Proof of a negative statement is difficult to pull off. For example, how would you prove the negative assertion “There is no gold in Alaska”? You would have to determine the limits of Alaska, its borders and depth and height, then dig up every cubic inch of Alaska. If there was one cubic inch you did not dig, there still might be gold there. On the other hand, how would you prove the positive assertion, “There is gold in Alaska”? Easy — you need find only one piece.

Similarly, what would you have to know in order to know for sure that there is no God? You would have to know everything. If there was one thing you did not know, that one thing might be God. We are so far from knowing everything that there is to be known, that the dogmatic assertion “There is no God” is not only not provable, it is also arrogant.

from C. S. Lewis’s Case for Christ by Art Lindsley

I’m not really sure what they’re teaching in schools these days. Last I heard, scientists were backing off of the idea that the universe was created by a big bang. That, from out of nothing, an explosion occurred that created matter and the universe.

In case anyone still believes this, here is a very simple rebuttal of that theory…

Out of nothing, nothing comes.

If there were ever a moment in time, when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would have ever existed. There would be nothing existing today.

If, however, something does exist today (you, me, this blog), then you have two options… 1) either the universe itself is eternal, or 2) there is an eternal being who created the universe.

Scientists, themselves, have debunked the first theory (that the universe is eternal), given the rate of the universe’s spacial expansion. The universe is expanding, and if you count back enough years, you get the universe appearing at one moment in time (expanding ever since).

That moment of existence can be rationally explained by the Christian account of an eternal creator.

That moment cannot rationally be explained by a “big bang,” where the universe was created by nothing. If there was nothing, then there was nothing with which to create anything.

Self-creation is also a rational absurdity. For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was.

There is nothing irrational about the idea of an infinite being. It’s strange for us to think of the concept, but it doesn’t break any rules of logic or rationality to say there is an infinite being that created the universe.

Just because we don’t fully understand every possible thing in this universe (hence scientific advancements & increasing knowledge), we can’t simply say that an infinite being is not possible just because we don’t understand how it could be possible. It’s certainly rationally possible, if not fully understandable.

The Big Bang Theory (something coming from nothing) is a rational impossibility.

Science is a friend of Truth. The more we learn from science, the clearer our view of God as the Creator becomes. It’s exciting to know that, ultimately, this is the truth that science will one day reveal.

Some say that hell is the total absence of God—that to be away from God’s presence is the greatest punishment. That is not true. The Bible does speak of “levels of hell,” if you will—that the damned will be punished according to their transgressions. If hell is simply the absence of God, then how can He be more totally absent from some than others? No, God is omnipresent—He is everywhere at once. Even in hell.

Hell is, in fact, the manifestation of God’s holy and just punishment. It is His wrath. Hell is the wages of sin. Hell is what happened to Jesus Christ, when He died on the cross. Actually, Jesus went through infinitely more than what a man or fallen angel will go through in hell, because Jesus bore the punishment of the multitudes of God’s elect. He didn’t just get punished for one man’s sin, He got punished for many. And that’s what allows the followers of Christ to enter Heaven. Christ has already paid for our sins. God, in His justice, cannot punish a sin twice. That is why it is a guarantee that, if Jesus Christ has died for your sins, you will definitely be allowed into Heaven. And the sign of having Christ’s sacrifice count as payment for your sin is your belief—or faith—in Christ’s sacrifice to be the one and only means of your salvation. To believe, even an ounce, in the merits of your own good works or your own good intentions is to not have complete faith in Christ. And that means you’ll have to bear the payment for your sins in hell. That’s not a scare tactic—it’s the truth.

So what is hell? It’s God’s punishment for our rebellion and treason. How can we be saved? By having faith in Christ’s sacrifice as the be-all, end-all of our salvation. When all is said and done—when we talk about salvation—what exactly are we being saved from? We’re being saved from God, Himself—and His wrath. Not the devil.

I’ve strayed from my original point, Jack. The overt glorification of Satanism and paganism in music & horror stories trivializes evil. It doesn’t “draw kids into the camp,” as it were, but rather desensitizes them to it. The imagery you depict in your comic makes evil a joke and less real.

Satan is not out recruiting people. He doesn’t need people to sign up for his crew. They’re automatic members. They start off on his team. He just has to keep them from jumping ship. And the best way to do that is to make them as comfortable as possible right where they are—to keep them happy, to make them think that they’re admirable, and talented, and educated—and that they don’t need God or anything else.

The last thing Satan wants is for people to be aware of him.

In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes.

