Apologetics Pt 7

An exploration of premise (1) of the Cosmological Argument.

Last time we said this:

“So, premise (1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Simply put, we know this to be true in every area of life. I can simply ask you to imagine something that began to exist without a cause – it’s impossible to do so.” 

Here are a few objections that people may come up with and appropriate responses –

1. Well, not everything has a cause. For example, at a quantum level, particles can appear and disappear without a cause.
This is just a misunderstanding of what we mean by cause. At the quantum level, it’s true that particles seem to disappear and appear randomly. But the difference is this – they are in the context of the quantum vacuum – that is, they are results of fluctuations that already exist at a quantum level. Prior to the beginning of the universe, there wasn’t even a quantum vacuum for things to appear into and disappear from! The quantum vacuum itself was created at the moment of the Big Bang. If things can just appear and disappear uncaused out of nothing, then why don’t we see this in life? People who raise this objection are in essence saying, well the universe was like a bunny that a magician pulled out of a hat – but there’s no magician or hat!

2. Then what created God?
This is a misunderstanding of the premise. The premise states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This would exclude God. Further, God doesn’t need an explanation in order for Himself to be the best explanation. For an explanation to be the best, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation. Let me illustrate – if NASA discovered machinery on the dark side of the moon, we would immediately come to the conclusion that someone (or thing) put it there. We wouldn’t need an explanation of that someone or something for that explanation to be the best explanation.

Can you think of any more objections? Are you convinced of premise 1?