The Beginning of the Universe Implies that God Exists

It seems as though my opponent"s first move is to attack the example that I used in my opening. The example was merely meant to give an illustration for why something that is logically impossible cannot exist or cannot have been a state of affairs. He seems to be saying that you can define "square" and "circle" broadly enough that they are no longer mutually exclusive. This somewhat misses the point, since I was not making a point about "square circles" but about logical impossibility. In order to improve the illustration, we"ll let "square" mean "that which cannot be a circle" and "circle" to mean "that which cannot be a square." On these definitions it is easy to see why a "square circle" is logically impossible. This is an illustration of why God must exist if it is logically impossible that the universe exist without him. If you don"t like the "square circle" example, that"s fine, the point I am making is about logical impossibility. My opponent also seems to be confused in what I mean by the word "God". The argument that I presented makes the case for an immaterial, space-less, timeless, personal creator of the universe. This is the entity to which I am referring with the word "God". My opponent"s main critique of my actual argument is to assert that "time does not move". This seems to be a reference to the tense-less theory of time. If this theory is true, then time doesn"t really move forward. If time doesn"t move forward, then nothing begins to exist at all (and therefore the universe never began to exist). Time would stretch out like a ruler, with each point on the ruler existing equally. The ruler wouldn"t begin to exist at the first inch, it would all just exist in time. Fortunately he has given us no reason to think he is right in this matter. He merely asserts that time does not move in contradiction to our everyday experience. If he can give us no reason to think that this theory of time is true, then we have no reason to take his assertion seriously. It is important to point out that his theory of time is a radical one that flies in the face of our common sense experience. On this view cause and effect are not real. Let that sink in a moment. Nothing has any causal relationship with anything else. The "effect" exists further down the timeline in just as real of a way as the "cause". Think of the radical implications of this view of time. It isn"t the case that you worked hard and earned your paycheck because it was true that your paycheck was yours before you ever worked at all. Are we really going to say that the sun"s rays are not the cause of the sunburn you might get at the beach? Are we really going to say that the explosion of gunpowder in a bullet casing is not causing the bullet to fire out of the gun? Are we really going to say that the rotation of the earth is not causing the sun to come into view? Think about the impact that this view would have on moral accountability. The criminal who is on trial is not the same person as the criminal who committed the crime. They are not connected causally. It seems obvious from our experience that the progress of time is real, if nothing else then by virtue of our real experience of cause and effect. Now suppose my opponent were to tell you that cause and effect are still real on his view of time. If that is the case, then cause and effect still apply to the universe and he has not successfully evaded the argument. If my opponent is going to win in this way, then he would need to give us some good reason to think that the progress of time is illusory and his explanation would need to be more obviously true to us than our own common sense experience. Now I want you to keep in mind, my opponent didn"t make any move to deny the truth of premise one, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." He instead attacked premise two, "The universe began to exist" by saying that nothing begins to exist. He also said nothing to cast into doubt that such a cause must be immaterial, space-less, timeless, and personal. So in light of what has been presented to this point, everything will hinge on whether or not you think the progress of time is real. If the progress of time is real, then God exists.