A True Metanarrative: The Universe Needs a First Cause
By Dr. Darrell Dooyema
Have you ever wondered where everything came from? What set into motion the universe, with all its fantastically complex moving, swirling, rotating, vibrating, oscillating elements? Or maybe you have wondered what is beyond all you can see, and then what is beyond all of that?
Most children ask these questions. Humans have puzzled over them for millennia. And some philosophers address them with the “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God.
I recently discussed the origins of the universe and the need for a First Cause with a very scientifically-minded friend. He argued that my belief in God was merely a way to artificially fill a gap in knowledge; that is, a way to explain what we don’t yet know. In his view, philosophical ideas were mere “speculations” and we should assume that a scientific process or principle will eventually explain everything without the need for belief in God.
During our discussion, my friend made a “category mistake,” which is like asking how the color blue smells or what right angles sound like. Category mistakes lead people to answers that do not apply to the corresponding questions. Ironically, his position represented what we could formally call the “science of the gaps” argument—the assumption that the scientific method will one day answer anything we don’t currently know. This assumption requires faith.
The “science of the gaps” viewpoint says that a material cause will eventually be found for the material universe. But this merely kicks the question down the street. If we found such material cause, we would face the same question: What caused that? . . . We would be right back where we began.
An Infinite Regress of Causes
Philosophers call this an infinite regress. An infinite regress of causes never leads to an ultimate cause for what exists.
To illustrate this idea, suppose I ask to borrow your old iPod. You tell me that you no longer have it, but you offer to ask your friend Nikola. When you ask Nikola, you discover that he does not have an iPod either. He says he will ask Lebron, but Lebron admits that he recycled his years ago, so he’ll have to ask Jamal. If this goes on infinitely, will I ever receive the iPod I was hoping for? No.
Likewise, an infinite regress of causes can never explain why something—including the universe—exists. The “science of the gaps” viewpoint fails to get beyond this problem because it presupposes that there is nothing other than matter. It assumes that the scientific method will eventually discover a material cause for everything and asks us to wait for an answer that logically can’t occur.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
Unfortunately, we can’t honestly be content with waiting for a resolution to an infinite regress of causes. That’s because of the “Principle of Sufficient Reason.” It teaches us that we can rightly infer that all effects do in fact have an ultimate cause. Stated in a different way, we can say that everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence. It is no use in merely punting the question left open by the “science of the gaps” viewpoint.
Thus, it is not scientifically dubious to argue for a Prime Mover or a First Cause of the universe; an uncaused First Cause is logically and philosophically necessary. To stop the infinite regress, the First Cause must not need any prior cause, or it must be necessary, or it must exist eternally (outside of the material universe). The kind of thing that can cause a universe, and that is also not caused by itself, cannot be a material thing nor any kind of “natural” process.
Moreover, this Prime Mover must be powerful enough to cause a universe and personal enough to make decisions. Why must the First Cause be personal? Nearly all scientists now agree that the universe began at a specific time (say T0). This implies decision-making powers on the part of the First Cause. There had to be a choice to initiate the physical elements and processes before they existed.
Consider this analogy. Imagine the volcano experiment of youth science fairs, with someone holding in two hands vinegar and baking soda. For the volcano to erupt, someone must decide to simultaneously add one element to the other. What about the existence of the universe? Even if all the conditions and elements were present beforehand (say swirling around in a cosmic bowl), why didn’t the universe bang into existence before T0?
Moreover, we have to ask what kind of thing could possibly fit the description of a First Cause that is timeless, immaterial, uncaused, personal, and powerful enough to cause a universe.
A Personal, Powerful First Cause
The Bible, which was written long before most philosophers thought to explore the Cosmological Argument, describes exactly such a being. God is all-powerful and able to cause a universe, personal, and able to make decisions. God chose to create, proclaiming, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) at a precise time. He is timelessly eternal (Isaiah 26:4). He is uncaused while causing everything else (Acts 17:25). Each of the elements that are needed to answer the question of a First Cause are found in the God of the Bible.
While science progresses at an admirable pace, and its methodical process is remarkably reliable, it will not answer questions that it is not designed to address. The scientific method, for example, cannot self-referentially explain its own origin nor answer why the laws of science exist. The scientific method cannot address the beauty and preexisting logical relationships of math—the vehicle science uses to propel itself. It cannot fully answer the question “Who am I?” or “What is my purpose?” or any other question of personal identity. And, as we have argued above, it cannot resolve the need for a First Cause.
Indeed, one of the maxims of science is ex nihilo, nihilo fit, which mean “nothing comes from nothing.” The question of origin is outside of its purview.
In summary, the Cosmological Argument looks like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a First Cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.*
Please comment below for discussion!
*Thanks to William Lane Craig for this formulation. To see a very good short summary in video from Dr. Craig’s team, watch below.
Also, for a great book on the Christian origin of the scientific method, see Nancy Pearcy’s The Soul of Science. Or read our article on “The Synergy of Science and Theism” on this Work Matters site.