If you’re looking for an explanation of the universe, which is a collection of contingent beings, there are only two possibilities: 1) The explanation is found in a necessary being that transcends the universe; 2) There is no explanation.
Regarding 1), every physical entity is a contingent being. The “universe” simply refers to the whole collection of physical, contingent beings. One cannot explain why the universe exists by appealing to another physical, contingent being because there can be no physical, contingent beings outside of the collection of all physical, contingent beings. “But,” one might say, “perhaps it could be explained by a prior non-physical, contingent being. Perhaps, but even if so, as a contingent being, that non-physical, contingent entity would also require an explanation for its existence. To avoid an infinite regress, one must ultimately arrive at a necessary being that transcends the universe, and explains why the universe exists.
If you reject 1), then you are left with 2). Is this rationally satisfying? Option 2) means one must reject the principle of sufficient reason, and think that some contingent beings just exist as a brute fact, without any reason for their existence. While this is outlandish enough for an eternal universe, it is preposterous for a universe that came into being. Surely something that comes into being must have a reason why it came into being. To reject 1) in favor of 2) is to abandon reason. There is no reason to opt for 2) apart from an a priori commitment to atheism. While 2) is consistent with atheism, it is not consistent with what we know about contingent beings. Contingent beings, by their very nature, do not have to exist, and at one time, did not exist. There must be a reason for why they exist, and a cause for their being.
Which option will you choose?
Thinking to Believe 
December 12, 2013 at 11:55 am
“At one time, did not exist” is not a property that contingent objects must have “by their very nature.” There is a modally possible world with no God (unless you’re a presuppositionalist). This makes the existence of God contingent. But that doesn’t imply that he hasn’t been around forever, or didn’t kickstart existence.
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 12:36 pm
And this, ladies and gents, is a wonderful example of what is known as a false dichotomy.
With just a little bit of a strawman argument thrown in for flavor.
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Notascientist- why do you state this? Please explain
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Yes, NotAScientist, please back up your assertion. What are the other possibilities? Ans where is the strawman?
Jason
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Stan,
Can you provide an example of a necessary being that is not eternal, or a contingent being that did not begin to exist?
God cannot be a contingent being. God is the essence of being itself. He is the source of all being. He does derive His existence from something external to Himself, and thus He is a necessary being. This is central to the concept of a theistic being.
If God was just another contingent being, then we would have to discover the reason for His being, which would invite an infinite regress. Eventually we would get to a necessary being.
Jason
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Modally contingent objects don’t necessarily need reasons or explanations. There is a possible world, for instance, where true anomalies blip in and out of existence all the time with no causes or reasons.
I guess I’m needing you to define what you mean by “contingent.” I assumed you meant “modally contingent” (vs. necessary). But if you’re talking about “having an external cause” contingent, then that’s completely different (and it’s important not to equivocate the two).
God is ostensibly the source of all beings other than himself. I don’t, however, know what “essence of being itself” means and doubt it is coherent.
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“Thus saith YHWH the King of Israel, and his redeemer YHWH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Thus saith YHWH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself; That says to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers: I am YHWH, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am YHWH, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I YHWH have created it. Thus saith YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Verily thou art a God that hides thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. For thus saith YHWH that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am YHWH; and there is none else. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in YHWH have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he makes it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship. Remember this, and show yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executes my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith YHWH, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am YHWH thy God which teaches thee to profit, which leads thee by the way that thou should go.” (Isaiah 44:6, 24, 27; 45:5a, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20-24; 46:5, 6, 8-11; 48:11-13, 16, 17)
LikeLike
December 12, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Something cannot come from nothing – our knowledge, regardless of personal belief system, is limited. No one knows where the matter for the Big Bang came from.
To rule out a greater being or the possibility of one means you are then limited to a belief system that necessarily ends with human knowledge; there can’t be anything or forms of life or thought beyond us…. I only know what I see and that therefore is the end of possibility.
If i believe that possibilities exist beyond man and his knowledge, then i have empirical evidence as well, day in, day out, in all the order and non-physical evidence of our hearts and minds that there is something more.
To do so is a form of willful denial, and is in itself evidence of higher-level spiritual existence.
LikeLike
December 13, 2013 at 6:14 am
Other options? That the universe has an explanation that doesn’t involve a being created it. That the universe always existed and the current form is merely the way it currently is, and the Big Bang was a transition not a real beginning.
Suddenly your dichotomy falls apart.
The strawman is implying that the only option other than ‘god did it’ is ‘no explanation’. Which is, frankly, silly.
LikeLike
December 13, 2013 at 6:49 am
With that line of thinking, NotAScientist, you cannot rule out a greater being as well.
LikeLike
December 13, 2013 at 7:24 am
“With that line of thinking, NotAScientist, you cannot rule out a greater being as well.”
So what? I also can’t rule out magic universe-creating pixies. It doesn’t mean they’re likely or that the evidence points to them.
LikeLike
December 16, 2013 at 5:38 am
Stan,
I fail to understand how you have a “possible” world where true anomalies blip in and out. In fact, I would have thought that without any formal arguments to the contrary, that this world is impossible.
NotAScientist
That the universe always existed = infinite regress which is logically absurd
Big Bang being a transition = Why posit this? What would be gained by it? and would that not require more faith than believing in God (which I personally think has rather good logical arguments in favour)
There is no particular reason why you would have to call this being “God”. All Jason stated was that it would have to transcend the universe. Personally I think he should have also stated that this being must be timeless prior to the universe otherwise it too creates an infinite regress.
Jason,
There is a possibility of abstract objects, but as WLC states, they have no causal relationships and so is a poor substitute. Perhaps the atheist could come up with a causal abstract object, but then they may as well call that God!!
LikeLike
December 16, 2013 at 6:54 am
“That the universe always existed = infinite regress which is logically absurd”
No it’s not. It’s hard to wrap your mind around. It’s not logically absurd.
“Big Bang being a transition = Why posit this?”
Because it’s a distinct possibility.
“and would that not require more faith than believing in God”
No. Science doesn’t require faith. And besides, I’m not talking about belief. I’m talking about showing that a false dichotomy was used. And as the Big Bang being a transition is a possibility, it shows that Jason’s original assertion that there can only be two possibilities is false.
“There is no particular reason why you would have to call this being “God”. ”
There is no particular reason why we should think a being of any kind was involved.
LikeLike
December 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Its perfectly reasonable, as it fits as well as possibilities espoused beyond our knowledge, that there is a greater being. Some of NotAScientist’s answers have a childish tone of defense, and it appears clear that his dismissal is a personal choice and well-practiced ideological response. I have a feeling I’ll be quoted in response, but shouldn’t hypotheses that can’t be disproven hold a place of consideration?
LikeLike
December 17, 2013 at 5:31 am
@NotAScientist – an actual infinity of things cannot exist. If the hypothesis is incorrect, then you should be able to give an example! The problem is that “infinite” is by definition an undefined amount since the actualisation of an infinite is impossible.
If you perhaps enlighten me to why I should accept that an infinite number of objects/events can exist without it being absurd then let me know. While Peter Millican tried to argue that an actual infinite can exist when debating WLC in 2011 (Reasonable faith tour of UK) I was not in the least persuaded. The concept of discussing infinitude as an actual number in the real world creates problems. As does imaginary numbers.
While I will concede your point regarding the dilemma, you just push the question back a step – just kicking the can down the road so to speak.
LikeLike
July 6, 2019 at 10:19 pm
Stan writes:
This is patently false. God, by definition, is a necessary being, and a necessary being, again by definition, exists in all possible worlds.
You’re working on a different definition of “God,” which skewers a straw man.
LikeLike