This question is similar to the following: “What’s the evidence that I am asking this question?” It is evident that you are asking this question…
Imagine someone walking in the Sahara who finds a bottle of water. Does he ask: “What’s the evidence that an intelligent being made this bottle, and that it is not the result of chance or natural processes?”
This is mount Rushmore:
Now, imagine someone saying that this mount became like this all alone, by natural processes. You would say that this “someone” surely has an agenda for denying the fact that an intelligent being made those images on that mountain.
Actually, this is what is happening with those who doubt the existence of God. All humans, without any exception, know for sure that God exists, because His existence is evident in them through all what God has made from nothing, i.e. the creation. We will see how this is evident some lines later; and I am not avoiding the explanation by just saying “it is evident” as many think; I will explain with science and logic how the existence of God is indeed evident and how it is the ONLY possible logical option. But the problem is that many deny what they know for sure, because they have an agenda: to escape the evident fact that they should put things in order with their Creator. So when someone tells you: “God does not exist”, he’s just expressing his denial of God’s existence, and not the fact concerning God’s existence; he’s expressing his belief and not a fact.
Let me give you the evidence from science and logic, then I pass to clarify some important points related to this evidence or to the whole argument.
While the illiterate man directly goes to primary causes to understand the creation that he sees around him (look below, in the clarification part, to know what primary causes are,) the man of science or the man of our generation who thinks with the scientific method will first look for secondary causes (look in the clarification part to know what secondary causes are,) and will first try to explain things with the operation science or the regular physical sciences that we have today. This man of science will have to make sure not to do wrong assumptions before concluding things, and he will use what he knows as sure facts (like the sure laws and principles of science) to reach sure conclusions. And we will see how this man of science will finally get to the place where he logically realizes the inescapable necessity or the evident fact of a primary cause for this universe, and that Cause is THE CREATOR. The major problem that we face today is with the evolutionist way of thinking that doesn’t follow this scientific method, but instead of that it goes to study origins using operation science, and thus doing many huge assumptions without first proving its assumptions, and contradicts science instead of applying science to reach conclusions. BEFORE beginning his studies, the evolutionist assumes there was no creation (and thus contradicts the laws and principles of science, as we will see,) and then applies this assumption to prove his points.
What do the laws and principles of science say? Let’s study the basic laws and principles:
The laws of thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant; it doesn’t change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder. Now, if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. You can’t run out of an infinite amount. If you have an infinite amount of money, then you can’t spend them all. You can’t run out of money in that case. This means that the universe is finite, and not eternal. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future.
The principle of causality
This is the principle of cause and effect upon which all modern science is built. Everything in this universe, everything that has a beginning, has a cause.
The above-mentioned two laws and the principle of causality help the man of science to know something for sure: That this universe is not eternal past, and that it surely existed from nothing. Even if something produced this universe with this limited amount of energy, that something must have come from nothing, because the original amount of energy is finite. So as far as we go backward in our argument, we will surely reach “something coming from nothing” at the end. Here, the scientist who is obliged to always seek for a cause to every effect will ask: “Nothing cannot be the cause of something. So how could this universe come from nothing?” And science stops here. It can’t go further.
Here comes in logic. Logic says that, in order to have something coming from nothing, the only possibility is that we had a primary cause that made this universe, and that this primary cause must be the Creator “kind of” God, and not any other kind of god, because:
If He is not the Creator “kind” who made something exist from nothing, then He would be under the laws of this nature that He made (and didn’t create in that case.) In that case, God would be the source of the original amount of energy or He would have made this universe by taking a part from Himself, and thus we would go to the backward argument and ask: “Then God must also have come from nothing. Then who made God?” because in that case God would be a limited source of energy (as we had a limited or finite amount of energy originally,) and He would be under the laws of thermodynamics, and we would have to find a primary cause that caused Him.
So logic proceeds like this:
a. I am sure that originally this universe came from nothing, as this is what the laws of science say. It came from nothing, and not from something, because, whatever that “something” is, it will be limited or finite in energy, and thus it will force us to ask again: “How did that ‘something’ come from nothing?” because it SURELY came from nothing, just as we have seen in the above laws and principle.
b. I am sure that nothing cannot produce something, as this contradicts the principle of causality and the self-evident logical proposition about existence that says: “Nothing cannot produce something.”
c. So I surely have a primary cause that itself was NOT caused, or else we wouldn’t have this universe.
d. This primary cause did NOT make this universe by taking resources from itself, because in that case it would be a “something” from which this universe came, and as we have seen in point a. this option of “something producing the universe” is just a backward argument that leads us to ask how that “something” came from nothing.
As you can see, the ONLY logical possibility is the CREATOR “kind of” God who made this universe from nothing, WITHOUT using anything from Himself as the resource or the original energy for this universe. So THE CREATOR is the only logically possible, evident, necessary, unavoidable explanation for all what was mentioned above. And this is what I was telling you above: That the existence of God is evident in every human, without any exception, through the creation.
Some points to clarify
Well, now I would like to make some points clear. The main problem that we face with unbelievers or atheists is that they don’t really understand what our argument is, and in the majority of the cases they have wrong definitions for words that we all use in the debate. So let me clarify:
1. “The Bible says so” ?
