SOME POINTS
Belief in God is presented as a "solution" to the problem of evil, but it’s often a way to sidestep difficult questions. It is too much about theology - arguments for why God might allow evil offer nothing in the way of helping us battle innocent suffering better.
There is brazen irony in theists saying that God is inexplicable - that he can only be glimpsed but not clearly discerned - but still an explanation for everything.
There is no proof that creation ex nihilo makes sense or that it happened. Note that is two different points. For that reason, even if we could get a good creator God and evil to fit, it all comes apart of creation is incoherent or untrue.
Until Christians know what it is like to be God, and to create and how it could be done, maybe even how creation is done, they should not be using the cosmological argument.
SYLLOGISM
Premise 1: For something to be coherent, it must be logically consistent and demonstrable within the framework of reason and logic.
Premise 2: Creation from nothing (ex nihilo) is a concept where something comes into existence without any prior cause or material.
Premise 3: No one has demonstrated that creation from nothing is logically coherent or possible within the known laws of reason, logic, or science.
Conclusion: Therefore, creation from nothing has not been proven to be logically coherent or incoherent, but remains an unproven concept.
While Flew and other theists assert that God can create, this claim is not demonstrated through logical proof, but instead based on philosophical or theological assumptions. That is not good enough. Why are they not giving a menu of equally good or even better assumptions? They have no right to talk to us as if only their assumption counts. Such a big claim as creation needs better support than opinion.
THE ESSAY
The cosmological argument for God posits that nothing causes itself, so the universe must have been made by God. Former atheist Antony Flew, in There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, decided that a deistic God exists. However, this God is far from the Christian concept of God and only shares some superficial resemblances. Despite this, many in the Christian community used Flew's conversion as evidence that their belief in God is plausible. Flew's God, however, lacks one of the central traits of the Christian God: the ability to enter into a personal relationship with his creatures.
Page 134 discusses the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It claims that nothing causes itself, so God must have caused the universe, and that God, in turn, has no cause. The argument starts with the mere fact that the universe exists and works backward to God.
This approach is problematic. We should start by examining what God is—or is not. Why? Because the existence of the universe doesn’t necessarily require God as its creator. If it did, there would be no need for the argument in the first place. To demonstrate that God created the universe, we must first clarify our concept of God and make that our starting point.
Once we’ve sorted out what God is (or isn't), we need to see if our concept of God holds up in the face of human evil and suffering. If our argument for God's existence justifies actions or beliefs that cannot be morally defended, then the argument is morally flawed. If we need such an argument to prove God’s existence, perhaps we shouldn’t be trying to prove God's existence at all. Theists will fail to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the suffering and evil in the world. Therefore, the argument stalls here. The very fact that God allows us to experience many uncontrollable feelings—feelings that weaken us and incline us toward evil—proves that religion often attempts to solve the problem of evil by ignoring uncomfortable truths.
If the problem of evil could be resolved, then we might ask whether God could create. If creating something out of nothing is logically impossible, then it follows that God, despite being God, could still be unable to do it. God can only do what is logically possible. Flew and other theists assume God can create, but they cannot prove it. This assumption is the crux of the problem: to say the universe exists, therefore God created it, is an assumption, not an argument. It doesn't provide evidence for God's existence; it simply assumes it. The cosmological argument sneaks in this assumption, making it not an argument at all. So, when believers assert that God created the universe, they’re merely guessing.
Until Christians fully understand what it would mean to be God, or how creation might work, they should avoid using the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument also faces the issue that the gap between "something" and "nothing" is so vast that only an infinite being could create the universe from nothing. However, even if such a being existed, it would not necessarily be God—or even like God. God is understood to be all-powerful and infinite, with no limitations. But there's another form of infinity that’s not all-powerful. For example, imagine an infinite number of infinite lines. These lines may possess infinite power, but not the unlimited, all-encompassing power of God. It's possible to have many infinite beings in this sense, but only one being can be both infinite and all-powerful. Therefore, there’s no reason to assume that such a being exists, let alone that it’s God. An infinitely powerful being, who is not God, could have created the universe. There could have been multiple creators, each responsible for different aspects of the universe. In this view, many of the creators may have done a poor job, which might explain the flaws and suffering in the world. This interpretation avoids the cold, unfeeling stance that says, "God allowed that torture to happen for a justifiable reason."
