"... it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." -- G. K. Chesterton
Here we have another common argument used by Neo-Darwinist, usually used in the attempt to redirect the argument of origins back on the proponent of ID (intelligent design). I normally see this question when the Neo-Darwinist has no answer for the Origin of Life (OOL) issue; which how could he if no empirical evidence for the OOL argument exist? Either way, it surprises me that this argument of seemingly amateur nature arises so frequently by those who seem to know so much. The reason is this argument crumbles and proves irrelevant when using science and logic together.
For this we start with the Law of Causality which is the very foundation of science. Since science is the search for causes the question arises…who made (caused) God? But since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed: we have 2 options: the universe, or something that caused the universe. The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. Scientific and philosophical evidence such as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Expanding Universe, Radiation from the Big Bang, The Great Galaxy Seeds, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Radioactive Decay, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, tells the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of two options you are left with the only other option—something outside the universe is eternal. So there are 2 possibilities for anything that exist 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (i.e. the universe). So according to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else—by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but is not based on those religions; it is based on good reason and evidence. So I argue the First Cause must be:
A) Self-existent, timeless, immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the first cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). This makes him without limits, or infinite.
B) Extremely powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing
C) Very intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision
D) Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices.)
An article from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp says:
- Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
- The universe has a beginning.
- Therefore the universe has a cause.
"It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause."
"The "Who made God?" question is a textbook example of the compound question fallacy. A fallacious compound question occurs when one ignores questions that should be asked first. For example, "have you stopped beating your spouse?" is fallacious when it is has not been established that one has ever beaten one's spouse. Likewise, "Who made God?" presupposes the prior question "Is God a created being?" http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/whomade.htm
- From nothing, nothing comes.
- Therefore, if nothing existed in the past, nothing would exist now.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its existence.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
- An actual infinity cannot exist.
- An infinite regress of cause and effect would be an actual infinity.
"One might take issue with the soundness of these premises, but the point here is that unless one wants to argue that something can come from nothing (and I realize that there are atheists who do so), something has always existed. The KCA then goes on to argue that the universe has not always existed and that, therefore, something else has always existed. That's why proponents of the KCA can maintain both that God is uncaused and that the universe has a cause, without special pleading." http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/whomade.htm
"One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed. If SETI detects a signal from intelligent extra-terrestrial life, we need not know how that life form arose to determine that there was indeed an intelligent being that sent the signal. Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer--it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer." http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147