Spaceless, Timeless, Immaterial
An Argument for God from Universal Origins
Youโve heard atheists say it time and again: โYouโre just filling in God because youโre ignorant about how the universe works. God of the gaps.โ
They love that last phrase because the accusation presumes Christians have no evidence (even if plenty of evidence was presented), while also preventing the atheist from having to defend his or her own position.
The assumption is Christians are using an argument from silence to speculate the existence of God.
Most Christians these days are ill-equipped to respond. They usually resort to the Bible. Which is great. Every discussion should eventually bring us back to Scripture.
But when you start there, youโll turn most atheists off because they donโt care about the Bible. In fact, they outright hate God and hate it.
They should never get away with their dismissal of God and Christians because God left his signature everywhere in the cosmos.
As the Apostle Paul said in Romans 1:19-20:
โFor what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.ย For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.โ
God can be seen and is seen in this universe. No gaps are filled, because we reason back from what we know. From effect to cause.
Starting with the precious Big Bang Theory, worshipped by atheist materialists.
Banger
Space, time, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang. That is settled science. Few dispute it, and those who do arenโt taken seriously in scientific circles.
Logically, that means whatever was before that moment had to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
Nothing doesnโt produce anything, so this whatever had to be something else capable of producing.
The only things or beings capable of producing, that we have observed for millennia, are living creatures, meaning whatever made the universe must be alive.
This universe is vastly complex and astounding in wonder. So much so that whenever we try to replicate it, we fail to come anywhere close to matching the observed complexity within. This suggests whatever that living maker is, it is extremely intelligent and creative.
Only sentient beings (persons) willingly create, so that Being must be a sentient person.
Ergo, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, living, intelligent, sentient God.
Atheists are left with only a handful of objections to the above argument. And they arenโt good.
Before you go onโฆ
Consider subscribing. If youโre already a free subscriber, consider upgrading to a paid membership.
Paid subscribers get these awesome benefits:
Exclusive lessons every Tuesday explaining why you can believe in God with conviction and/or how to live for him with courage, OR deeper dives into Scripture, theology, or apologetics.
An exclusive subscriber chat to get real-time feedback from Courageous Chris and other like-minded Christians about doubts, evidence for God, and much more.
The humble feeling of knowing you are supporting a growing ministry with a mission to spread the good news of Christ to a dying generation.
Objection 1: Eternal Universe
Insisting on an eternal universe just passes the buck because you want the universe to be eternal so you donโt have to account for any cause.
An atheist once insisted to me we should accept an eternal universe because physics can only reason back to a singularity (all matter, space, time, and energy compressed into a ball, floating inโฆnothing?). And he alleged that (an eternal universe) is the simplest explanation, following William of Occamโs famous razor: โThe simplest explanation for something is most likely true.โ
But the simplest explanation isnโt that matter was floating out in space for an infinite amount of time and just exploded suddenly. Not even close.
Problem 1
As noted, inanimate matter doesnโt produce on its own. At all. Ever. Nowhere has that been observed in all of human history.
The only things in this universe that produce or reproduce are living creatures. So, if there was a floating eternal ball in nothingness, it would remain that way, never becoming the vast expanse of the cosmos we see today.
Problem 2
Following the above, the singularity would be subject to the mathematical and logical impossibility of infinite regresses for inanimate objects. (Thatโs a whole big argument for another time, but a short summary is below.)
A Medieval Muslim academic in the Middle East recognized this conundrum. If infinity is forced on something from the outside, then it remains unchanging in time and space, which means it can have no beginning and no end and cannot morph into everything we see today. Nor would it ever start moving.
Stuck in an endless present.
The only way around this predicament is if the something (or someone) is sentient, able to move unchained by eternality, and capable of making its own decisions, thereby taking action even within an eternal state. So, that something (or someone) would need to have eternality built into its being (see Thomas Aquinasโs Unmoved Mover).
Problem 3
Lastly, every major atheist materialist in science agrees that prior to the Big Bang, nothing existed. Not even a compressed ball of matter, space, and time floating in nothing.
Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss, Guth, and Vilenkin, just to name a few, all explicitly stated that โliterally nothing existedโ prior to the Big Bang. And they represent far more scientists who agree. There was no eternal singularity.
Hence, postulating an eternal universe is the hat-trick of unreasonable argumentation: illogical, unobserved, and against consensus.
And again, if the singularity canโt be eternal, it had to come from somewhere or someone. So, weโre back to square one: A spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent, sentient life form (God) made the singularity and then set it in motion.
Objection 2: Who Made God?
Atheists think theyโre clever with this one. The assumption is, if the universe must have a beginning, then everything must have a beginning. Everything must have a cause.
But this objection was already refuted by the case we made and is a fundamental (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The key argument is โbegins to exist,โ and the first premise is just that. A premise. An if X, then Y statement. Known as a conditional clause. Though it is phrased more direct.
The conditional assertion is only concerned with objects that begin to exist. Unconcerned with objects that have no beginning to existence. Hence, it leaves open the possibility of an Uncreated First Cause.
Atheists who ask the question โWho made God?โ donโt leave open that possibility. Instead, they assume everything must have a beginning without proving that assumption.
But as our case showed, since space, time, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, reasoning backward gets us to the completely logical conclusion that whatever was before the Big Bang was spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
In other words, a transcendent, eternal (with no beginning and no end), and spiritual/supernatural cause. Rendering the question โWho made God?โ moot. He is the Uncaused First Cause.
Objection 3: How Do You Know the First Cause Was Sentient?
We donโt know for a fact that the First Cause was sentient. But itโs a trustworthy speculation based on the other evidence.
