Did a Recent Scientific Study Prove All Humans Descended from a Single Couple?

        Recently there was some excitement over a scientific study that suggested all humans descended from a single couple after the human race was nearly wiped out following a catastrophic event. Many Christians on social media and even Christian media outlets posted and reported on the study, declaring that once again, science had proven the Bible to be accurate. It was assumed that the findings referred to Noah and his wife (some said Adam and Eve, but of course Noah and his wife make more sense), and it was claimed as a victory for Christianity and the Bible. 

        However, when I looked into it further, I discovered that the study was not saying what many thought. It is not my desire to pour cold water on everyone’s excitement, but at the same time, I feel that we as Christians must be careful about accepting things too quickly simply because they seem to confirm what we already believe. The following points demonstrate that the article can’t be used to support the story of Noah and his wife: 

        1. The study suggests that these ancestors lived between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, which is difficult to reconcile with the Biblical account of Noah. 

        2. The conclusions were based on measurements of the mitochondrial DNA of humans. Apparently our mitochondrial DNA contains far less genetic diversity would be expected, which suggests the human population must have been reduced to a very small number at some point, resulting in the elimination of most of our genetic diversity. But that small number was not necessarily only two people; indeed, several thousand would have produced the same result (the suggestion of two is simply more effective for grabbing the reader’s attention!). 

        3.  The time period estimated (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) is vast enough that the study in no way suggests that there was a single catastrophic event; they believe it’s far more likely to have been many smaller events over time. The authors state that there is no geological evidence for a global catastrophic event at that time, and that if there had been, there would have been a simultaneous increase in the extinction rate of many other species, which they don’t find. 

4. The authors state specifically that their findings have been used by some religious people to support various creation accounts, but that in those cases the study is being misunderstood. The authors believe their findings are based on and support Darwinian evolution. 

It is important to note at this point that I’m not commenting at all on whether the above assumptions or conclusions are correct. My concern is only to point out that the study does not say what many Christians believed it did. I decided to write about this study because I think it brings up an important issue for Christians to be aware of. In the eyes of many non-believers, Christians already seem to have a contentious relationship with science, and while this does not mean we should give in to pressure and surrender to naturalism, we also should do what we can to avoid needlessly perpetuating the idea that science and Christianity are in conflict. 

        Particularly, I believe we as Christians are too quick to accept a scientific discovery if it seems to support our interpretation of the Bible, and to automatically reject any scientific discovery that seems to contradict it. If we do, it may appear to those on the outside we care more about supporting what we want to believe rather than being open-minded and discovering the truth. If we’re not careful and indiscriminately accept a particular scientific study, we risk an embarrassing and reputation-damaging situation in which we must retract our victorious declaration once we discover more information. And to change our minds so quickly in this way will only perpetuate the perception that Christians choose what we believe based not on evidence, but on what we want to believe. Some examples of this are the claims many of us likely have heard of the discovery of Noah’s ark, the bones of giants (assumed to be the Nephilim in Genesis), or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea. All of these, however, have turned out to be untrue. In fact, the pictures of the giant bones were photoshopped! And yet, they still are occasionally posted on social media. 

        The bottom line is that we should be cautious and skeptical of any new scientific discoveries, and not be too quick to declare a victory for the Christian worldview before determining whether the study does in fact say what we think it says, or before there is sufficient support for its findings. The fact that a discovery seems to support creation is not enough to show that its findings are true. While it is an uphill battle, we need to do our best to correct the perception that Christianity is anti-science and that all Christians are scientifically illiterate. Restraining our enthusiasm and checking thoroughly into any new discovery (no matter how exciting) before declaring it a victory for Christianity will help towards this end. In this way we can do our part to avoid giving anyone an opportunity to undermine the credibility of Christianity. 

Can Our Loved Ones in Heaven See Us?

