(1) Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
(2) The universe has a beginning.
Therefore,
(3) The universe has a cause.
We've already noted that the argument is valid. If the premises are true, that is, if (1) and (2) are true, then the conclusion, (3), must be true. We've now moved on to evaluating the argument for soundness. If it is sound, then (1) and (2) are actually true. That would mean that (3) would in fact be true.
One must defend the premises if soundness is to be established. In the last post, I defended (1). I leave it to the reader to review that post. I will move on to defend (2).
It seems nearly trivial to say that the universe had a beginning. From a theological standpoint, Genesis 1:1 is clear that God created the physical universe out of nothing. Therefore, it must have had a beginning. From a contemporary scientific standpoint, we are all children of the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory supposes that the universe came into existence in the distant past as all that is exploded from an initial singularity ("singularity" is code for "infinitesimal black hole"--talk about coming into existence out of nothing!).
However, it was not too long ago that the universe was thought to be infinite in size and sempiternal, or extending into the infinite past. If this were the case, then there would be no sense to claiming that the universe had a beginning. There is an obvious inconsistency between older physical theories that posit an infinite and sempiternal universe and contemporary theories (and the Bible) that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning in time. Are there any reasons to chose the newer theories over the old ones? Why think that the universe really did have a beginning?
Here's one answer many Christians might give: because the newer theories posit a creation out of nothing just like the Bible, and Bible is right. I would advise against this answer. It may be, and is, true, but giving it would be a poor tactical decision. Imagine this exchange:
Harry: "We should be more inclined to accept newer physical theories that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning because they are more inline with the Bible, and the Bible is true."
Sally: "Why do you think the Bible is true?"
There are many answers to Sally's question, some better than others, but look at what happened. The discussion has moved away from the beginning of the universe. Instead, Harry is going to have to switch gears and give an argument for the veracity of the Bible. There are really good arguments available to give, but few know them. It usually ends up that Harry will say that the Bible is true because it's God's Word. But then:
Sally: "How do you know it's God's Word? After all, wasn't it written by humans?"
Harry: "Well, look in 2 Timothy 3:16. It says that all Scripture, that is the Hebrew and Greek texts, are God-breathed."
Sally: "So you are saying the the Bible is God's Word because it says it is?"
Harry: "Yes."
Sally: "But doesn't the Koran make the same claim? And doesn't the Book of Mormon claim to trump the New Testament? Are these also the Word of God?"
Harry: "No, they are not."
Sally: "Why not?"
At this point, Harry has a decision to make. He can continue to make the circular claim that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is, and therefore the others can't be. On the other hand, he could give arguments that support the Bible's being the Word of God without depending on the Bible itself in any kind of circular way. For example:
Harry: "Well, let's look at the Koran. It claims to be the Word of God; you're right about that, Sally. And the Bible and the Koran can't both be the Word of God because they make incompatible claims about the way the world is. Here is one good example: In Genesis 1:26ff, we see that God created humans in his image. In the Koran, humans are not created in the image of Allah. In Genesis, Adam and Eve sin, and they become fallen. In the Koran, there is no fall. Allah forgives them. Here's the upshot: without the fall, humans are not inherently bound to sin. We could live righteously if we tried hard enough. But the very fact that we are enslaved by sin, the fact that we are fallen, means we can be righteous. It is only because we can't be righteous that Jesus came. If, as the Koran claims, we can save ourselves, the we don't need Jesus. But, if we can't do good, then the Koran is wrong, and we do need Jesus--desperately. The cornerstone of Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. However, the Koran denies that Jesus actually died. Rather, Allah brought him into heaven prior to his death. But is Christ did not die, then he could not be resurrected. If he was not resurrected, then Christianity is false--completely false. But if he was resurrected, then Jesus is God, which the Koran denies. So if Jesus was raised and is God, then the Koran is false. Now, here are some reasons why there is good reason to think the Bible is true..."
Two things to sum up this post: (1) Punting to the Bible is the Word because it says it is, will get you off track. Stay focussed on the argument at hand. (2) If you do ever get into a discussion on the veracity of the Bible, there are good arguments out there that don't require the circular punt above.
In the next part, I'll give you the first sufficient answer to why we should prefer the newer theories and the Bible over the older ones. WARNING: it involves some concepts from math, e.g., set theory. It's not difficult, but I thought you might want to buckle up. We'll be talking a lot about different kinds of infinites.
J Green
