Let me paint the picture for you. I was in college at the University of Alabama. I had a brilliant professor, whom I’ll call Dr. E. He was a Rhodes scholar, brilliant teacher, and also an agnostic or maybe an atheist.
The most memorable class of my sophomore year was Dr. E’s class on Niezsche. You may have heard the phrase, “God is dead.” Well, we covered that, and more. We covered Nietzsche’s ideas about the “Uber Man” or Super Man. We started with fifteen students, and wound up with only 8. It was tough.
Powerful, Simple Thought
I went home one weekend and had a memorable encounter. I told one of my mentors Flavil Nichols (read this), about my experience in this Nietzsche class. He got very serious and said:
Can something come from nothing? No.
Then, that means something was always existed. Yes.
Now, the question is, what was that something? Was it dead, lifeless, matter, or was it and intelligent, living being?
That’s pretty direct, but it’s pretty powerful, too. I mean it just makes sense to me. My common sense tells me that life didn’t just pop up from nothing. The Universe didn’t just come about from a void. There must have always been something…so the question is what is the nature of that something. I believe it is a being who has personhood, intelligence, creativity, integrity, and love.
Kalam Cosmological Argument
While the argument above is very satisfying to me, some may push for a more formal, rigorous approach. Well, the Kalam cosmological argument is just that. It has been made famous in recent days by William Lane Craig. It’s very similar to Mr. Nichol’s argument. Here it goes:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Source: Reasonable Faith
Now, that’s a pretty tight argument.
Premise 1: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
If you deny this one, please comment below. I’d like to hear why. Seems obvious.
Premise 2: “The universe began to exist.”
Now, here is probably the only question in the whole thing. Did the Universe always exist, or did it begin to exist? There are three ines of thinking to consider.
- Science: The Big Bang Theory. This indicates the Universe had a beginning. It literally came into existence with a…you guess it…Big Bang!
- Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says the Universe is winding down, going toward a state of disorder. If it were infinitely old, then we would already be infinitely wound down!
- Philosophy: The impossibility of an actual infinite regress. This gets to the nature of the impossibility of an actual infinite regress of events. What it means is there ain’t no such thing as a finite infinite. Read here for more explanation. Note that this does not negate the impossibility of an infinite God who is actually infinite (exists outside of the Universe’s time and space physics). I may write a whole post on this.
Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Follows from premises 1 and 2. Now, let’s consider the implications. First of all, the cause of such a Universe must be uncaused. The impossibility of an infinite regress is only realized if there is such a thing as time. If this uncaused cause creates time and space, then this cause is not bound be them. He does not begin to exist. He simply exists. Or, as the holy name of God states, “I AM,” Exodus 3:14. There is deep meaning in that name.
There are some more logical work that must be done to arrive at all of the implication of the Kalam cosmological argument, but I’d like to leave it here. I’d like to leave it with the idea that there is an uncaused Cause, and that he is the great I AM.
Dr. E and More than an Apology
Back to Dr. E. I ran into him the other day. We just keep running into each other day. His office is now right next door to a room that my office uses. Can you believe that? Earlier in the year, our offices were on the same floor. They were assigned that way. I like him. He’s brilliant. He’s one of my favorite people, honestly.
I’m sure he can find the weaknesses in any cosmological or teleological or whatever sort of argument I might present. So what can I do? I’ll tell you what I can do. I’ll show him what I believe is the true incarnation of the “Uber Man” that Nietzsche wrote about.
What do I mean? Christ rose from the grave and sent his Spirit into my heart so that I can live a resurrected life in the here and now. God loved the world so much that he gave. I can do the same thing, and through my actions, I can show a love that has no defense, no counter-argument. I can show an life of kindness, of love, of service, and of sacrifice that is really a manifestation of the supernatural. I can show a life that is unexplainable except by Christ living in me. That’s the true “Uber-man” or “Super Man.”
Why do you believe in God?