     Haven’t we all wondered whether our loved ones in Heaven can see us here on earth? For some, it would be comforting to find out this is true. It may help us feel that we’re not alone, that our loved ones are watching over us. It may make us feel that they’re close, in a way, despite the fact that they’re no longer with us physically. And we’ve all wished to be able to update our lost loved ones on the things that have happened in our lives. If only they could see where we are now and what we’re doing! 

     On the other hand, this may not be such a comforting idea. Is there some sort of censorship for certain locations such as the bathroom? What about the bedroom? Can anyone in Heaven observe us, or only family or close friends? Imagine feeling like our decisions are being judged by millions of eyes in Heaven. Are we the main characters in the Heavenly equivalent of a soap opera? Do they discuss what they think we’ll do in the next “episode”? Would they watch on a screen, through a telescope, or with binoculars like those found at tourist sites? 

     Clearly, there are pros and cons to the idea of those in Heaven being able to see us. But whether we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true. So, do we have any reason to believe it? 

     The primary source of this idea is found in a few Bible verses. Hebrews 12 begins with the words “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses…”, referring back to the heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. To some this seems to imply that those heroes are watching and cheering for us. The martyrs crying out to God for justice in Revelation 6 seem at least to have an awareness of some of what is happening on earth. And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16, the rich man appears to have some awareness of the spiritual state of his brothers. 

     One challenge to the idea that people in Heaven can see us is that I think people in Heaven, if given the opportunity to view events on earth, would have much better things to do. I doubt they’ll be flipping on the “Earth Channel” because they’re bored. 

     Perhaps the primary challenge to the idea that those in Heaven can see us on earth is that we cannot assume there is any passage of time, in the way we experience it, in Heaven. There may be, but even if there is, what reason is there to assume it would be perfectly synchronized with time within our universe? This may seem like a strange idea, especially if we’ve always pictured those who have passed away as existing at THIS moment in Heaven. However, science has revealed that the rate at which we experience time passing is not constant, but is inseparably connected to the matter around us as well as the speed at which we’re moving at any given time. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to think that even if there IS passage of time in Heaven, it would not be synchronized with the time we experience currently. In that case, it would not be possible for those in Heaven to watch events on earth. Indeed, if God is outside of time, and Heaven is His dwelling place, it would make sense that time either is not experienced there, or at least is very different from here. 

     This last point brings up something I’ve always wondered. Do we all arrive at Heaven one by one, based on when we died? Or do we all arrive at once? If the latter is true, it wouldn’t mean that those who are dead are conscious somewhere, waiting to be taken to heaven. It may be that when they die, from their perspective, they find themselves immediately in Heaven, as if no time had passed, but that in reality, they had been dead for a long time from our perspective. If that were the case, we would all be resurrected at the same time and enter Heaven simultaneously. It doesn’t mean that those who have died are not yet in heaven; they are, but, from their perspective, so are we. 

     This may make sense of certain verses that discuss the resurrection of the dead that are not entirely clear, such as 1 Thes. 16-17: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” Ultimately, however, this is all speculation, and not necessary to understand. As with other things regarding Heaven, we won’t know for sure or in detail until we make it there ourselves. It’s fun to speculate and explore possibilities like this. But it brings with it a caution to not allow our focus to become so consumed with our loved ones who have passed away that our focus is taken off of God. Whether they can see us or not, He certainly can, and that’s what matters. 

Is It Possible To Prove That Miracles Have Happened?

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman likely is best known as the author of Misquoting Jesus, a book that attempts to show that the Gospels are not reliable, and that the supernatural events were added long after the original accounts were recorded. I have read his book and have also heard some of Erhman’s arguments in one of his debates with Mike Licona, author of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. During this debate, Erhman contended that it is impossible to prove that miracles have happened in history. Of course, I believe the argument is flawed, and I thought the error was interesting enough to write about it.

