about being the last of an infinite number of runners? It would literally take forever (an infinite amount of time) for your turn to run your race. In other words, it would never happen.
But you are actually running the race because the present time is happening. Hence, there must have been a first runner (first event), which means that time had to have a beginning, like the universe did. In conclusion, whether it is the Big Bang theory (which is strongly supported by the empirical evidence) or some other theory, the universe had a beginning and therefore it cannot be eternal.
But what about evolution? Doesn’t it disprove God?
If after this brief summary, you have come to understand the nature of God then you can answer that question. But let’s say for the sake of the argument that evolution is entirely true (which scientists still debate). Like I wrote in the chart above (left column), all the possible intermediary evolutionary links would be contingent beings, and in order to exist, they would still need a non-contingent, uncaused, principal First Cause. That’s why evolution can’t disprove God, it actually relies on Him.
But what about science?
Science can’t answer ‘why there is something rather than nothing?’. Science has limits, because science deals with contingent things. So, as much as some scientists wish that science can come up with a unified “Theory of Everything” (String/M-Theory), science will never be able to do that. It’s just wishful thinking, or as theoretical physicist Peter Woit (Columbia University) calls it, “fake physics”.
Furthermore, science presupposes an intelligible universe. It presupposes that the laws of physics are universal and dependable. Science didn’t invent the laws, it merely discovered them. And it wasn’t science, but scientists who did it. The ‘fathers of science‘ were theists because they acknowledged an intelligent Creator.
Moreover, scientists need their human reason to do science. And the fact that we can reason is proof that God exists. Why? Well, where are we getting the tools from? The brain is contingent and the laws of logic are contingent. And like I showed, all contingent beings, things or causes, need God to exist. Ironically, an atheist needs God in order to argue against him.
The Divine Attributes (some)
Like I said at the beginning, God is the ultimate reality, which by His very nature (which is ‘existence’) gives existence to, and sustains everything else that exists or could exist even hypothetically (multiverse, aliens, matrix, etc). He is both Creator (left column) and Sustainer (right column).
God did not kick the first “domino” of causes 14 billion years ago and then went to rest. He is not like a carpenter that is done making a chair and he’s gone. No, God is more like a musician that plays the music (i.e. His creation), and the music will only continue as long as the musician keeps playing it. So, apart from God’s continual causal action, everything, including you right now, would instantly cease to exist. Therefore, like I wrote above, it’s impossible for God not to exist.
Since God is beyond the universe (matter, space and time), He is beyond space (unlimited, without beginning and without end), beyond matter (immaterial) and beyond time (atemporal or eternal). Consequently, He is omnipresent and infinite. Since God just ‘is’, He doesn’t change, i.e. He is immutable. God is also beyond the laws of nature so He is supernatural. And in order to create everything from nothing (absolute nothingness), and sustain everything God must be all-powerful (omnipotent).
To create and sustain are actions that require a will. A will requires an intellect. An intellect that can create and sustain absolutely everything at every level and at every moment in an ‘eternal now’ must be an all-knowing (omniscient) supreme intellect. And because He creates and sustains at His own will, He must be a personal God.
Since God is ‘existence itself’ and gives existence to all things, he lacks nothing. Therefore, He is perfect in every sense. If God were one among other gods, He would lack some attribute that the other gods would possess, so He wouldn’t be infinite, omniscient or omnipotent, for example. So God is One.
Most (if not all) atheists don’t understand the nature of God, they think that God is some being akin to Zeus or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”. Or some alien running a simulation program (yes, some prominent scientists think so). In other words, atheists attack, not God, but a caricature of God (known in logic as a ‘straw man’). They would ask questions like, ‘well, then what caused God?’. That’s a question my 6-year-old daughter asked me the other day. I hope you can now see why that question doesn’t make sense. Because if this “God” has a cause, then by definition that is not God, as simple as that.
Final thoughts
So, going back to my original questions of, why is there something rather than nothing? And how is it that we are here? The answer is: because God wills it. God’s relationship to the world is as intimate as you can get, by directly causing everything at every instant.
Wow! When you realize that the One God that knows and sustains every star in the billions of galaxies in the universe, is constantly aware of you and keeping you in being at every instant of your life, and wants a personal relationship with you (more on a later post), the least you can do when you open your eyes every morning is say ‘thank you God’.
Notice that I didn’t appeal to religion or to feelings to find the evidence for God. I followed the evidence and reasoned from metaphysics. Also, I didn’t mention other arguments like the Fine-tuning Argument, the Moral Argument, etc. Those are great arguments that also led me to believe in the existence of God, but in the end, they all rest in the fact that God is the ultimate reality.
But let me say something about human reason. Understanding who God is doesn’t mean we can understand God. Our 3-pound brain can barely touch the surface of God’s divine intellect. It’s like expecting an ant to understand the human mind. To God we are infinitely smaller than what an ant is to us. We must approach these questions with humility.
At the end of the day, God is a mystery. Not because we have no clue about who God is (like some people like to say), but because he is beyond our grasp. So, God is not against human reason, He is beyond human reason. And like the great St. Augustine said: “If you understood him, it would not be God”.
I’d like to finish with a quote by philosopher, and former atheist, Edward Feser:
“If you find yourself intellectually convinced that there is a divine Uncaused Cause who sustains the world and you in being at every instant, and don’t find this conclusion extremely strange and moving, something that leads you to a kind of reverence, then I daresay you haven’t understood it.” – The Road from Atheism.
