Well, so far in the truth and evidences series we’ve discussed that truth exists, and that we can’t dismiss truth as just being a matter of faith. We’ve also talked about that if truth exists, then it’s opposite is false – and since different worldviews have contradicting claims, then they can’t all be true. And last week we talked about the difference between disagreeing with a viewpoint because of a lack of foundation for it, verses disagreeing with a viewpoint simply because it is not convenient. So far we largely been establishing the nature of truth, but haven’t really been getting into a discussion of what that truth actually is. But now that we’ve laid all that groundwork, we can start in on that. :)

Here is the assertion, and over the next few weeks we’ll be looking at the evidences for it:
A theistic God exists.

The first point I want to look at is this – every effect has a cause. This is a basic scientific fact of the material universe. If you have a cup of water, that water didn’t just suddenly “appear” in the cup, it came from somewhere. If you run into something, it’s not that an object suddenly materialized out of nowhere (although it may seem that way walking around in the dark!). If you dog comes home smelling like a skunk, that smell came from somewhere (hint: probably a skunk.). If you have a book, someone wrote it. If you’re in a dark room and suddenly it becomes light, then there must be a source for that light. If there is an effect, there is a cause.

The universe exists. Matter exists, energy exists. This is an effect. It must have had a cause.

But what about the idea that the universe is eternal? That it just always will continue to be, and always has been? That it didn’t need an original cause – it’s just always been there?

This idea has a mountain of scientific evidence against it. When Einstein was discovering the fact that the universe is expanding, not static, he didn’t like that idea. He said “This circumstance of an expanding universe is irritating.” In fact, he tried to come up with a mathematical “fudge factor” of the “Cosmological Constant” to try and fit the results to what he thought they should be .. but shortly after, Edwin Hubble was able to show from observation that the universe was in fact expanding, and Einstein then accepted it. Einstein later admitted that the Cosmological Constant was the “biggest blunder” of his life.

But why would the fact that the universe was expanding be irritating? For the universe to be eternal, it would need to be static. But if the universe is expanding, just imagine watching that in rewind. What does it go back to?

The same is true when you look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics – entropy is always increasing. (Entropy is the amount of disorder in a closed system – basically it describes that naturally everything falls apart over time … as my apartment can too often be used to illustrate;) When Tim, my husband was in college (and Tim loves this science stuff, I really should see if he will write one of these posts) his professor was teaching a particularly fascinating lesson on entropy. He taught that class every year, but his excitement was evident: “There is more entropy in the universe now than there was when I taught this class last year!” He became even more enthusiastic: “There is more entropy now that WHEN I STARTED THIS SENTENCE!” It certainly is mind boggling to think about. There was less entropy when he began his sentence. There was less entropy when he taught the year before. What about the year before that? Less entropy. What about a hundred years before that? Less entropy. This is where Tim’s mind was going. So Tim raised his hand and posed this question to his professor, “So, was there ever a time when there was 0 entropy?” The professor smiled at Tim, knowing what Tim was getting at – the beginning. The original cause. But he wouldn’t didn’t give an answer, he just said, “I’m not the person to ask about that.”

There are also signs that scientists stated should exist if there was some sort of explosive origin to the universe rather than an eternal static universe, such cosmic background radiation as well as ripples to the background radiation – and sure enough, later scientists discovered these did in fact exist, and with such accuracy, fitting what would be expected if the universe did have a beginning, as to be amazing. For the sake of not making this post any longer that it already is, I’m not going to go into all of that here, but if you need more information on it, you can let me know.

But science points to the fact that the universe had a beginning. Every effect has a cause – and since the universe exists there must have been a cause. But what was that cause?

Some scientists try to say that at the beginning there were “just” mathematical points or or “just” a ball of condensed matter or “just” energy or “just” something else. But if that is the case – then that is not really the beginning. Where did those mathematical points come from? What caused that ball of energy? Before the beginning there could not have been any time, energy, matter. To grant any of that existing at the beginning just points out that it is not actually the beginning, because you still have to answer where that came from – back to when the actual beginning was.

Of course, this begs the question, “But if you’re saying God existed, where did he begin? If everything must have a cause, what caused God?” We’ll look at this, as well as some other arguments and explanations given for the original cause next week.

Leave your thoughts and comments below! :)