Ehrman’s claim is that the general methods we employ to determine what has happened in history can never be used to show that miracles occurred. His argument was something like the following:

Because the events in history cannot be observed directly or re-created, all of our knowledge of historical events is probabilistic by definition. In other words, if there is evidence that points to a particular event, the stronger and more numerous the evidence, the more likely it is the event happened. However, because the evidence is merely cumulative, we can never claim to know with 100% certainty that a particular event happened; we can only know beyond a reasonable doubt, or in some cases with even less confidence. I agree so far.

Miracles, Erhman continues, are by definition not only improbable events, but the least probable event in any given situation. This definition could be debated, as ultimately it is circular reasoning. He is assuming that a miracle, a supernatural event, cannot happen because he “knows” that supernatural events cannot happen. If there is a God who intervenes in the world, however, it would not make sense to declare miracles improbable at all. However, for the sake of his argument, let’s continue to assume that a miracle is the least probable event in any situation.

Finally, Erhman declared that if the historical method is used to show whatever was the most probable event in a given case, and a miracle is by definition the least probable event, the historical method never can be used to show that a miracle occurred (because a miracle would never be the most probable event). Note that he is not saying miracles have not occurred; he is merely saying that it would be impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a miracle occurred in history.

It is with this conclusion that I disagree. While on the surface his argument may sound reasonable, even if you don’t know the problem with his logic, I suspect your intuition tells you something is wrong.

The error in his logic turns out to be a subtle difference in what he means by the word “probable” in the one premise versus the same word in the conclusion. We must ask on what basis we determine what is most probable in each case.

To show what I mean, suppose I asked you how probable it is that an airplane flying overhead would crash into a car driving on the highway. No doubt we all would agree this is extremely unlikely. But does this mean that such an event could never be shown to have happened? Imagine if investigators found the smashed remains of a car under a pile of airplane parts. Suddenly this improbable event appears to be much more probable.

In one sense, this is an improbable event, and in another sense, it is very probable. Both conclusions are correct. In the first case, we were talking about the overall probability that this particular event will happen to a particular person at a particular time. In the second case, we’re no longer talking about the same type of probability; now, we are discussing not the likelihood of the event itself, but rather, the most probable interpretation of the evidence in front of us. Once there is evidence to consider, the evidence overrides any previous ideas we had about what was probable.

This illustrates the problem with Erhman’s logic. If he were to observe the evidence that an airplane had crashed into a car, in order to be consistent with his earlier statement, he would have to refuse to take the evidence into account, simply because he had already determined that such an event is unlikely to happen. This is the surest way to guarantee that we draw our conclusions based primarily on our own biases. He has determined ahead of time what he thinks is most likely to happen, and then interprets all new evidence in the light of his initial assumption. If he has decided that it’s unlikely that the Son of God would become a human, be crucified, and rise from the dead, he has declared that no amount of evidence can change his mind. I agree that, in a general sense, such a thing may be improbable (although, if you think about it, nearly every event in history is improbable in a way). But if we have the type of evidence that we do (such as the reliability of the manuscript copies, the lack of motive for the Gospel writers to lie, the empty tomb, the sudden explosive growth of Christianity despite persecution, etc.), rather than bothering with the general probability of such a thing in the absence of any evidence, we need to consider the evidence itself. At that point, it becomes clear that the accounts of supernatural events in the Gospels are very likely true from a rational, objective historical perspective, since that is the best interpretation of the evidence.

Ultimately, Erhman’s logic betrays his anti-supernatural presupposition, and causes him to be closed-minded and unable (or unwilling) to follow the evidence where it leads. When investigating history, we ought to withhold judgments regarding what is most probably only after, not prior to, observing the evidence. I would very much like to ask him what he thinks about Albino tigers, bullets being stopped by Bibles, or a Royal Flush in Poker. 

Does Satan Want Us to be Miserable?

In my last post, I asked whether God wants us to be happy, and argued that God has far more important desires for us than happiness. As a follow-up, I would like to consider what is perhaps the opposite question: does Satan want us to be miserable?

