The First Cause and the Imagination

Henry Morris talks about the First Cause. Everything that exists is the result of a chain of events which has its root in some omnipotent First Cause. Furthermore, by studying the effects or all that we see around us, we can draw some implications about the First Cause. Simply put, says Morris “…Since the universe appears almost limitless in extent, the First Cause must be virtually infinite. Since the universe appears almost endless in duration, the First Cause must be virtually eternal. Since the universe pulsates with energy, the First Cause must be virtually omnipotent. Since the universe in phenomenally complex and contains intelligent life, the First Cause must be virtually omniscient. Since the universe (namely man) contains feeling and emotions and love and human relations, the First Cause must be personal. Since the universe contains goodness and righteousness and love and justice, the First Cause must be moral.”

“Thus reasoning from cause-and-effect leads us to conclude that the great First Cause of all things is an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal, emotional, moral, spiritual, living Being. (Morgan, Beyond Reasonable Doubt!: Evidence for the Truth of Christianity).” This first cause is a Creative Artist who goes beyond the functional into the imagination and delights in it.



Filed under Atheism, First Cause, God

3 responses to “The First Cause and the Imagination

  1. So what caused God? You haven’t answered the question of a first cause, but only postponed it.

    It’s a mystery to atheists what caused the Big Bang or how it didn’t need one. It’s a mystery to theists how God doesn’t need a creator. To make a big deal out of the former without pointing out that theists have the same problem is a double standard.

    If theists took the same approach consistently, they would say that everything has a cause, thus God was created by God B. And God C created God B …

    This is why atheists do not consider a mystery by itself to be evidence for God. Weaknesses in atheism are evidence for theism only to the extent that theism does not share the same weakness.

  2. Who caused/created God? That is a question that is beyond my comprehension. I only know that God is. And most physicists admit that our cosmos had a “big bang” of sorts that got it all started. We learn about this First Cause by observing what He has made.

    If God could be fully explained and comprehended would He still be God?

  3. Why not stop a step later and say that creation demands a creator God A, the existence of God A demands a higher creator God B, and this God B is the first cause? Why not carry this on infinitely?

    Personally, I stop a step sooner and say that I just don’t know where all this stuff came from. It would rather speculate about mysterious properties (i.e., the ability to be the first cause) of matter than I know exists than speculate about mysterious properties of a being who shows no evidence of his existence.

    If we’re talking about economy of explanation, atheism does a bit better here. But it’s completely outrageous to think it’s some kind of argument for the existence of God. The problem of explaining the first cause is only evidence for God if atheism can’t answer the question and theism can.

    >That is a question that is beyond my comprehension.

    … thus atheism’s difficulty in answering the same question is not evidence for God.

    >If God could be fully explained and comprehended would He still be God?

    Explain God and he isn’t God, don’t explain God and it’s not even clear what you are arguing for. Hmm… Checkmate? Heading toward the conclusion that it’s intrinsically impossible to make an argument for the existence of God hardly sets off alarm bells in my head.

    The real problem is not that I object to believing in something that isn’t or can’t be fully comprehended. Much of advanced physics is at least hyperbolically described as incomprehensible. What I know for certain is that I don’t understand it fully. But what I don’t do is point to analogous difficulties in discarded theories as evidence against them.

    The problem is a double standard. If you can’t explain how God could be the first cause, then my difficulty in explaining how the universe could be the first cause isn’t evidence for the existence of God. Evidence for one side or the other is places where one side has an answer and the other doesn’t.

    You can believe in a God without all the answers as to what he’s like. But you can’t turn around and suggest that it’s supported by reason because other ideas fail to answer the very questions that you yourself have ducked.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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