I find it interesting to state the basic atheist premise and the basic Monotheistic premise in very similar terms:
Atheist: “Nothing has caused existence. It just is.”
Theist: “No thing has caused existence. Its Cause just is.”
Rewording it a little differently, the atheist says, “existence is caused by nothing”; while the Theist says, “existence is caused by no thing”. The premise of Theism can be expressed as the idea that the cause of all things is not itself a thing. The theist asserts that the non-thing from which all things emerge must surely be very great, for how could this vast and complex universe have a trivial origin. The atheist replies perhaps, that the theist is trying to make something out of nothing. The atheist says that the universe itself contains whatever it needs to explain its own complexity. The believer then enquires as to whence came these amazing characteristics, since every effect must have a cause. The atheist replies, why must the universe as a whole, necessarily have a cause? The law of cause and effect applies between entities within the universe. There is no reason to suppose that the universe as a whole requires a cause.
The argument now looks suspiciously like its going round in circles. The atheist says the universe as a whole is uncaused. The believer says it is caused by an Uncaused Cause, which is to say that whatever the being of the universe ultimately rests on, it is uncaused.
I am reminded of Marzieh Gail’s statement: “Atheism expounded is nothing less than theism with some changes of vocabulary ...”
As a God-believer, I come down on the side of the Uncaused Cause. But having learned from a thoughtful blogger, Psiomniac, who has a fruitful way of raising questions for discussion, I am just going to invite comment on the following question:
Is there any significant difference between the view that the universe “just is”, and the view that it exists at the behest of an Uncaused Cause?