I believe it is often assumed that He does. Whenever something goes wrong in our lives, it is tempting to attribute it to the work of Satan. If we lose a job, become ill, have a bad day, or encounter other difficulty, we often say that we’re “under attack”, attributing it to Satan (whether consciously or subconsciously). We assume that if God’s ultimate goal is the best for us, Satan’s ultimate goal must be the opposite of this, which would mean he wants nothing more than for us to be miserable and unhappy, afflicted with as many trials as possible. But I would like to argue that in an overall sense, Satan’s goal is not for us to be miserable, and in fact, often I believe he wants us to be happy!

C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, portrayed the fictional correspondence between Screwtape, a senior demon, and his nephew Wormwood. In each letter Screwtape offered Wormwood advice on how to achieve his ultimate objective, which was to prevent the man to whom he had been assigned from becoming a committed follower of God. Screwtape frequently warned against causing too much difficulty in the man’s life, since this had a high probability of driving him closer to God, not further away. Instead, he advised that Wormwood ought to do his best to ensure the man had a comfortable, carefree life, the kind that would make it easier to push God to the back of his mind.

I believe this is an insightful glimpse into Satan’s desire for us. Often, it is when we are most miserable and struggling that we become closest to God. Satan cares less about temporary difficulties than about eternally preventing as many as possible from joining God in Heaven, and this end often is accomplished best if we are happy, in good health, needing nothing, and fully satisfied.

Does this mean that we should be suspicious of and reject good things in our lives as possibly being sent by Satan or playing into his hands? Certainly not. I’m also not suggesting that Satan never is behind certain trials and difficulties we may encounter. But we need to keep in mind that suffering often is highly beneficial to us, providing an opportunity to draw closer to God and grow in maturity and character. Also, we should always be on our guard during the easier times in our lives, knowing that at these times we are most vulnerable to complacency. We must avoid becoming too relaxed and forgetting about our ongoing dependence on God, as well as the fact that life is not about enjoying ourselves, but about offering our lives in service to God.

So does Satan want us to be miserable? Most of the time, probably not. Like happiness, sadness and misery are nothing more than temporary feelings, and have little importance from an eternal perspective. Satan’s goal is to make us ineffective, not unhappy. To steal our eternal joy and fulfillment, not our temporary happiness during this life. To guard against this, we would do well to avoid placing too high an importance on our own happiness in the first place.

Does God Want Us to be Happy?

 If there were no God, it would follow that our lives would have no purpose other than to maximize our happiness as much and for as long as possible. On the other hand, one of the most fundamental principles of Christianity is that there is far more to life than obtaining happiness. Though surrounded by the mindset that happiness is the ultimate good for which we can strive, we nevertheless turn our attention toward higher and greater ideals.

I’m sure most, if not all Christians, would agree that happiness should not be our most important goal or the measure by which we determine the quality of our lives. Nevertheless, we still may make certain assumptions about happiness that could be false and even harmful. We can agree that our own primary concern and desire should not be our own happiness. But does God Himself want us to be happy?

It may seem odd even to consider such a question. After all, if God is pure goodness, and loves us perfectly, it would seem that this love leads Him to want only the best for us. Surely “the best for us” would include happiness, if not as an ultimate goal, perhaps at last as a result?

I think it’s important to begin by making clear what I mean when I use the word “happiness.” I think of it is a temporary feeling that is caused by something good that happens to us. It is not good in and of itself, but is simply an emotional reaction to something that is good. In that sense it has no inherent value, and indeed, this will be evident as we reflect on our lives and realize that most of the time we have been more satisfied when we have accomplished something that mattered rather than simply being happy. Of course, it could be argued that this feeling of satisfaction is itself happiness, but I would call it something deeper than that. Happiness is what we feel when we are enjoying ourselves with friends, or eating cake, or listening to music we enjoy. These are good feelings, but they don’t compare to, for example, the feeling produced by saving someone’s life or devoting our time to working hard for a good cause. If happiness is the word we would use to describe our feeling in the former examples, it would be difficult to justify its use in the latter examples.