Here, Aquinas points out that there are, indeed, things in this universe that are caused. He simply states that there are such things as causes in existence.

There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Aquinas recognizes that, if there are indeed causes in our universe, then either the cause caused itself, or it was caused by something else. With the above statement, Aquinas rules out the possibility of anything causing itself. In order for something to cause itself, that something would have had to exist before its own existence, in order to cause itself, which is a total paradox. It is impossible to exist before you exist, in order to create yourself. That leaves only one option. That if something is caused, then something else caused it.

After pointing out the fact that there are things that are caused by other things, Aquinas claims that this causal series must be a result of either an infinite series of causes or a first cause. He quickly argues that an infinite series of causes is impossible.

Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

Aquinas basically says there must have ultimately been a first cause, because if there was never a first cause, there would be no causes now. If the series went back to infinity, there would be no first cause, and without a first cause, nothing could have been caused. But it has already been confirmed that there are causes.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Aquinas’ argument is sound and valid all the way through. However, his last statement, “everyone gives the name of God,” does not seem to be very well grounded. Just because there seems to have been a first cause, why does it have to be God? And to say that everyone gives anything any name is to generalize carelessly.

First of all, everyone does not believe in one certain god. Different religions hold different views of who and what God is. How does this argument prove the first cause to be Aquinas’ Roman Catholic God? Secondly, what if the first cause was not God? Could it not be the Big Bang, or (as Hume’s Philo put it) just a giant plant seed? And finally, how did this first cause come to be? Isn’t claiming the first cause to be eternal just as absurd as the idea of an infinite series of causes?

Well, to take up the latter question, claiming an infinite series of causes is not as absurd as claiming the first cause to be eternal. The infinite series of causes defies logic, as already proved by Aquinas. The idea of an eternal first cause defies no such law of logic. An eternal object is certainly foreign to humans, but that does not say that no such object exists. There is no natural or logical law that would prevent such a being to exist. To say that an eternal being exists is not a paradox within itself.

The idea, also, does not suggest that the first cause caused itself. Such an idea was already proved wrong by Aquinas. The idea suggests an eternal being, caused by nothing – a being that always was, and being the first efficient cause, started the causal series.

As far as why must this first cause be God, instead of some other religion’s god, a big bang or a giant seed, Aquinas does not go into. In fact, his argument could be said to prove the existence of a first cause, but failing to prove it to be the traditional Christian God. It is quite possible that it was not Aquinas’ intention to argue that in any of these five ways. It certainly could be considered a completely different subject to be debated elsewhere or in another writing. But to begin where Aquinas left off, there is a possible argument that would suggest that Aquinas’ first cause argument does prove the existence of the Christian God.

For if there was a first cause that all other causes followed from, wouldn’t the existence of all following causes be dependant always on the first cause? If there were no first cause, then all following causes would not exist. No matter how far after the first cause a cause takes place, that new cause will always be dependant on the existence of the first cause. So, in that sense, the first cause sustains all following causes and is eternal.

If the traditional Christian God did exist and was the first cause, then when He created the universe, he created out of Himself, because that was all that was in existence to create with. If that were true, then all of creation could not exist without God. His existence would be sustaining all of creation. If He were ever to cease existing, all of creation would cease to exist as well. So, if it were true that the first cause must necessarily be in order for all other causes to be, it can be said to have traits similar to that of the Christian God.

All power that exists must have been created by God, out of Himself, which was all there was to create out of in the beginning. Therefore, God sustains the existence of all power, and therefore is all-powerful.

Because God sustains all created things, there is an intimate bond between Himself and His creation. This bond must be strong, because the created thing comes from within God, for God was all there was, in the beginning, to create all things. This intimacy and closeness the Creator has with His creation would be love. For would the Creator hate Himself? This could give this first cause and sustainer the attribute of all-loving.

Again, if God created or is the first cause of everything, then He created or caused all there is to know. In that way, He is certainly all-knowing.

So, if God is the first cause that Aquinas was talking about, He is eternal, in that His existence is necessary for all other existences and will forever more be. He is the creator and designer of the universe, in that He caused or created it all. He is omnipotent, in that all power must have been created or caused by Him. He is omniscient, in that all there is to know was created or caused by Him. And he is all-loving, in that all creation was made through and in Him, and He would not be unloving to parts of Himself with which He holds an intimate existence with.

St. Thomas Aquinas proves there must have been a first cause. He called this first cause God, but being the first cause, God is not only the watchmaker (first cause), He is the watch’s battery (sustainer).