The Irrationality of Atheism

In confronting the nature of existence, ancient philosophers long ago argued that a person is left with only two possible categories of existing beings: "necessary" or "contingent." As explained in an online article with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

What is the universe? Is it necessary or contingent? And what does this tell us about the existence of God?

The Universe as a Necessary Being

The late atheist scientist Carl Sagan is famous for his declaration that the cosmos is "all that is, was, or ever will be." Sagan's cosmos directly competes with God (who, according to the Bible, claims to the "Alpha and the Omega," the beginning and the end). But is this possible? Can the cosmos or universe truly be a necessary being?

The universe, were it a necessary being, would be infinite. That means an eternal timeline, reflecting an infinite number of astronomical phenomena and interactions. This, of course, opens up some serious mathematical issues for it would open the door to innumerable contradictions. Indeed, mathematician David Hilbert writes: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought."

The second challenge of an infinite universe is that it flies in the face of the theory of evolution. In fact, scientists who embrace the "Big Bang Theory" necessarily reject the idea of infinite, eternal existence for the universe. The same is true for those scientists who accept the proposition that the universe is expanding. It should be noted that these two camps overlap, but are not necessarily identical. They share, in common, though, the idea that the universe had, at some point in the distant past, an origin.

The brilliant Stephen Hawking, while he has modified his views over the years concerning the origin of the universe, nevertheless maintains his conviction that the universe originated - that it began to exist at some point in the past. Professor Hawking puts it best in his own words: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

Atheists who argue for an eternal universe are swimming upstream against the flow of modern science. Many will continue to swim upstream, because to give up the effort forces them to confront the unthinkable: If the universe has an origin, it must have a cause.

Can the Universe be an Uncaused Contingent Being?

The Big Bang Theory forces us to admit that the universe originated, and if Aquinas' logic is valid, we must then acknowledge that it was caused. Indeed, the Big Bang Theory is quite a problem for atheists. As Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas put it: "There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible."

Of course, some atheists plunge into the Big Bang Theory with reckless abandon. Their favorite argument: If God is uncaused, why can't the universe also be uncaused? First, this response creates a slew of problems for the atheist. For one, an uncaused universe would logically have to be an infinite or eternal universe - bringing us back to the problems discussed above. But if the universe is indeed a contingent being, it defies logic and reason to say that an uncaused universe spontaneously sprang into existence. It sets up a contradiction in terms.

Moreover, the atheist must argue that the raw "universe" (in whatever its initial form) is the source, cause, and originator of the evolutionary process. It would be the height of incredulity to deny the current existence of contingent beings - and these contingent beings had to come from somewhere or something. The baseline, initial universe (whether it was simply subatomic particles, primitive bacterial organisms, or cosmic dirt) is the only answer an atheist can give. And this means that the primitive, baseline universe had to initiate a chain of events bringing about the universe we have today. Can an inanimate entity initiate anything? If it could, surely such an act would be considered unnatural or, shall we say, supernatural.

Some scientists argue that subatomic particles can be (at least theoretically) eternal and uncaused. Many atheists point to this theory as if it's a conversation-ender. But what does this prove? That subatomic particles are the raw, baseline universe? That subatomic particles are the origin of the evolutionary process? If so, we're right back at the problem of initiation?

Some atheists counter that the universe may be...alive. At least, it may be alive in some form or fashion. Well, any atheist that embraces this view ceases to be an atheist and becomes a pantheist. And pantheism will have to wait for another article.

Yet another problem for the atheist who argues that the universe is uncaused is that the universe operates according to certain scientific laws, many of which explain causal relationships between certain phenomena. Causality is a common aspect of the universe. The idea of an uncaused universe flies in the face of its very nature. When so much of the universe demonstrates causality, how can we claim that the universe itself is an exception to this?

The Conclusion Atheists Can't Accept

Most atheists seem to recognize they are on very shaky ground with respect to the universe. They are forced to argue that the universe is an uncaused cause. Defense is clearly not a winnable strategy for them, so they attack. Their favorite approach: Casting aspersions on the notion of God as the cause.

And this brings us back to their challenge to the eternal existence of God. "If the universe needs a cause," they ask, "what about God?" Let's remember what a Necessary Being is, by definition. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, necessary beings are "those that could not have failed to exist." A necessary being MUST exist in order for contingent beings to even be possible. The issue isn't whether a necessary being exists, the issue is WHAT is the nature of that necessary being? Atheists gain nothing by trying to argue in circles, other than delay the inevitable.

The inevitable conclusion is that God is the only necessary being that makes sense. If all contingent beings ultimately stem from the necessary being, then the necessary being is the external cause of the universe. Such an external cause needs to be recognized as being itself uncaused as well as infinite, eternal, supernatural, and mighty powerful. In short, it must have all the characteristics of what we as humans normally associated with God.

An external, supernatural being responsible for the universe's existence may not equate to the God of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. But it most certainly represents a death blow to atheism.

A version of this article appeared on the Protestantism page at Suite101.com.