Additionally, to want someone to be happy technically is not a desire for happiness itself, but for the person to have whatever it is that would make them happy. If I want my wife to be happy, likely what I have in mind for her is not happiness itself, but coffee and dark chocolate. Therefore, when we consider whether God wants us happy, in a way we are asking whether God wants us to have things that would make us happy.

If we feel that God wants us to be happy, likely we have gotten this idea by imagining ourselves in God’s position and concluded what we ourselves would do and want if we were Him. When we ourselves love someone, we might imagine that, given the power, we would do everything we could to make them as happy as possible. But we must avoid the mistake of imagining that our own love can be used as a model for understanding God’s love, and that therefore, whatever we would do out of love would be what God will do. Needless to say, our love lesser than God’s and would lead us to do many things that, while seeming to be best for someone, in fact would not be.

Parents certainly understand this. Their ultimate goal is not their kids’ happiness, but that they become good people, behave ethically, become productive citizens, and love and serve God. To make kids happiest often would mean to give them whatever they want whenever they want it. They probably are happier if they have cake for dinner, and less happy if they have vegetables. They probably are more happy staying at home playing video games than if they go to school.

Certainly it could be pointed out that, in the long term, they will be happier if they are healthier and educated, but this will not always be the case. And even if so, the happiness is incidental. It was never the original goal. This point is extremely important to understand, because very often whatever is best for us will not make us happier. In the pursuit of greater maturity and character development, happiness is not worth much. Hard work, struggle, and even suffering are far more beneficial toward these ends. I enjoy playing chess, and as exciting it is to win, I’ve come to realize that it is primarily the games I lose that help me become a better player. There are far more lessons to be learned when I lose. It is the same with life in general.

So does God want us to be happy? Not necessarily. I believe God wants us to be holy, to become more and more the people He made us to be, and to fulfill the purpose He has for our lives. Whether this results in happiness is of secondary importance.

Furthermore, I believe it is imperative to understand this, because if we don’t, the assumption that our happiness can be used as an indicator of what God wants for us may lead to false expectations. If I’m praying for the ideal house, or the perfect job, or to be married, or any number of other things, I may conclude that these things must be God’s will for me because I wouldn’t be happy without them. In extreme cases, we even may justify sinful desires or actions based on this idea. For example, a married man or woman may be unhappy in their marriage but very happy at the thought of being with someone else. It’s not hard to imagine that some people have justified adultery or divorce in such cases, because they assumed God would “understand” and wants above all else for them to be happy.

Another reason it’s so important to recognize that our happiness is not God’s highest priority is that this mindset causes us to focus mainly on ourselves and what we want. We even may imagine that, in a way, God owes it to us to make us happy because of His promised love for us. This can warp the way we view God, imagining Him as more of a servant to us than we are to Him. It may also cause us to pray in selfish ways, assuring ourselves that our requests are in accordance with His will because they would “create an opportunity for Him to bless us”, which we have convinced ourselves He always wants to do. We must never lose sight of the fact that we exist primarily to bring God glory and serve Him.

So does God want us to be happy? No, I believe God wants much more important things for us than happiness. And we would all do well to think less about our own happiness and more about how we can fulfill God’s purpose for our lives.

In my next post, I’ll consider a related question: does Satan want us to be miserable?

Should Christians Go to College?

I still remember my first day of college. I’m sure it’s a big step for everyone, but for me, having been homeschooled, it was quite a shock. Not only did I have to go to a different room for every class, I also had a different teacher for every class! For someone who only had to walk downstairs in the morning for the first 12 grades and had only one teacher, all of this was, at first, very daunting. However, I adapted quickly and soon began to enjoy college very much. I still look back on it as one of the most enjoyable, significant, and impactful phases of my life. 

