I’m a Christian, but I’ll be clear that this is not a platform to “convert” anyone. The goal of this blog is to help people of all beliefs live better lives by thinking deeply. Being a philosopher and this being “The Thinking Blog,” it made sense to throw in a bit of philosophy!
A reader commented on a post yesterday saying that people believe in God even though “there’s hardly any good evidence for it.” I agree that evidence for an infinite being is challenging. And in order to consider God’s existence, we must consider if the framework of the concept is legitimate.
The concept of God is supernatural – it breaks the laws of nature and everything we understand. If it is deemed logical that something supernatural exists, our observations and logic about that something are rendered useless to understand how it works (otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural). The good news is that we can approach the concept of the supernatural logically, as it is only when we arrive at the existence of the supernatural that we can no longer comprehend further.
The evidence for God’s possible existence starts with the basic question – does something supernatural exist? The answer is 100% yes. Again, this doesn’t prove God’s existence, it merely makes Him a viable option instead of “God is a fairy tale.”
Logic Time
Finite – has a beginning and end
Infinite – existence outside of time (no beginning/end)
Regardless of if the following is true or false, both sides point to something supernatural.
The universe is finite or infinite.
If infinite, the universe itself is a supernatural phenomenon because it cannot be explained logically. This is actually the best argument against God’s existence – that the universe is infinite and in no need of a creator. But I don’t know of any evidence that supports an infinite universe theory (do you?). There is solid finite universe evidence (laws of thermodynamics for one), but it isn’t 100% conclusive.
Either way, something supernatural exists.
If the universe is finite, then the following is the rational conclusion to draw. There is no way out of it unless you’re willing to lie to yourself.
Science tries to determine the age of the universe, but we’re still left with the question of what was first. What started our finite universe? The answer is very simple – something finite or something infinite.
Finite vs. Infinite
First, let me clarify that finite and infinite are mutually exclusive and there is no middle ground. You can’t be kind of finite or kind of infinite. It’s one or the other – black and white. Finite things have a beginning and end and infinite things have no beginning and no end (deliciously supernatural).
The problem with something finite being the beginning source is that it requires a beginning source itself in order to begin (and that keeps looping). If you think finite matter appeared out of nothingness without cause, not only do you believe in something supernatural, but you’re completely delusional about it. In a universe nothing of nothing, something can’t happen because there is no matter, air, space, video games or anything! There’s nothing and no catalyst to activate that nothing.
If this Desert Planet came from nothing… well, it couldn’t have.
Natural law cannot produce a viable theory or even a long-shot concept that agrees with logic for the initial instance of matter – and our universe is very likely finite (again, disagree with this and you already believe in the supernatural). This is a problem that Naturalists will never resolve (logically).
The concept of something infinite existing is the only way to explain the beginning of the first finite system (our universe could even be the 9th system, created by preceding systems, for all we know). This makes sense because it’s the only option left after we just eliminated the possibility of an initial finite source.
Many hesitate to accept the “infinite thing” because we live with finite, tangible things. But if we broadly consider existence using logic, there is no other explanation. The first cause has to be independent of any other cause, and there must be a first cause because nothing can’t produce something.
Many have questioned what makes the first cause exempt from needing a cause, why the first cause exists, and so on. These questions have an unknowable supernatural answer, and this is where scientists turn around and run.
Why Scientists Fail To Answer The Big Question
We cannot understand anything supernatural.
Scientists turn to irrational, unnecessarily complex theorems of the universe when this is SIMPLE. Something was first and it logically has to be infinite. They can’t accept that there is an easy answer because there is no chance of comprehending that answer.
We have all the information we need to know that something infinite exists. What we lack is concrete knowledge of what that infinite something is (I believe it is God, but that is belief and not fact).
Science, the supposed “God killer” in some eyes, can’t touch this. Science can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t consider the supernatural as it breaks the laws of nature, which is exactly what science observes. This is a philosophical question.
Infinity is outside of science’s scope, so of course most scientists aren’t going to like it. This is why I laugh when I see scientists arguing against the supernatural using their (admittedly impressive) knowledge of the natural. It’s nonsense to approach it from that angle. Ironically, it is just as wrong as Christians saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. The only angle you can approach it from is with logic.
Now, to not believe in something supernatural is rational suicide. It doesn’t have to be God. Arguing that only natural matter exists implies that it came from… nothing… with no catalyst… the ultimate supernatural event!
If the universe itself were infinite, it would create a lot of problematic questions such as…Why? What the crap? How? Logic would fail. When we ask the same questions about God, our logic fails in the same way. Logic brings us to the point of knowing something infinite exists, but it can’t help us once we arrive. But our incomprehension of the destination does not invalidate our logic to get there.
<assumingGodexists>God was smart to design things this way, because it is subtle enough that people can ignore it, but evident enough to make faith more than a wild shot in the dark. This gives us choice – as those who seek honestly will be faced with believing in the supernatural and probably find that God is the best answer to all of this “stuff.”</assumingGodexists>
If the universe were infinite… *mind explodes* But if it’s God… *mind explodes* Lesson: trying to consider what the infinite instigator could be and how it could exist infinitely will always cause a mental explosion.
What to take from this?
Believing in the concept of God takes faith, but believing in Naturalism is completely irrational. Believing in infinite abstract magic is more rational than Naturalism (i.e. the belief that the supernatural does not exist). I believe the infinite “thing” is God because it makes sense to me that our system of order, laws, and life was created rather than… randomly propagated by a mindless magic infinite thing.
Thoughts? Feel free to attack my argument (logically, please). Leave your shoes and emotions at the door. 🙂
EDIT: The comments are closed now. I think 17,000 words of debate is enough. At least, it is enough for me. I’m focused on writing new content now. 🙂 Thank you for understanding. And a huge thank you to everyone for being civil and mature in your responses to this very controversial topic. I have great appreciation and respect for that.
