FIRST
The Bible never actually speaks of God producing something where there was literally nothing. Yesh m'aiyan, something from nothing is used by say an artist who has rubbish and it is nothing in that sense and he turns it into something. The necessary being argument comes from how Christianity to look credible began to delve into philosophy and ended up with the philosopher's God. Having said that, this God is less crude than the Bible version.
THE ARGUMENT
A Critical Examination of the Necessary Being Argument for God’s Existence
1. Contingency and Necessity
The Necessary Being Argument begins by distinguishing between contingent beings and a necessary being. A contingent being is one that might not have existed; its existence depends on factors external to itself. Ordinary objects such as the Earth are contingent in this sense.
The argument claims that because contingent beings exist, there must be a being whose existence is not contingent—one that exists necessarily and does not depend on anything else. This being is identified as God.
2. Dependence and Ongoing Existence
The argument further claims that contingent beings not only require a cause to begin existing, but also require a cause to continue existing. According to this view, nothing in the universe has independent existence; everything depends continuously on God’s sustaining power.
However, this assumes—rather than proves—that contingent things cannot exist independently once they exist. It also assumes that “dependence” must terminate in a single necessary being rather than in some other explanatory structure, such as self-sustaining physical reality.
3. Creation “from Nothing”
The Necessary Being Argument is closely tied to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing). It asserts that something that does not have to exist can only be brought into existence by something that must exist, and that this requires the power to create from literally nothing.
However, the idea of creation from nothing is philosophically problematic. “Nothing” is not a thing with properties or potential. To say that something comes from nothing is to say that being arises without any explanatory basis. Appealing to God does not resolve this problem; it merely relocates it.
Saying “something cannot come from nothing—unless God does it” does not eliminate the contradiction. It amounts to saying:
Something cannot come from nothing, except when it does.
This is logically circular. If the transition from nothing to something is impossible, then it remains impossible even if a divine agent is invoked.
4. Divine Simplicity and Coherence
Classical theology often claims that God is absolutely simple, meaning that he has no parts, no components, and no distinction between what he is and what he has. God is said to be identical with his attributes—his power, knowledge, love, justice, and even his existence.
This creates serious conceptual difficulties. Attributes such as love, justice, or knowledge are abstract properties or relations, not concrete entities or powers. To say that God literally is these attributes stretches language beyond coherence.
Furthermore, if God is identical with his thoughts, then his mental life cannot vary without God himself varying. If God is not identical with his thoughts, then his thoughts must exist independently of him, which contradicts divine simplicity. Either way, the doctrine generates contradiction rather than clarity.
5. Simplicity Does Not Eliminate Explanation
The argument often claims that God needs no explanation because he is simple. But simplicity does not imply explainability. A thing can be simple and still require an explanation for why it exists rather than not.
Claiming that God “just exists” does not explain existence; it merely asserts it. If brute existence is allowed, there is no reason it must apply only to God rather than to the universe or some fundamental aspect of reality.
6. The Universe as Self-Existent
The Necessary Being Argument assumes that the universe cannot be self-existent. But this is an assumption, not a demonstrated fact. Modern physics suggests that fundamental reality may consist of energy or fields that transform but do not come into or go out of existence.
If the basic constituents of reality are eternal or self-sustaining, then there is no need to posit an external sustaining being. A necessary being, if one exists, need not be personal, intelligent, or divine.
7. Self-Causation and Special Pleading
Religion often rejects the idea that the universe could cause itself, while allowing God to be self-existent. This is special pleading unless a principled reason is given for why self-existence is coherent in one case but incoherent in the other.
If it is absurd to say the universe exists without a cause, it is equally absurd to say that God exists without one—unless “having no cause” is allowed as a brute fact. If brute facts are allowed, God is no longer necessary as an explanation.
8. First Cause and Necessary Being
The First Cause Argument and the Necessary Being Argument are closely related. One focuses on the beginning of causal chains; the other on the ongoing existence of causes.
Both arguments fail for similar reasons. They assume that causal explanation must terminate in a single, personal, necessary being. But even if there were a terminating explanation, it need not be a God, let alone the God of Christianity.
9. Even If Successful, the Argument Does Not Prove God
At most, the Necessary Being Argument might suggest the existence of some foundational reality that does not depend on anything else. It does not establish that this reality is:
Personal
Intelligent in a human sense
Loving or moral
Worthy of worship
Identical with the Christian God
To move from “necessary being” to “personal, loving, Christian God” requires additional arguments that are not supplied by this one.
10. Conclusion
The Necessary Being Argument claims that contingent reality requires a non-contingent foundation. However:
The concept of creation from nothing is incoherent.
Divine simplicity generates contradictions.
The argument relies on unproven assumptions about dependence.
It commits special pleading by exempting God from rules applied to everything else.
It fails to establish a personal or religious deity even if it succeeds.
At best, the argument points to some unexplained foundation of reality. At worst, it replaces one mystery with a larger and more complex one. Therefore, it does not succeed as an argument for God, nor does it provide evidence for the God of religion.
NOTE: The idea of material things causing themselves has been accepted by most physicists and is probably verified by experiments that substantiate the quark theory (page 47, 48, God and the New Physics by Paul Davies). It is also believed by modern physics that the universe when it first appeared was simple beyond our understanding – which strikes out the design argument - not just in shape but in the structure (page 49). Even the laws of physics with their complex results are all very simple (page 221).