There is a lot of debate over whether going to college is worthwhile or cost-effective in a general sense, and while I do have many thoughts about that, it isn’t the purpose of this post. I would like to address specifically the idea of young Christians attending college. Here and there I have known Christian parents who, having read statistics about how many young people walk away from Christianity during college, understandably fret over the thought of their own children doing so. They have heard stories (often accentuated by Conservative media) of hostile atheistic professors whose goal it is to de-convert all of their religious students and indoctrinate them into their own materialistic worldview. Combine this with other factors such as the high cost of tuition and the many options for making a decent living without a degree, and many Christian parents may conclude that they would prefer their kids avoid college entirely. 

To begin to address this topic I would like to share a little about my own experience in college, though, admittedly, each individual experience will be different and mine doesn’t suggest that others will be necessarily similar. I liked most of my professors and was fortunate that nearly all of them went out of their way to teach students not what to think, but how to think. My Ethics professor, for example, entirely avoided telling us his own opinion on each moral dilemma, prompting us to form (and adequately defend) our own viewpoint. My English Composition professor described himself as the most liberal professor in the department, and yet he never pushed those views on the class and fairly graded papers arguing from a more conservative perspective, based only on the quality of the essay. I’m sure there were some professors with a low opinion of Christianity, but if so, they were still balanced and respectful in the way that they taught. And I even had some Christian professors! 

As I said, I was very fortunate to have the experience I did, and I will readily admit that not everyone is so fortunate. I have no doubt that some professors are much more openly hostile towards Christianity and less fair in their treatment of Christian students. But at the very least my experience serves as reassurance that at least this is not a universal condition. 

Still, even in the case of a much more hostile environment, as Christians we cannot simply hide from such hostility. Often it is overlooked that no matter what, throughout our lives we will find ourselves in environments (and around people) that are hostile to our beliefs (unless we hid in a cabin in the woods for the rest of our lives). Anyone who avoids college will not succeed in avoiding hostility to Christianity. As we enter the workforce, make friends, become involved in hobbies, or travel, we will encounter harmful influences. Whether or not we go to college will not change this. The advantage of college is that in many cases it is an environment in which we are already focused on learning how to form solid viewpoints and defend them, so it is an excellent opportunity to turn this focus towards our own Christian beliefs. In fact, it was primarily in college that I developed the critical thinking and research skills that helped me become fully persuaded of the truth of Christianity. And, if handled correctly, the exposure to alternative worldviews is an indispensable opportunity for Christians to gain a better understanding of the unsaved and reach them far more effectively. 

     Ultimately, the key is to be prepared. If our kids are considering college, we should not be dissuading them from going into a potentially hostile environment, but preparing them for that environment, knowing that they will encounter such hostility at some point whether they go to college or not. In many cases, when young people walk away from God after attending college, it’s not because of the environment, but because they lacked a firm foundation for their beliefs before they ever set foot on campus. They were brought up believing what they were told about God and the Bible, but the evidence for the truth of Christianity may never have been shared with them, and perhaps they were never even made familiar with other worldviews and beliefs. Often, when they had tough questions about Christianity, they were given ineffective answers (or none at all!) and told to simply believe. In such cases it is little wonder that they then become so confused when they suddenly encounter many clashing worldviews and are ill-equipped to process them and defend their own beliefs. 

Another argument against Christians avoiding college as a rule is the fact that the result ultimately would be a lack of Christians in all of the fields that require a degree. I’m sure we would all agree that it would be a problem not to have Christian doctors, lawyers, financial professionals, professors, or other professionals. This would accomplish nothing except to further cut off people in these fields from Christian influence, and perpetuate the problem that caused some Christians to question attending college in the first place! 

So, to conclude: should Christians go to college? I believe this is not the right question at all. The decision to pursue a college degree should not be made based on the fact that we are Christians, but simply on whether the career we are aiming for would require or benefit from a degree. But we should not hide in fear. And no matter where we go and what choices we make in life, we must always expect and be prepared to encounter and engage with opposing viewpoints, and to defend our own beliefs. 

Who Created God?

