Who Made God? Pt.2

Second, one could appeal to the fact that everything in the universe requires, right at this moment, a cause for its existence. Norman Geisler frames the argument like this: 1) Every part of the universe is dependent. 2) If every part of the universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. 3) Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some independent being. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 277)

Philosopher William Davis puts it this way: "1) There are contingent things (at least some things might not have existed). 2) All contingent things are dependent (at least for their coming into existence) on something else. 3) Not everything can be dependent on something else. (Even if the chain of dependence looped back on itself, the entire chain would still be dependent, and thus something outside the chain would be needed.) 4) Thus, a nondependent (necessary) thing exists (which explains dependent things). (And for those already familiar with God on the basis of revelation, it is not hard to give a name to this necessary being.)" (Reason for the Hope Within, p.24).

Let’s say that your existence, right now, depends on some other dependent thing. But that dependent thing also is dependent on something else for its existence and so on. This chain of dependency cannot go on forever. An infinite regress is impossible. In Reason and Religious Belief, the authors write, “There cannot be an actually infinite set of anything in reality. Although in mathematics we can speak about actual infinities, mathematical infinities concern only the ideal world of mathematics. If they are applied to the real world, absurdities result. For example, if we had an infinite number of books, this would include all the books beginning with the letter A. Suppose that we also have an infinite number of books that begin with A. Then, though the first set contains the second set and more, both sets have the same number of books. But one would expect that if one set is the subset of the other, the subset would be less than the set. Now if the actual infinite cannot exist, then one cannot appeal to an actual infinite of present causal conditions to explain the existence of any given contingent being. Hence, the causal conditions must contain at least one noncontingent [ie. necessary] causal condition.” (p. 78)

A person could reply by objecting to the second premise of Geisler’s argument: If every part of the universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. But, the objector might say, just because every part is dependent that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire universe is dependent. For example, if every player on a basketball team is a good player, that doesn’t necessarily mean the team will be good. So, if the whole is greater than its parts, then the universe need not be dependent even if every part of the universe is dependent; in other words, the universe itself could be a necessary being and, therefore, no creator is required.

In response, it could be pointed out that if every single particle making up the universe suddenly disappeared, it seems reasonable to conclude that the universe itself would also disappear. A counter example would be: if every tile of a floor is blue, then the entire floor will be blue. There are cases where it is legitimate to argue from parts to the whole. And the universe is one of those cases.

Third,...