As noted, the First Cause must be living because the only things in the universe weโve seen create are living creatures. Inanimate matter doesnโt make anything. It just is.
Unless the Uncaused First Cause made the universe by random accident, then it must be personal (a mind). And the story told by our universe doesnโt reflect randomness.
To the contrary, as mentioned earlier, thereโs tremendous complexity we humans are only able to replicate in crass and mundane ways. With products nowhere near matching perfectly with our cosmos.
The sheer complexity suggests design. That canโt be avoided. Meaning the First Cause must be a highly intelligent Designer, and if it chose to design, then it must be sentient (personal) because it made the choice to create.
Furthermore, the third objection is a matter of character, not a matter of existence. Which means it has no effect on the validity of the case from universal origins: You must presume the Uncreated First Cause exists in order to even ask the question โHow do you know the first cause was sentient?โ
Objection 4: An Infinite Regress Is Possible in This Universe Because We Can Observe It
No joke. This was an actual objection voiced directly to me. The atheist argued infinite regresses are possible because we can observe the universe. Either that, or he was arguing we can observe infinite regresses. Iโm not sure which because his writing wasnโt clear.
Whichever we choose, can you spot whatโs wrong with this objection?
First, this objection is akin to a Christian saying, โThe Bible says it , I believe it, that settles it.โ Just replace Bible with โuniverse.โ โThe universe shows it, I believe it, that settles it.โ Such an assertion isnโt thinking. Itโs blind faith. The epitome of folly.
Second, observing what is doesnโt indicate what has been. You must interpret the present data and extrapolate backward, which requires logic and reason (philosophy) and imagination. That canโt be escaped.
So, merely observing the universe tells us nothing without sentient agents making arguments and conclusions by filtering evidence through their belief systems.
The atheist stating the observed universe is proof of infinite regresses is stating a conclusion that must be defended and justified, a belief he must corroborate as true or false. But he never did.
Third, we donโt observe infinite regresses. They are an abstraction, a product of logic and mathematics. All they tell us is infinity (eternity) is possible because itโs part of the absolutes of reason. Intelligible from effects in this temporal realm. Just not with inanimate materials, as established.
Infinity only works if an immaterial/spiritual reality parallels our own. And that infinity can be ascertained at all inside this temporal universe is substantial proof our realm came from something or someone eternal.
Yahweh: God Most High
Arguing from origins tells us there is an eternal God who made the cosmos. But it doesnโt tell us if that God is the God of the Bible.
However, Christians can remain confident the Creator IS the God of the Bible, Christ Jesus, for a few reasons:
The Bible presumes there was God and nothing in the beginning. No other ancient text does so. Anywhere. Every ancient culture, except the Hebrews, thought there was this eternal floating ocean of material chaos. But Israel and their predecessors wrote that God made the universe, and it was chaotic until God ordered it. When humanity disobeyed in the Garden of Eden, they undid a boundary against chaos by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prematurely and began the unraveling of Godโs order. Sin and death are that unraveling. The universe began, and we broke it.
Yahweh and Jesus refer to themselves as โI AM.โ In fact, Yahweh itself is a derivation of that โI AMโ phrase in Hebrew. The label describes them both as eternal being. In other words, Jesus and Yahweh have no beginning and no end. They have always been. This links them together as the same person and concludes that they had to be there when the heavens and earth were made, i.e. they are the Creator God. One and the same. Since there was God and there was nothing else until he spoke everything into existence.
Jesus became flesh, died, and rose again. He conquered sin and death and fixed what we broke. His body was never found, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support his walking out of the grave alive, whole, and well. So much evidence, it would take an entire other article or book to recount it all. Only a God who already transcends everything and possesses incredible power and intelligence could rise again from the dead.
The Creator God of the Bible, from start to finish, fits the bill perfectly with the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, living, intelligent, sentient Creator God determined from the cosmic evidence associated with the Big Bang.
God of the Not Gaps
Whenever an atheist tries to convince you Christians are just plugging in God to explain what we donโt know about the universe, remind them of this argument.
Based on what we do know, there is an ultimate Uncreated First Cause that must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, living, intelligent, and sentient. He is the only rational explanation for the effects witnessed in the universe.
That isnโt filling in gaps. Itโs proper reasoning using the evidence and laws of logic articulated in this intelligible cosmos.
Dismissing the Uncaused First Cause or attempting to replace him with something else is what results in endless questions with no explanations. And since nature had a clear beginning, it canโt have created itself (what atheists call โabiogenesisโ - also known as โnon-life originโ).
As demonstrated, nothing that began self-creates. Spontaneous popping into existence is an unobserved myth believed in blindly by the religion of atheist materialism.
The atheist is the one with the burden of proof because the evidence is stacked against him, and his worldview makes zero sense. Until he realizes that, he is most to be pitied.
RECOMMENDED SOURCES
Eric Metaxas. Is Atheism Dead? Washington, DC: Salem Books, 2021.
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. I Donโt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.
Frank Turek. Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.
William Lane Craig. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979.
Stephen Meyer. Return of the God Hypothesis. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2021.
Solid walkthrough of the Kalam argument and the infinite regress problem. The point about inanimate matter never producing on its own is key, I've noticed most materilists sidestep this by invoking quantum fluctuations but that just moves the goalposts since the quantum field itself would need a cause. What I appreciate here is keeping focus on what we actually observe versus abstractions, makes the logical chain way more accessible than typical philosophy papers.
Great write up! Must be something in the air as I coincidentally have 3 posts related the Cosmological Argument ready to go for the next couple weeks๐คฃ.
Itโs one of the strongest arguments for the necessity of a personal, single God once it clicks. But like you said, so many present it in complex ways so itโs often hard to grasp initially. Well done!