When my brother and I were young and would play together, often one of us would be more “in control” of what we were doing. By this I mean that we would each control our various toys, but one of us would direct the overall storyline of whatever it was our toys were doing, while the other would, in a sense, simply be along for the ride. Generally, there would be some sort of problem to which our toys must find a solution. But only one of us knew the solution, and would direct events to move toward that solution, while the other would be in the dark and trying to solve the problem as if watching a movie or playing a video game.

I remember one such time when I was “in control” of the storyline. There was amongst our toys an imposter, an alien who appeared exactly like the toy it was impersonating. The problem was that the toys needed to discover which one was the alien. My brother cleverly came up with the idea of his toys asking each other toy questions that only the true individual would know, in order to weed out the imposter. The only problem was that this was not the solution I had in mind. So in order to preserve my desired storyline, I bent the rules by granting this alien the ability to read minds and discover the answer to any question it might be asked. Needless to say, this was frustrating to my brother. Without any fixed rules, I could change whatever I needed to in order to lead to the conclusion I wanted.

If God created the universe, who created God? This is a question asked by young children as well as highly intelligent skeptics. And similar to my story above, it may be frustrating if we simply assert that God must exist because everything else that exists must have a cause. If asked what caused or created God, we will answer by saying that God Himself is eternal and uncreated and so does not need a cause. But didn’t we just say that everything must have a cause? It’s easy to see why we appear to be bending the rules in our favor, just like in my example above, reasoning in a circle in order to support the conclusion we had decided on in the first place.

So how do we justify exempting God from the need for a creator? To get a better idea of the problem, let’s analyze the above statement in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: Everything that exists must have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

The problem with this syllogism is the first premise. If it’s true, then God Himself must also have a cause; there could be nothing that did not have a cause. If everything had a cause, in order to avoid an infinite series or previous causes, something at some point had to have been its own cause before causing everything else (which is clearly impossible, as it would have to exist to cause itself but at the same time not yet exist in order to be caused!).

Therefore, because there are things that exist, the first premise cannot be true. It can be fixed, however, by a slight adjustment:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

This slight change is no longer internally contradictory, and also allows for God’s exemption from the need for a cause. But we must be clear about why God can be exempt. We are not starting with the idea of God, declaring that He has no need for a cause and then working backwards to find a way to justify this belief. Rather, we can reason from the bottom up, beginning with the simple observation that there are things that do exist. In order for that to be the case, at least one of them must not have had a cause. We call this necessary cause “God.” Of course, this proves nothing more than the Prime Mover postulated by Aristotle; this line of reasoning is not sufficient to establish the existence of a God who hears our prayers, is morally perfect, loves us, or has any of the other qualities of the Christian God. But, of course, these points are beyond the intent of this argument.

At this point we are moving in the right direction, but we have not yet made a convincing case. All we have done thus far is show that logically, there must be something that has existed eternally and had no beginning or cause. Why is it necessary that this be God? Why not the universe itself? Indeed, this is what many philosophers and scientists throughout history have assumed.

But there are two problems with this idea. The first is that more recent scientific evidence points very strongly to a beginning to the universe, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, out of a single point of infinite density and energy. It is for this reason that it is primarily Atheists who have resisted the Big Bang hypothesis and attempted to show that the universe did not have a beginning after all. The second problem is more logical in nature: it is impossible for there to have been an infinite series of moments in the past. If there were, we would never have reached the present moment. The fact that we are here, now, indicates that however many moments have occured before now, the amount must be finite.

Therefore, since the universe itself could not be the entity that has existed eternally, it must be something other than (and outside of) the universe. As I said, we still have a long way to go before supporting any of the other attributes of God, but that is not the present purpose. For now, I hope I have shown that it is not “bending the rules” to suggest that God is uncaused and had no beginning. And we must strive to make this point clear whenever discussing the matter with skeptics, so that it never appears that we are arguing in circles and contradicting ourselves merely in order to conveniently support our own presuppositions.