Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?” His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.

FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING

I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.

THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE

The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it…He is Lord of heaven and earth.” Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.”

God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.”
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.

Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.

WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?

Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God?” Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?

There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.

CONCLUSION

The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God….”

So what caused God?

GeneralShepherd:
So what caused God?

The answer to your question is in the OP.

truthman2012
You've said nothing comes from nothing then how come "god" is a something that comes from nothing....don't those points contradict?

GeneralShepherd:
So what caused God?

God is the first caused.

Material effects require material causes.

So a god, which is not material, cannot influence material medium.

davien:
truthman2012
You've said nothing comes from nothing then how come "god" is a something that comes from nothing....don't those points contradict?

There should be no question about ''nothing produces nothing''. Something must have produced the Universe, which is believed to be God because the bible says so.

Scientists as humans have not been able to discover what caused God, but the truth is they discovered something cause the Universe as nothing produce nothing.

That is one big question I have had lately.

If everything emerged from a singularity , then where comes the singularity ?
If you don't wanna believe the world started on its own, how then do you expect others to believe that God started on his own ?

If you seek to reconcile both THOUGHTS , then the universe or existence itself is GOD.

truthman2012:


There should be no question about ''nothing produces nothing''. Something must have produced the Universe, which is believed a belief to be "god" because the bible says so.

Scientists as humans have not been able to discover what caused God, but the truth is they discovered something cause the Universe as nothing produce nothing.

sadly, you don't know what you're talking about, science says nothing about "god/gods" because they aren't testable and any and all tests to falsify the biblical "god" have either failed or produce results that support naturalistic occurrences...
Furthermore science is quantitative,can you point to a classical definition of "nothing" so as to determine if anything can come from it...a vacuum is the closest thing to a nothing and it still produces things all the time if you are aware of quantum mechanical fluctuations...

@ davien

Your knowledge of science is shallow.

'Vacuum' is not and not close to 'nothing'.

Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines vacuum as space in container from which the air has been pumped out. Space or container are something, not nothing.

truthman2012:
@ davien

Your knowledge of science is shallow.

'Vacuum' is not and not close to 'nothing'.

Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines vacuum as space in container from which the air has been pumped out. Space or container are something, not nothing.

lol....you are actually arguing against this? okay einstein....can you provide an examinable "nothing"?

This is not science. OP what you have is merely the first cause argument. When did it become scientific proof?

Op, all I need is his phone number

davien:
lol....you are actually arguing against this? okay einstein....can you provide an examinable "nothing"?

The same Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines 'nothing' as ''not anything'' That is, no space no container.

Don't edit a post when making comment, it is fraudulent.

undercat:
This is not science. OP what you have is merely the first cause argument. When did it become scientific proof?

To you 'cause and effect' is not science? What is it then? Search google: is cause and effect a science?

truthman2012:


To you 'cause and effect' is not science? What is it then?

The same argument proves all other gods, not just Yahweh. It also proves the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

truthman2012:


The same Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines 'nothing' as ''not anything'' That is, no space no container.

Don't edit a post when making comment, it is fraudulent.

Your post is still there for all to see

truthman2012:
@davien
Your knowledge of science is shallow.
'Vacuum' is not and not close to 'nothing'.
Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines vacuum as space in container
from which the air has been pumped out. Space or container are
something, not nothing.

Now that you realize you can't point to a classical definition of "nothing" you are tap dancing and accusing me of changing your posts,lol...

ooman2:


The same argument proves all other gods, not just Yahweh. It also proves the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I'm convinced you are arguing for argument sake. You have agreed that cause and effect is science and now jump to another thing.

Quote a book where other gods claim to be the creator of the Universe.

[quote author=ooman2 post=29600804]Material effects require material causes.

So a god, which is not material, cannot influence material medium.[/q

Then what caused the Universe as nothing produces nothing?

truthman2012:


To you 'cause and effect' is not science? What is it then? Search google: is cause and effect a science?

This is the wiki definition of cause and effect, or causality:

Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Causality is simply something we observe. Science uses it but that does not make it science. For your own part you should google the first cause argument and see how old it is, or whether it is not considered philosophy/theology

truthman2012:




Quote a book where other gods claim to be the creator of the Universe.

Are you serious? Yoruba people have their own deities that created different things. Google, Yoruba spirituality.

undercat:


This is the wiki definition of cause and effect, or causality:

Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Causality is simply something we observe. Science uses it but that does not make it science. For your own part you should google the first cause argument and see how old it is, or whether it is not considered philosophy/theology

The fact that science uses it makes it a part of science.

Weah96:


Are you serious? Yoruba people have their own deities that created different things. Google, Yoruba spirituality.

Quote them with proof of the truth of their claims.

davien:
Your post is still there for all to see

Now that you realize you can't point to a classical definition of "nothing" you are tap dancing and accusing me of changing your posts,lol...

My accusation is just an observation.

Give us your own classical definition of 'nothing'.

truthman2012:


The fact that science uses it makes it a part of science.

Here is a summary of the first cause argument, so you can understand its nature:

The cosmological argument is a closely related set of arguments for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension often used as arguments for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentially) and in fieri (becoming).

The basic premise of all of these is the concept of causality and of a First Cause. The history of this argument goes back to Aristotle, was developed in Neoplatonism and early Christianity and later in medieval Islamic theology during the 9th to 12th centuries, and re-introduced to medieval Christian theology in the 13th century. The cosmological argument is closely related to the principle of sufficient reason as discussed by Gottfried Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, itself a modern exposition of the claim that "Nothing comes from nothing" attributed to Parmenides.

In modern philosophy, the argument was defended by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Since that time, the term Kalām cosmological argument has come to be used for the debate between Craig and his critics, which involves the interpretation of Big Bang cosmology and contemporary notions of causality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

truthman2012:


My accusation is just an observation.

Give us your own classical definition of 'nothing'.

I said it would be close to a vacuum....you disagree...so tell us the "nothing" you are talking about...
bottom line was that I was just trying to make you realise that a "nothing" as commonly understood does not exist,hence you can't deduce anything from it...

davien:
I said it would be close to a vacuum....you disagree...so tell us the "nothing" you are talking about...
bottom line was that I was just trying to make you realise that a "nothing" as commonly understood does not exist,hence you can't deduce anything from it...

Nothing existed in the Universe before something caused it to exist. What is the something?

truthman2012:


Nothing existed in the Universe before something caused it to exist. What is the something?

lol,before I answer your question...where did you get the bolded from?

davien:
lol,before I answer your question...where did you get the bolded from?

I got it from the OP.

Now answer my question.

truthman2012:


I got it from the OP.

and the op says nothing produces nothing,so we're back to square one....
If nothing as you said produces nothing....how can a something affect or cause it to produce something from nothing and where did the something come from?

davien:
and the op says nothing produces nothing,so we're back to square one....
If nothing as you said produces nothing....how can a something affect or cause it to produce something from nothing and where did the something come from?

reasoning like this can blow your brains...

herald9:

reasoning like this can blow your brains...

lol....