Objection 1: Just because history and time had a beginning, that does not mean that anything was created. It could have occurred by chance.
Reply 1: What is meant by chance: some entity? Then by "chance" here you would seem to mean what is defined as "God". But "chance" does not mean this. Is "chance" some cause? Then the same applies. Is it the lack of a cause? Yes, but a lack of a cause is not very powerful, certainly not powerful enough to bring such a thing as the universe into existence. So the notion is ridiculous.

Obj 2: Ok, the laws of science created the universe.
Re 2: A law of science itself can do nothing; it does not act.

Obj 3: PURE ENERGY had a big bang; this was the beginning of time and the universe; why the need for creation? Or think of Star Trek. Perhaps an energy being like Q or an Organian started the universe in some way from outside of time.
Re 3: The argument has shown that something caused the universe and time to begin. Energy is not a thing; it has two meanings, refering either to a quality or to an action. It is power being used (and power is a capacity), or the exercise of a power.

Obj 4: The universe and time caused themselves.
Re 4: A cause must already exist to effect anything; nothing effects itself.

Obj 5: Inside of a black hole or singularity, time has no meaning at all. Perhaps the universe and time began with something going wrong in such a cosmological phenomenon. There is no need, then, to suppose that the beginning of time was God the Creator. It was merely a natural process.
Re 5: The idea of motion outside of time is a self-contradiction. Motion is a type of change, and change needs time in which to take place. Change which does not take place over time is not really change, is it?

If you have further objections, email me.

Click here to return to argument summary.

© Copyright 1997, Luke Wadel. Written permission of the author is required for copying, electronically or otherwise.