In our last exciting installment, I said that skeptics (and believers) often have a view of God which is painfully small, especially for human minds. I noted that those human brains are often seen as bearing no significance at all, none to speak of anyway, when compared with the size of the Universe. What, then, could set the Universe in motion? How much greater must that intelligence and power be, compared even with our wild imaginations?
I submitted that this power (whatever its source) is something beyond comprehension, whether it comes from God or else a natural cause. I think we must say the same for that intelligence – this is almost easier to recognize, though still beyond comprehension – though I do not necessarily mean that we must therefore admit a God.
I don’t know what else you’ll say could manifest that intelligence, but I’m listening.
Even with a view toward modern science (let alone “God”), I am looking through the glass dimly, and still can appreciate what a startling display of intelligence has been required to understand the cosmos, to draw conclusions about its origins and to sketch out what are the laws of physics. There are people out there inventing mathematics to explain it, and talking about equations so difficult that we might never solve them.
This does not compute with a Universe tumbling into existence on the same mechanics as a roulette wheel. That Universe would not require or condone complex, logical equations. It would require a deck of cards and a lot of time.
But that’s not what smart atheists are saying now, so let’s do away with straw men.
Smart atheists are trying to find a way around this:
Premise 1 – Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2 – The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion – The Universe has a cause.
Again, the conclusion is not: “God exists.” It is rather, “The Universe has a cause.”
William Lane Craig, the contemporary champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, rightly points out that, since the argument is sound, the burden is on atheists to refute one or both of the premises. If the argument is successful, it would seem to demonstrate a cause which transcends those things by which we define the Universe – space, time, energy, and matter. It is further suggested that this cause must be personal (that is, a person) because the act of creation would have been a choice, and only persons make choices.
If you would, how would you refute them?