If anything exists, God exists.

Why is there anything? Why not nothing?

This is one of the great questions man has asked himself over the millenia. What is the nature of reality? Why is it here? Four possibilities exist:
1.) Nothing exists. It is all an illusion.
2.) The universe is self created.
3.) The universe is self existent and eternal.
4.) The universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being.

This is a simplification of course, where many would make minor variations to each of these options. But when boiled down to their core, all options will fit into one of these four catagories. A quick observation about this list is that two of our four options require something to be eternal and self-existent. We shall deal with those last.

The first option came from the philosopher David Hume's radical skepticism. He repudiated the possibility of certain knowledge, finding in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world derives solely from the conjunction of two impressions. We only think effects are caused by cause he pondered. Hume's skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology. His chief work was "A Treatise of Human Nature" (1739-40) Hume's work had the potential to destroy the credibility of all scientific investigation, which requires the acceptance of the Law of Cause and Effect and the general reliability of sense perception.

Along came Immanuel Kant who coined the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. Even if we doubt all else, if I think, I know at least I exist. It is true by definition, and is proof something exists. Someone may object "I think I don't exist," but such a statement still says "I think." It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, and is akin to saying soemthing like "this piece of chalk is not a piece of chalk," total rubbish. Myself denying that I exists still affirms that I exist.

So, we know for a fact that something exists, hence option one is irrational and impossible.

In my last blog I gave proof for why the universe cannot be self-created. Such a belief is irrational. For something to create itself it must exist before it exists. Hence option two is irrational and impossible.

At this point our two last options require the existence of something that is eternal, and self-existent (not created). This violates no principle of rationality or logic.

The third option, that the universe is self-existent and eternal, begs several questions. What part is eternal and self existent? I certainly am not. I had a definite start on March 1st, 1981, and require other things to continue my existence. The desk I am sitting at is not self existent or eternal. Nor is the sun, or anything in our solar system. Everything is winding itself down as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says (simplified) that everything tends toward disorder. To go toward order require energy input and intentionality/design. If everything is headed "down hill" toward disorder then that means...it was once ordered. That is what the Big Bang theory says, that all of existence was once compressed into an ordered dot a trillionth the size of a proton. To say a perfectly ordered, eternal dot spontaneously became unordered without any outside intereference violates the Law of Cause and Effect. So what caused it to become unordered, to explode?

Answers to this question fall into one of two catagories. Either the "scientist" will pull a quantum mechanics magic trick and resort to self creation (possibility two), which is impossible and irrational, or say something like "Speculations about what caused the Big Bang are not part of the testable, and falsifiable aspects of this theory." In other words...don't ask that, it isn't part of science. But oh, yes it is. Science is intimately concerned with cause and effect, and to write off the question about the First Cause as something we can't know or shouldn't be concerned with is a dishonest sham. I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

So if I am not eternal and self-existent, nor is anything close to me eternal and self-existent, then somewhere out there in the universe something else is. Far, far away there is some self-existent eternal orb. Starting to sound a lot like option four...

Having shown that option three is, at best nothing more than option four in disguise, or at worst irrational, we know that the universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being, which is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 and onward. An eternal, self-existing being is a logical necessity. The greek philosopher Aristotle called this self-existent, eternal being the Unmoved-Mover.

So what was the point of all of this? Someone might object that all we have done is to become theists, arriving logically at the door of the Lyceum. In the second century Tertullian famously propounded the rhetorical question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" The Unmoved-Mover of Aristotle was an impersonal being that created out of necessity, without choice, a far cry from the God of Israel. But simply because the proof's I have shown are not a complete revelation of God does not mean that what I've shown isn't true. In fact, we cannot have a complete knowledge of God. It is precisely at this doctrine of Christianity, that there exists an eternal creative being, that the guns of atheists and agnostics are pointed at. Hence, the proofs I have shown are worthwhile. But they do not end there.

Our universe displays purpose, design, and intentionality. That means the eternal, self-existent Being is intentional and purposeful. If intentional and purposeful, then intelligent and with a capacity to chose (to will). If intellect and a will, then personality. This is exactly what the Bible teaches.

So if anything exists, God exists.

No chance in Hell...or anywhere else for that matter.

At times we use a coin toss to make a decision, such as a football game, leaving the toss to "chance". Provided that the coin doesn't land on its side, what is the probability that a coin will land on tails? Given enough coin tosses averaged together, fifty percent. But for a single throw, it is impossible to predict the results. But is there really any chance involved? Supposing we had a vacuum sealed room with no air, hence no air friction, and a device that would launch a coin in to the air at the exact same speed, height, and angle, with the coin in the exact same position on the launcher. If we could so duplicate the initial starting conditions of the coin toss, with nothing to interfere, the odds that the coin would land on the same side every single time would be 100%. The problem with predicting a coin toss is that we cannot duplicate/know the initial starting conditions exactly, so we leave the results to "chance". There really is no "chance" -in the sense of actually being random- involved at all. Chance is simply a word we use to describe our ignorance, that we cannot know all of the complexities involved, nor are we able to control what we know to a high enough degree as to allow us to make accurate predictions.

This is why we cannot predict the weather far into the future. With all of our powerful radars and other equipment, it is impossible to know exactly the weather conditions at any given moment, nor to understand all of the minute events occurring throughout our galaxy that could impact our planet. Such small differences between what we measure and what the real conditions are, cause our weather predictions to drastically differ from reality over a long enough period of time. Unpredictable systems, like the weather, are called chaotic, perhaps even random, because they don't follow any of our models/predictions, but they are not really. We simply do not know everything, hence they appear random. But there is nothing random. There is no chance.

The last century spawned a new field of science called Quantum Physics/Quantum Mechanics which (simplified) deals with the study of atoms and their subatomic particles. Unfortunately for such study, it is impossible to know both the exact momentum and location of a particle at the same instant. This is known as Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We cannot explain what causes certain phenomena to happen at the atomic level, because it is impossible to know exactly what is happening at any given moment. This impossibility is built into the system, so let me state it again: we don't know what causes some effects. Some have made a leap of logic to say that since we don't know what is causing some effect, that NOTHING is causing the effect. This is illogical and irrational. The Law of Cause and Effect is that all effects must have a cause. It is true simply by definition. (Aside: Someone might object, saying I'm not a quantum physicist, which I'm not. Though I've taken a few classes, I am in no position to argue the results of their work. But I can evaluate the truth claims they make about those results.)

But when a teacher stands in front of a class and tells the students that 18-20 Billion years ago "nothing" exploded it is accepted as fact. Yet this is just as illogical and irrational. All effects must have a cause. So, the scientist says, it was caused by chance, a probability. But chance does not have any power (let alone ultimate power), nor does it have any being; it is simply a description of systems we do not understand. If nothing existed, there is no system to predict. "Ex nilhilo nihil fit" - Nothing comes from nothing. For something to create itself it would have to exist before it exists. Might as well stick the side of your finger to your lips and flail it up and down. This is nonsense, irrational, and it is not science.

And if at this point you find yourself believing that nothing exploded and produced everything, and that you don't believe in cause and effect, please tell the world. You will save us all the time from having to convince the world you are being irrational by telling them this yourself. :)