A Simple Argument for God

Sometimes people shy away from apologetics and philosophy because the subject can become complex, or what some people call “deep.”

Some of the arguments for the existence of God are a bit complex and hard to follow, or at least they can seem that way.

So, as an exercise, I’ve tried to make the simplest argument for God that I could.

A Simple Cosmological Argument for God:

  1. Either the universe is eternal (uncaused), came from nothing, created itself, or has an external cause.
  2. The universe is not eternal, did not come from nothing, and did not create itself.
  3. The universe has an external cause.
  4. If the universe has an external cause, that cause must be immaterial and eternal.
  5. The universe has an external cause that is immaterial and eternal.
  6. This cause is what we call God.

Eternal Universe

The universe cannot be eternal for the obvious: there could not have been a past eternal number of events that led to the present moment. This is logically impossible.

Why? Because actual infinites are impossible. We can imagine a string of numbers going infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future, but that is just imagination with abstract objects.

This is impossible in physical reality. Imagine the universe never began and there was an infinite number of events between now and some point in the past.

Say you traveled half the distance between now and then. How far would you have to go?

You would still have an infinite number of events to pass through before reaching the present moment. In other words, you would never get to the present moment.

But here we are in the present moment. Considering the universe is winding down, we would have already experienced that heat death we have been promised, if the universe was past eternal.

Therefore, clearly the universe is not eternal.

Everything from Nothing

It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing. When physicist like Lawrence Krauss say they can prove something from nothing, they are lying.

They can prove something tiny came from a quantum vacuum – which is not nothing. In order to get to something, there would at least have to be potential, but potential is not nothing either.  

Nothing is defined as: no properties, no powers, and no potential. It is impossible to get something from that.

Self-Creation

It is impossible for something to create itself because it would have to already exist.

In order for x to bring x into being, x must already exist in order to bring x into being. This would essentially reduce to an eternal universe, which has already been addressed.

External Cause

We are left with no other option than to conclude that the universe has an external cause that brought it into being.

Now, since the universe is defined as all of matter, space, and time; it follows logically that the cause of the universe must not be bound by any of those things, otherwise we would not be talking about all matter, space, and time because those things would be found in the cause of the universe too and we would be right back where we started.

Now, since we are talking about all matter, space, and time; the external cause could not have been composed or bound by those things.

Which means this external cause is immaterial, eternal, and space-less.

Whatever else we mean by the word God, we mean this external cause of the universe.

Support our Ministry

Published by Haden Clark

Haden lives in North Texas with his wife and two dogs. He holds degrees in theology and philosophy.

65 thoughts on “A Simple Argument for God

    1. Also, just because or if the universe WE know or see NOW had a beginning that was external to it… How did the blog author exclude possibilities of natural causes rather than jump to a ‘person’?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I didnt jump to a person. I said this cause must be immaterial, eternal, and spaceless. I never said it was supernatural either, but it certainly isn’t material. Then I labeled this cause with the word “God”. Call it what you like. Any argument for a personal God, or the Christian God would require another argument.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. But I know you’re going there.. so.. that’s where this becomes dishonest.
        With no way of having actual data, evidence of what was before the beginning of this universe, all is imagination and supposition, in your case serving a theological bias. Dishonest.

        Like

      3. Rather than deal with the philosophical argument I just laid out clear as the day is long, you are punting to “we can’t see the beginning”. That’s dishonest. Deal with the argument. Its logically valid, show me a false premise.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. We have no data to say what came before our present universe. Your arguments are just mental gymnastics.
        I’d be curious to know, are these arguments the reason you originally became a Christian?

        Like

      5. Im not arguing from scientific evidence. I’m arguing from philosophical starting points. Calling philosophy “mental gymnastics” is just you paroting [Your Favorite Atheist]. Show why it is mental gymnastics. Deny a premise, or show the logic to be faulty, or the conclusion stands. Stop dodging.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I’m not dodging anything. The problem is that arguments in themselves aren’t evidence for anything. They support evidence and may even explain evidence, but they are not evidence in themselves. I Imagine that universe creating pixies might be as responsible for the creation or the beginning of our present universe that we see and live in, but you would probably, and with good reason, say that’s fanciful and ridiculous. The reason you’d be right to do so? Because we have no evidence or data from before this universe began that might even possibly confirm the “philosophizing”, this it becomes a moot or meaningless argument. Meant only to “baffle with BS” when you can’t actually “dazzle with details”.

        Like

      7. So you dont take issue with the truth value of the premises, and you haven’t challenged the form of the argument? To this point, the argument remains unchallenged. All you’ve done thus far is deny the validity of philosophical argument which is itself a philosophical argument, but okay lol

        Liked by 1 person

      8. As for the personal shot “my favorite atheist”… I don’t really have any favorite atheist.
        I think they’re all going straight to whatever Hell you can demonstrate to actually exist for not believing in whatever God or gods you can demonstrate actually exists.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. If you think you’re making a point, you’re not. What you’re doing is ad hominem. In other words, you have nothing to say about the premises of my argument, so instead you turn toward me as a person. Its transparent and beneath you. You can do better. If you have nothing to say of the premises, I’m afraid I have nothing to offer you. Have a wonderful day!