Usually, people think that all what we have as “proof” or evidence for God’s existence is to say “The Bible says so.” In fact, the Bible never tries to prove God, as it is the Word of God already. What do I mean by this? I mean: When someone is speaking to you, do you interrupt him and ask: “Wait a minute! Can you please prove to me that you exist?”… In the Bible, God speaks to us. So our evidence for God’s existence is not primarily what He says. Actually, even the Bible itself says that the evidence of God’s existence is primarily outside the Bible, although with full agreement with what God says in the Bible. Here is what the Bible says about this:
“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20)
In other terms, the Bible tells us here that the evidence for God is known to us through the creation or what God has made from nothing. And this evidence is an evidence of His eternal power and His divine Nature, as we have seen in the section of the evidence above. So it’s not an evidence of some god who is himself under the laws of this nature, but an evidence of the true God who is the CREATOR who is not a limited source of energy (He has eternal power) and who is not under the laws of nature as He is the One who created them (His divine Nature.) God would neither hide this evidence from the illiterate nor from the men of science. God is the Cause behind this creation, and this Cause is the primary cause.
When scientific principles were first being developed and thus we got the scientific method, well known scientists of those times (like Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler) made a clear distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is a first cause that explains singularities. A secondary cause is a natural cause and law that governs the way things normally operate. The huge error that ancient philosophers and myths did was to use supernatural or primary causes to explain natural phenomena like earthquakes and meteors. When we learned the truth about these phenomena, a huge error was made by scientists when they eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. That’s the error behind the principle and assumptions of the evolutionists, for example. But just as it was wrong to explain natural and ordinary events using primary causes, it is also a huge error to explain past singularities using natural causes.
Creation is a past singularity. Creation doesn’t happen every day, and you can’t reproduce it. So creation needs a primary cause, and not a secondary cause.
(If you came here while reading a paragraph above, go back there.)
Now, both the illiterate and the man of science can reach this primary cause which is THE CREATOR:
– The illiterate or even the literate and scientist of previous times when science had not yet discovered many of the things that it discovered recently: This person can very easily reach this self-evident primary cause by watching the creation and asking himself “who made all this?” The error that this person should learn to avoid is the error of using primary causes to explain natural phenomena, as we have seen above.
– The man of science or the man of our generation: This person can reach the same self-evident primary cause by using the laws and principles of science and logic, as we have seen above. The problem in which this man of science may fall is to keep avoiding primary causes altogether, and thus applying operation science to the origins, as we have seen above.
In brief, in Romans 1:19-20, God is telling the man of science that the evidence for His existence is in science. And we have seen above how this evidence is in science and logic.
2. Nothing = void?
This is an error that many people make: They think that nothing = void. But in fact nothing means NOTHING, nothing at all!! No space, no things, no spirits, no… NOTHING. So if you would come and put something there, there was no place to put it, because there was not even a space. NOTHING. Even saying that “you would place something” is impossible, because there was no “you” and there was no “something”. More: even saying “was” is wrong, because there was no “was” as there was not. NOTHING. And “then” the Creator CREATED. You see that I have even put “then” in quotation marks.
There was nothing called “space” before creation. Space exists with planets and galaxies, etc. You can’t have a space without something. Just watch the idea of black holes, and you will rethink your idea of “space”. Just as you couldn’t have time before having planets and things moving, you also couldn’t have space without things that are then separated by a space.
Even secular scientists who don’t really use the term “creation” in the right way admit the fact that space is the result of things expanding:
Relativity theory lead to the cosmological question of what shape the universe is, and where space came from. It appears that space was created in the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. The overall shape of space is not known, but space is known to be expanding very rapidly which is evident due to the Hubble expansion. (source)
Read also these about the word “vacuum”:
The word comes from the Latin term for “empty,” but in reality, no volume of space can ever be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice. (source)
Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. It has effectively no friction, allowing stars, planets and moons to move freely along ideal gravitational trajectories. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter. (source)
Of course, just as our mind cannot understand the non-existence of time before creation, it cannot also understand how there was no space before creation.
3. Creation = making something IN the void?
Just as many make the mistake of thinking that nothing = void, they also think that the argument that Christians are defending is that God made everything within this void. If that was the argument that we were defending, we would be defending a lie, because in that case God would not be the Creator, and as we have seen no “kind of” god exists other than the CREATOR. If anything, even space, existed before He created, then it was not creation that He did, but He made something within something that already existed, and thus He was dependent from something. But “Creator” by definition means independent from everything He created. As we have seen above, there was nothing called “space” before creation.
Creation means making something from nothing, without using anything that previously existed.
4. Our evidence is for which “kind of” God?
The basic problem with the unbelievers or the atheists is that they make many or all of the above errors in definitions. And the result is that they think we are trying to give an evidence for a god who is the source of the first limited amount of energy. As we have seen, this is totally wrong, and this “kind of” source-of-energy god that produces the universe is a false and imaginary god that does not exist. Only the Creator “kind of” God exists, and that’s what is backed up by true science and true logic.
Grace be with you!
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”” (Psalm 14:1)