Most proponents of the cosmological argument ignore the problem of infinity, which means they’re using trickery to make us believe there is only one God.
If there were only one being created by God, and that being wasn’t God, it still wouldn’t be able to deduce that God created it. How does God know that He is God? He can’t. God could feel like He is not God. Just as we know we exist but don’t know how or why, God could be the same. The cosmological argument fails to show even God that there must be a God.
If God exists, He needs nothing outside Himself. A supreme being cannot have needs. The cosmological argument might look like it offers an explanation, but it doesn't. It doesn't explain how God could have the power to create, nor does it address whether creating out of nothing is logically possible. The real question we should ask is: Why is there a God when there could have been nothing at all—not even God? The issue isn't "why is there something rather than nothing?" but "why is there a God when there might have been no God at all?"
Theists argue that God is the reason for His own existence, but they cannot prove that this idea even makes sense. Are they claiming that God creates Himself? Or that He causes His own existence? If God "just is," then He hasn’t chosen to exist and is not truly supreme—something beyond His control would be the cause of His existence. In this case, luck would be more important than God’s existence. If they claim that God made Himself, then this is an even more absurd miracle than creation out of nothing!
On page 140, the book references those who argue that the cosmological argument is flawed because the alternative is absurd. The alternative is that causes extend infinitely backward, each caused by previous causes. The book approves of Conway's claim that this results in a pile of beings that don't necessarily need to exist—beings that might not have existed. This leaves us without any explanation. The entire series of causes requires an explanation, but no explanation is given. An analogy is provided: if a million computers become infected by a self-replicating virus, the number of viruses doesn’t explain the existence of the virus. Similarly, the number of causes doesn't explain the causes themselves. This leads Flew to conclude that while the cosmological argument might not prove God, it makes it likely that He exists (page 145).
Page 162 in the appendix, written by Varghese, claims that arguments for God are not proofs. Pages 163 and 183 state that it’s obvious matter cannot produce life and that life must have come from a living God. If the cosmological argument works, then it would be considered proof, wouldn’t it?
On page 165, Varghese critiques atheists who say that the universe is inexplicable, arguing that we shouldn’t try to explain it. Believers in God, including Varghese, reject this logic, claiming that God is the explanation for the universe. But what about a God who is inexplicable? Varghese responds by saying that God is inexplicable to us but not to Himself. This implies that believing in God makes sense because it explains things better. However, it’s still unclear whether God is truly conscious or understands Himself. We, too, don’t understand ourselves fully, even though we know we exist.
The atheist is criticized for saying the universe is inexplicable, while the theist is praised for saying the universe is explained by a God they themselves don't understand. Both positions acknowledge that finding the explanation is possible, but may be beyond our current capacity to grasp. If you believe in God, you have to pretend that God is the explanation—and you implicitly insult those who disagree. Belief in God is often portrayed as loving, but it can have uncharitable implications.
If believers don’t understand God, why should they dismiss other possible explanations, like magic? Note that magic is not considered to explain anything. If, for example, you looked at some mystery and said it is magic, you would get nowhere. The point is that belief in a God who does miracles, who might even give a witch the power to change nature, is indistinguishable from magic and is not an explanation.
The claim that God is the explanation has serious implications. It suggests that if atheists can’t explain the universe, they should remain silent. In other words, if you don’t believe in God, you’re not allowed to offer an explanation. This stance is uncharitable and overly dismissive.
Pages 169 and 170 argue that atheists who believe nothing is unstable and can turn into creation are making no sense, since nothing, by definition, can’t be unstable. This argument overlooks the fact that for the universe to begin, something must go unstable. If that “something” is God, then God is not truly supreme, but just another imperfect creator.