        Like

      10. Nope. I actually was congratulating you on your education. Was just trying to ascertain what it was in. You seem to have insecurely jumped to conclusions.

        Like

    2. 1. There is no “we” that determines what is allowed for. “We” don’t determine truth. Truth is what corresponds to reality. So idc who allows for what.
      2. I have not argued for personal god, biblical god, or jesus. Not yet(;

      Like

      1. The usage of the word ”we” was meant in a generic manner.

        I could have said one or you.

        Again, as a Christian you opt for the personal god rather than all encompassing but impersonal deity.
        To state that : ”I have not argued for personal god, biblical god, or jesus. Not yet(;” is somewhat disingenuous, because this is the character you consider to be this personal creator.
        Therefore, whether you are arguing for Jesus of not, the question stands.
        How do you get from this generic creator god to the character Jesus of Nazareth?
        I’d appreciate a straightforward answer as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Citations?
        You do understand what evidence is, I hope? An argument is simply an argument and a claim is only a claim.
        If it cannot be verified it is not evidence.
        For example, Habermas claiming there are facts surrounding the tale of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth is simply erroneous.

        Like

      3. Dictionary definition: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” Anything you add is false and an attempt to restrict what counts. In other words, stacking the deck.

        Like

      4. I’m not sure I really understand your second statement. But I think we’re in agreement, yes? I somewhat appreciate Ark’s specific and ever-narrow field of what may be deemed as “evidence”, I’ve just never seen it in such an infinitely narrow perspective, or further, even heard of “citation” being categorized as “inadmissible”, simply because it is, in fact, citation. If so, I guess I missed that day of class in my criminal studies.

        Like

      5. Sorry, you do realize that I’m defending the validity of citation, yes? I’m coming from the standpoint of Law and its parameters surrounding admissible forms of “evidence”.

        Like

      6. Evidence: (Law) Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.

        Like

      7. @basarnewz
        ”…any proof ”
        Well go on then, Hot Shot.
        Present your proof of the resurrection based on the biblical accounts.
        I reckon this will be a very short exposition so I won’t bother making popcorn.

        Like

      8. Citation, or text, is a valid form of “evidence” in any Court of Law, it doesn’t really matter if you accept it or not, the Courts, in fact, do. In our previous discussions I, and others, have cited many citations from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, which are, in fact, deemed as credible forms of “evidence”, again, according to the Law. The point isn’t whether you, personally, accept them as “evidence”, it’s that they are deemed admissible in any Court of Law. From your narrow and subjective standpoint, you are existing in a world of definition unto yourself. I rest my case.

        Like

      9. Citation, or text, is a valid form of “evidence” in any Court of Law,

        Aaah … so if we presented such citations regarding the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth they would pass muster in a court of law would they?

        Is it any wonder indoctrination is part and parcel of Christian belief.

        Like

      10. You’re missing the point, again. We’re discussing the validity of this specific form of “evidence”, and if it’s admissible in a legal standing. You have, for some time, claimed a superior position on what, in fact, is deemed as admissible, I’m simply making a law abiding point to the validity of text being used as a credible form of evidence. You’re taking the position as if you were a juror, not a prosecutor, or a judge; and thus, to each their (subjective) own.

        Like

      11. It is only evidence if it can be supported and/ or verified, so handing in a citation regarding the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth – especially coming from the bible -would have you laughed off the stand.

        But keep going. You are providing plenty of laughable material for a post and I see not reason to stand in the way of such abject idiocy.

        Like

  1. Someone else concluded and I also believe that the creator of the universe is outside of time, space, and matter. That makes sense for starters. When thinking of infinity I see the middle point of where we think of it because we are not the beginning or the end.

    Like

  2. Like we start at zero in infinity and the creator is at either end. They determine it. If we can make total sense of the universe then it may be possible we are a creator of it. But who has made total sense of it in their lifetime??? Who can???

    Like

      1. I have explained, the claims in the bible are simply claims., They have no more veracity than a claim about schoolkids flying on broomsticks.
        Or do you consider the claims in a Harry Potter novel also supported?

        Like

      2. Nonsense! There is no evidence to support the biblical claim of resurrection., None whatsoever.
        However, as you seem adamant then please provide the supporting evidence.

        Like

  3. Oh Ark, I know you just need someone to bicker with, but the day is far too new and beautiful for such. Enjoy the birds and have a cupcake, as a matter of fact, I think I’ll do the same.

    Like

    1. Subjective? Nonsense! Your entire commentary on this post is evidence, something you have failed to provide for a single claim regarding the resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.

      Like

      1. Oh I understand perfectly, thanks all the same.
        And as you have utterly failed to provide any evidence for the resurrect of the biblical character Jesus for Nazareth, after giving you every opportunity to do so, it seems your argument is simply vacuous apologetic nonsense.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: