The Fine-Tuning Argument is the argument for God existence, that argues that the universe is designed for intelligent life by an intelligent designer. Fine-Tuning is a list of parameters that allows life to exist and have been set at very specific numbers. If these Fine-Tuned numbers were changed by a very small amount, then life could not exist. Fine-Tuning doesn’t imply design, but rather the best explanation for these incomprehensible parameters for life is a designer.
Here’s the form of the argument:
Premise One: The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise Two: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Premise Three: Therefore, it is due to design.
Fine-Tuning is established science and is virtually not challenged by main stream science. As Paul Davies (Physicist ASU) would say: “The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly.” Where the disagreements arise, is the metaphysics and ontology of why the universe is Fined-Tuned for life. Chance and physical necessity are two of the three main options for why the universe in Fine-Tuned for life. Chance is highly improbable, if not impossible. To demonstrate this, lets discuss the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
The fundamental laws of nature are Fined-Tuned for life ranging from the strong force, all the way to Earth’s tilt relationship to the sun. The weak force, strong force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force are all Fined-Tuned to allow atoms to form and many other phenomena to happen for intelligent life to exist. These are the four fundamental laws of nature, so keep that in mind. The type of galaxy the earth is in, is Fine-Tuned along with the area of the spiral galaxy we are in.
Here are some astounding fine-tuning parameters for the universe:
If the Cosmological Constant were altered by 1 to 10^90 then we would not be here.
The Cosmological Constant is the driving force of the expansion of the Universe, so if it were altered the universe would expand to fast, or collapse back in on itself, or not expand at all.
If gravity of the strong force strength for stars varied, then stars would burn up, implode, of lose mass:
If stronger by 1 in 10^34, stars burn out too fast for life.
If stronger by 1 in 10^36, stars implode.
If weaker by 1 in 10^36, stars lose mass to radiative pressure.
The ratio of electrons to protons must be Fine-Tuned.
If altered by 1 in 10^37, then galaxies, stars, and planets would not have formed.
As we know, without galaxies, stars, and planets, no life can exist.
The ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity must be Fine-Tuned as well.
If altered by 1 in 10^40, then the mass of stars would change altering the course of the universe to have no life in it. The change in mass of star would affect elements that are essential to intelligent life to exist.
The initial expansion rate of the universe of the early universe must be Fine-Tuned for intelligent life to exist.
If altered by 1 in 10^55, then the universe would either expand to rapidly or would collapse back in on itself. Some may try and explain this away with inflation, but Paul Steinhardt documents would have suggested that even inflation would need to be Fined-Tuned.
This sounds like the cosmological constant, but it is not. The cosmological constant also needs to be Fine-Tuned for the expansion rate to even happen. With both of these mind, the probability of our existence becomes even more unlikely.
These are just five examples of fine-tuning parameters that need to happen for intelligent life to even have a chance at existence. There are even more of these parameters set at 10^37 or higher for matter, chemistry, galaxies, stars, or planets to exist. After we have these, then it’s even possible for life to form naturally. All these parameters are set in the universe all at the same time to have a functioning universe. Galaxies and planets have to be Fine-Tuned for intelligent life to exist as well.
The three types of galaxies are elliptical, irregular, and spiral galaxies. Both elliptical and irregular galaxies cannot support life as we know. Elliptical galaxies lack heavy elements that are needed for life to exist. Irregular galaxies contain to many supernovas (Stars blowing up) for life to exist in them. Spiral galaxies are the only galaxies that can support life, but even then we have to exist in the right spot in the milky way to exist. Mainly due to black holes and radiation in spiral galaxies. Our solar system just happens to exist in the right spiral galaxy at the right time.
Earth is even Fined-Tuned for life in relation to its solar system. If Jupitar wasn’t in the right place, then Earth would be bombarded with meteors. The tilt of the Earth’s axis is just right to the position of the Sun. Earth’s moon is just the right size for gravitation force of our planet. Earth’s atmosphere is just right as well concerning the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen. There are many more constants that allow for the Earth to exist as well that are Fine-Tuned.
Chance is the most irrational view one could take to try and explain the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life to exist. To infer chance would be like the scene from Dumb and Dumber, when Lloyd Christmas asks Mary whether he has a chance with her. Mary responds by saying that there’s a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of them getting together, Lloyd response’s: so your telling me there’s a chance!
Imagine a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 over 30 times. Some of the constants are set way above 10^37. One analogy to show this improbability goes like: if you shot a bullet across the universe and hit a target dead center, then this just shows the improbability of 1^37. As we know, there was no chance between Lloyd and Mary. The fine tuning of the universe is not due to chance, so what about physical necessity?
Physical necessity says that it’s impossible for the constants to be different. As we know, this is not true. It’s more reasonable than chance, but doesn’t has much explanatory power. Leibniz’s contingency argument shows that the universe could have failed to exist and could have existed in a different fashion. Plus, the fine tuning is independent of the laws of nature. Also, the laws of nature are Fined-Tuned as well. The amount of atoms could have been different, altering the amount of stars, galaxies, and planets that would actually exist. Simulations show that the universe could have been different and is not restricted to this type of universe. The universe could only be physically necessarily by a designer anyway. Mainly due to the fact the design best account for the fine-tuning parameters of the universe. The type of universe could only exist by an intelligent designer based on all the Fined-Tuned constants of the universe. The universe is contingent because is began to exist and the elementary particles could have been different leaving physical necessity not a viable option for the fine tuning of the universe.
Therefore, the fine tuning of life is due to design. The designer would be described as immaterial, timeless, space less, and powerful based on the Kalam Cosmological argument. With the Fine-Tuning Argument, we have a personal and intelligent designer because it designed the universe for intelligent life to exist. Objections to this argument will be dwelt with in my future article, “Dealing with the Top Ten Objections to the Fine Tuning Argument.” As of now, it’s reasonable to infer an intelligent designer is behind the fine tuning of the universe.
•God’s Crime Scene
•The Creator and the Cosmos
Logic is the science of valid inference. Laws of logic are not just descriptive as to the physical world, but are prescriptive as to rationality. They prescribe the right way to think. They are of the mind and apply conceptually, immaterial as it were, to truth statements.
For example, the law of non-contradiction is not just perceptively true—it is true.
Laws of physics don't impose themselves on our minds like this. The law of gravity doesn't tell us what to think; not how to think, the right way to think or how to come to truth statements by inductive, deductive, or abductive (e.g., scientific method) reasoning.
All conceptual laws reflect the mind of a lawgiver. We see this in societal laws. They reflect the mind of those who created the law. The only reasonable explanation for the kind of mind necessary to ground the existence of transcendent, absolute, and conceptual laws like logic is God, via syllogism.
Its true God upholds the world in a logical fashion, but laws of logic as we know them are conceptual, existing only in our minds. If laws of logic are simply properties of our brain ("how our brains work"), then why do we need laws of logic to correct how our brains works? If laws of logic simply are how our brains work, then we shouldn't need them to correct how our brains work. We should just think logically all the time, all things being equal of course. But negative. laws of logic actually prescribe to us "how to think" by guiding our thought processes.
Humans don't form laws of logic from observation (they are conceptual) or by convention (like which side of the road to drive on), we instead confirm pre-existing logical truths, which are absolute and universal, with our observations. As Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle remarked: "Laws of logic are conceptual in nature.” They do not describe aspects of the universe. Rather, they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions.” Hence, logical absolutes are abstract entities because concepts are incorporeal; yet being semantic debunking Platonism.
Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe, then we might expect different regions of the universe to have different laws of logic since different regions of the universe are described differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere. Third, we would have no way of knowing if laws of logic apply in the future as they have in the past, since no one has experienced the universe's future. After all, conditions in the universe are constantly changing. If laws of logic were descriptions of such conditions, then they would change as well." If laymen atheists believe they know the universe better than an astrophysicist who graduated with highest honors at a secular university and who is a biblical creationist, then that's their folly.
We don't govern logic. Logic governs us. It tells us how to think and applies conceptually to truth statements. It prescribes rational thought. Logical truths exist whether there is a human mind to recognize them or formulate them into axioms or not. They are definitely "of the mind" and so the only sound foundation for universal, immaterial, prescriptive laws of logic is the unembodied mind of God. The TAG is simply an ironclad proof for the existence of God.
More articles on the TAG argument on the existence of God:
In my studies of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I’ve come across some interesting objections. Some of these objections are good objections and some are just held high among YouTube, atheist laymen. This article will deal with the good objections and a link will be given to Dr. Craig’s response to the online YouTube objections. I’ll give my opinions and refutations of ten good objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Objection #1: What if the Big Bang Theory is wrong?
Big Bang Cosmology is accepted among the majority of cosmologists, physicists, and other scientists that deal with these fields of science. If this theory is proven wrong, then we must remain neutral on whether the universe had a beginning or not. Until a future model of science proves the universe is eternal, then we must withhold judgment about the universe origins. The Laws of Thermodynamics is proven science and is understood as fact. These laws would still prove the beginning of the universe and so would the philosophical arguments.
Objection #2: Quantum Vacuums have shown that something can come from nothing.
Quantum Vacuums are described by Lawrence Krauss as vacuums of empty space that subatomic particles pop into existence without of a cause. These vacuums are described as nothing. This commits the fallacy of equivocation because it switches the definition of nothing. Nothing is not anything, but a Quantum Vacuum is something. A Quantum Vacuum is a sea of fluctuation of energy that pop these particles into existence. A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing in the philosophical sense, but in the scientific sense which are two complete different definitions of nothing.
Objection #3: The first premise doesn’t apply to the universe, since time began at the Big Bang.
Time began at the universe, so A theory of time only applies to the universe. The first premise is everything that begins to exist has a cause. Either a material cause or a sufficient cause. Something cannot come from nothing because out of nothing, nothing comes. If you deny this, then you have a heavy burden of proof. Science lives by this rule and would be destroyed if something could come from nothing. Why doesn’t a desk, a copy of myself, or anything else pop into existence out of nothing at any time. We just don’t see this and it’s reasonable to conclude that the same applies to the universe. If this rule doesn’t apply to the universe, then why doesn’t a universe pop into existence by nothing in our universe? God, an unchanging and timeless being which could solve this objection at the end of the day.
Objection #4: The singularity is infinite and eternal of just matter.
When we trace the expansion of the universe backwards, we find that there was a singular moment when there was no time, space, or matter. This right of the back shows that there could not be a singular point with an eternal and infinite amount of matter. Also, general relativity would show this to be false as well because it shows that time, matter, and space are relative. If one comes into existence, then they all have to. If space didn’t exist, then where would matter be. If time didn’t exist, then when would matter be. The Big Bang theory shows at least time coming into existence, so it follows that matter and space do as well.
Objection #5: It’s a God of the Gaps argument.
Does this argument plug in God to explain something that we don’t understand? Is the argument just one big appeal to ignorance? At first glance, this objection may seem reasonable, but under cross-examination it just falls apart. I would refer you to my article on the appeal to ignorance fallacy to explain what this fallacy is. I’ll leave a link in this article. This is a philosophical argument that is not used to explain some sort of scientific phenomenon that we can’t explain. Science that we understand is actually used to help reinforce the second premise, that the universe began to exist. In fact, we are using God to explain something that we do understand such as the fact that the universe had a beginning and that everything that begins to exist has a cause. You would have to refute these premises to accuse the argument of explaining something that we don’t understand. Finally, if you claim that science will one day have an explanation, then you must state what the explanation is. Otherwise, you commit the appeal to ignorance fallacy because you are appealing to something that we don’t know anything about. This would be a future naturalistic explanation to explain the origin of the universe. It would also beg the question because you assume there will be a naturalistic explanation. This sounds like blind faith to me.
Objection #6: Why does the Cause have to be God?
Time, matter, and space had a beginning so the cause cannot be contained of these three things. To say otherwise would be begging the question. The cause would have to be uncaused because we have to stop at a certain point because otherwise we are left with an infinite regress. It’s not special pleading because atheists like David Hume have assumed that the universe had always existed. The cause would also be very powerful to be able to create a universe. This is what we mean by God, a timeless, space less, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, eternal being.
Objection #7: Why would the cause have to conscious/personal?
The wind causes a leaf to fall of a tree, so why would the cause not be an impersonal force like the wind. Would it not be special pleading to say the cause of the universe is a being of some sort. The person claiming this would be missing the point and would realize the special case. There are three reasons why the cause of the universe would have to be a mind. First, there are two main immaterial realities. Abstract objects like numbers or an unembodied mind. Minds have freewill capability and would be able to cause the universe. Abstract objects have no causing power, but an abstract mind like God could. Secondly, the cause would have to be a mind because if this cause was an unconscious object, then it’s effect would be eternal as well. Think of water freezing. If the cause of water freezing was eternal, then it’s effect like the cause would be eternal. A mind could make a choice and its effect would not be an eternal effect. Finally, the initial conditions set at the big bang are fine-tuned, such as the expansion rate of the universe after the big bang. This would imply rationality, which implies a type of mind. These are three main reasons for why the cause would be a mind.
Objection #8: Could the multiverse have caused our universe?
It’s possible that that there’s many universes that caused our universe, but it’s just not reasonable to believe. First of all, there’s no evidence for the multiverse at all. We also must remember that we could not access something physical like this because our universe is a closed system. It’s more of a metaphysical, philosophical question than a scientific question because it can’t be proved or disproved by the scientific method. Also, The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem help shows that any universe expanding is finite in the past. Essentially, the whole show of the multiverse would need a beginning. It also seems to push the problem back even more because the second law of thermodynamics would still apply to these other universes. The multiverse is also an objection to the fine-tuning argument, so I’ll give the rest of my critique of it in my future articles on the fine-tuning argument. At the end of the day, the multiverse is just highly speculative.
Objection #9: What about an oscillating universe model?
Even though it’s not accepted by most cosmologists, it’s still an objection that’s possible. Has the universe been contracting and expanding for eternity? First, this claim needs to be proved and it has not meant its burden of proof. However, I will give my arguments against this model’s existence. The second law of thermodynamics is highly understood and would refute this model. It would require more energy for the universe to expand and contract multiple times, so we would expect the universe to reach heat death eventually. Obviously, we are not in heat death. The philosophical arguments would help against this oscillating universe as well. This would have to be an infinite process, but we know we can’t have an actually infinite number of events. This oscillating universe would leave us with an infinite regression that destroys science. Going with Occam’s razor, it’s more simply to infer the universe had a beginning. Finally, the most disastrous thing to this model is our current law of gravity. If the universe crunched back on itself, then it would not be able to expand again.
Objection #10: Who created God?
If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Every time I present this argument to my atheist friends, they always ask this question. The first premise is everything that begins to exist has a cause. Unless you can prove that an uncaused thing like God had a beginning, then this is a nonsensical question. Asking this question leads to an infinite regress which again, would destroy science. This is also another objection to the fine-tuning argument, so the design aspect will be dealt with in future articles. Why couldn’t the universe cause itself? The universe began to exist, so the cause must be something other than the universe. It would be like me saying that I gave birth to myself. It’s simply nonsensical and a question begging statement. This question is the biggest strawman of all arguments against the existence of God.
These questions and objections are worth the discussion. The Kalam Cosmological argument is a logically valid argument in its syllogistic form and has sound premises. It has withstood its scrutiny and objections. Since it’s a successful argument, we can infer that a theistic God is the cause of the universe. For extra resources, check out the links given below.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy:
Extra resources that deal with even more objections:
Dr. Craigs response to online laymen objections:
This argument is one of the first arguments for God’s existence. It was constructed by Muslim Theologians to eliminate an eternal Universe. “The Universe was, is and always will be”- Carl Sagan. It this statement true? If this argument is successful in its premises than the conclusion logically follows to be true. It’s a syllogism that is a deductive argument, so it’s impossible for the conclusion to be false. It has 2 premises and a conclusion to the argument.
Premise #1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise #2: The Universe began to exist.
Premise #3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Premise one you would think would be uncontroversial. Many challenge this premise in many forms. I will deal with objections in part 2 of this argument. Now this asserts that anything that comes into being like a new person is born would have a cause. The cause would be the person’s parent because we do not being born without parents. A new building made would be caused by engineer’s, construction workers, and so on. Since things that come to be have a cause, it’s more plausibly true than false that premise 1 is true.
Premise two seems to be the less controversial of the two premises which is strange. The beginning of the universe is scientific fact based on the based the scientific theory which is the Big Bang Theory. “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang”-Stephen Hawking. “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”- Alexander Vilenkin. “…astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…. the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 14.) “The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole”- Arno Penzias. “Certainly there was something that set it all off.... I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”- Robert Wilson. “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing”- George Smoot. These men are all respected men in their fields of physics and are not “creationist”. I mean people who think the universe was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now what’s the actually evidence for the beginning of the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics is the first piece of evidence which states” that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave”. Meaning if the universe were eternal we would always have been in the universe’s heat death. All energy would be used and unusable. We still have usable energy which I would assume so since I’m still alive and using energy. The universe is a closed system, so there’s nowhere for our energy to go. The second piece of evidence is the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929. This shows that the universe is finite in the past and is still getting bigger like a balloon. If it were to reverse than time itself would change and the universe would collapse on itself and never expand again. We can trace the points between space, time, and matter which eventually reach zero showing creation out of nothing. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem help shows that any universe expanding is finite in the past. The third piece of scientific evidence is the radiation afterglow which shows the remains of the massive expansion of Big Bang. This helps showing that matter, time, and space coming into being out of nothing and shows that the universe was created 13.7-14.5 billion years. This was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. This helps showing the first step of the universes formation as we have it today. The fourth piece of scientific evidence for the Big Bang are the great galaxies seeds. These show ripple effects in temperature which was predicated by the radiation afterglow help confirming the truth of Big Bang Cosmology. These were also necessary for galaxies to form hence the name great galaxy seeds. The fifth piece of scientific evidence would be Einstein theory of Generally relativity. It shows that space, time and matter are co-relative and are contingent upon each other for their existence. Also, shows that light is a constant even in a vacuum which helps show the age of stars and to help show the finite age of the past. These are five pieces of scientific evidences for the beginning of the universe.
There are two more pieces of evidences for the case of the beginning of the Universe. They are both philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe. Not as strong as the scientific, but still good reinforces. The first one is if the universe were eternal there would not be a past or present. We are in the present now and change is still happening like universe expanding, changing of planets, second law of thermodynamics, and so on. A past eternal universe is contradictory because eternal is without past, present, or future. Eternal is rather timeless or changeless. The second philosophical argument is that we cannot have an infinite number of events in the real world. Take Herbert’s Hotel which shows the ridiculousness of an actually infinite number of events. It’s a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms, but also has infinite number of people in these rooms. Try and reconcile this, but wait it gets even more obscured. An infinite number of people want to check, so the clerk says don’t worry we have infinite amount of rooms. The clerk moves guess 1 in room 1 to room 2 and so. He keeps moving one guess to the next room and continues these process because there’s an infinite amount of rooms. The hotel should put a sign on front door saying all rooms are vacant, but we have plenty of rooms. With an actually infinite number of events we get contradictions and it’s because how well we understand infinity from a mathematical perspective. These are the two main philosophical arguments Theologians have used before the scientific evidence.
Since both of these premises are more plausible than true we have a sound argument and also the argument is also valid because given that the premises truth it’s impossible for the conclusion to be false. The conclusion logically follows from the truth of the premises and the conclusion is that the universe has a cause. Now the next question is: What is this cause? Well this cause would have to transcend space, time, and matter. Transcends means to be beyond and not contingent upon space, time, and matter. More as space, time, and matter being contingent upon the cause which would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. It would have to be an intelligent cause because it sets the right parameters for the fine-tuning of the universe for the initial conditions (expansion rate, etc.) Also for the temporal effect of the universe would have to be cause from a personal agent. For the universe with a temporal effect requires a persona agent to choose to bring a state of affairs into existence. The cause for the universe would have to be omnipotent to create the Universe. With all these qualities in place for the cause we have theistic God as a cause. This is part 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and Part 2 will deal with objections to this argument.
Please share this article and leave a comment.
Please spread the news of this apologetics website.
Please follow me on Instagram @JMDapologetics101.
Why does the Universe Exist?
Why Do we exist?
Do we exist contingently or necessarily?
What is the explanation of our existence?
Is God the explanation for the existence of the Universe?
These questions are addressed in Leibniz’s cosmological Argument which is an argument that shows that God would have to be the explanation of the Universe. We can put Leibniz’s argument into five premises which shows that God is the best explanation of the Universe.
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of Its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The Universe Exists
Premise 4: The Universe has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 5: Therefore, the explanation of the universes existence is God.
Everything that exists has explanation of its existence because otherwise science wouldn’t be possible because science look’s to explain why and how things exist. It looks to explain things and discover why reality is the way it is. If you deny premise one then you deny the scientific process, but I think most people agree with this premise.
There can be two kinds of explanations for the existence of something. Whether in the necessity of its own nature or contingent(necessary) upon something else. When someone poses the question “Well if everything has an explanation for its existence, then what is God’s explanation?”
God’s explanation would be in the necessity of his own nature since God by definition is unchanging, timeless, space less, immaterial, etc. God isn’t contingent upon something else and it’s not special pleading since atheists typically have said that as the universe is necessary. This is where premise two comes in where we show that the explanation of the universe must be grounded in a necessary being like God.
Premise two shows that the universe does have an explanation of its existence and that explanation would be God. We now know that the Universe is not eternal for the scientific reasoning and philosophical reasoning as well. For example, the second of law of thermodynamics would have taken place in the universe already causing the Heat Death of everything since the universe is a closed system. If the universe were eternal, we would always been in this state. A quick philosophical argument is that we can’t actually have an infinite number of things because we get contradictory outcomes like infinity plus infinity.
The Universe couldn’t exist necessarily because it could been different if we had different types of subatomic particles making contingent upon the lowest from of particles and these particles are contingent upon something else because they could have been different too. Everything that makes up the universe could fail to exist, so it would come down to if matter has always existed or not. The universe is the collection of certain particles arranged in a certain way, so it begs the question of couldn’t these particles been different and arranged differently. The elementary particles could have not existed making the universe contingent upon that, so the universe isn’t contingent upon the necessity of its nature.
The explanation would have to be an unembodied mind beyond time, space, matter, and uncaused which is what we mean by God. It can’t be an abstract object like the number 1 because 1 can't cause anything it just describes the amount of something. A transcendent mind is the best explanation of the universe because it is not contingent upon matter, time, and space for it’s existence like the universe is contingent upon. Matter, time, and space would be contingent upon God because these things change over time showing that they are not eternal. Premise two I think is true based on our philosophical reasoning.
What about Premise 3: The universe exists. I don’t think anyone denies this premise because for you to deny it you must be in the universe to be able to come to a conclusion that the universe doesn’t exist.
Premise 4 is the universe has an explanation of its existence. We covered this in premise four by showing the universe isn’t eternal, so it’s contingent upon God. If you want to say, then the universe doesn’t need an explanation hen you would commit the taxicab fallacy and special pleading. It commits the taxi cab fallacy because you choose to stop at the universe which is your desired place to stop with the law of causality. What we mean by the universe anyway is everything that is made up of matter, time, and space. It doesn’t avoid an explanation at all. It also would commit special pleading because your choosing one thing that doesn’t need explanation while everything else does. The universe still needs an explanation for its exist and it can’t be in the necessity of its own nature.
The explanation of the universe would have to be God because all the premises follow logically. Everything has an explanation of its existence. The universes explanation would have to be God. The universe exists because to deny that would be ludicrous. The universe has an explanation of its existence. The explanation would have to be God. God is a necessary being would transcend time, space, matter, and would be uncaused. This argument is a logically airtight argument for the existence for God and is a sound argument that logical follows from the premises.
Please share this article with someone.
Please share this website with someone.
Leave a comment on what you think of this article as well.
Please follow me on Instagram @JMDapologetics101.