Subscribe to Ailbe Newsletters
Sign up to receive our email newsletters and read columns about revival, renewal, and awakening built upon prayer, sharing, and mutual edification.
“Why does the universe exist?” the student asks,” Why isn’t there just nothing?”
“God created the universe.”
“But how does God exist? Why wasn’t there just nothing?”
“God is self-existent.”
“What does that even mean? How can something be self-existent?”
Good students ask hard questions; that’s part of what makes them good students. We owe them solid answers. This paper makes an attempt at that with the goal of at least satisfying the student’s curiosity and laying a logical foundation for further discussion on this very complex topic.
Self-existence
Something self-existent is something that exists because it cannot not exist. Take away everything, and it’s still there. You can’t get rid of it. It must exist. It’s transcendent.
If one wants to make a case for the self-existence of something, or a collection of things, one must argue that case. Given the immense complexity of the topic, and our limited abilities, the argument may be less than a proof. An argument for the mere plausibility of self-existence can be helpful. Moving the student from, “I cannot conceive of …” to, “I can conceive of …” is progress.
Conversely, it can be useful to disprove self-existence—to show that something cannot be self-existent. One case in particular will lead to a profound conclusion.
There is one exception to the need to make the case—the self-existence of nothing. If no thing is self-existent, then nothing is self-existent. That sounds like a pun, but it’s a meaningful, even tautological, truth. As we already stated, one has to make the case for any thing or things that one claims to be self-existent.
But when the list of such things is empty, so is the in-basket of cases that need to be made. Thus, “nothing” is automatically self-existent.
However, note that for this to hold, “nothing” has to mean absolute nothingness. Some have tried to get around this limitation with a definition of nothing other than absolute nothingness. That’s just using a clever name to make nothing out of something. That is a pun.
So, consider this example:
“If I have two apples and someone gives me two more apples, how many apples do I have?”
“Four.”
“Why?”
“Because two plus two equals four.[1]”
“What if I don’t have any apples? Does two plus two still equal four?”
“Of course. Two plus two equals four whether or not you have any apples, or anything else for that matter.”
So, might addition (and the concept of numbers) be self-existent?
That could qualify as plausible.
The reader is encouraged to stop for a while to let this settle. Can abstract (i.e., immaterial) concepts such as two plus two equals four be self-existent? Don’t get bogged down in how insignificant our example is. We just want to break through the “I can’t conceive of anything being self-existent” barrier.
Creation
There are three basic possibilities for the origin of the universe:
- The universe always existed; it’s “self-existent.”
- The universe created itself.
- Something else that’s self-existent (AKA the creator) created the universe.
Possibility 2 has a severe problem. Aristotle famously said, “From nothing, nothing comes.” He’s implying that the universe cannot create itself. This is the normal philosophical view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
However, there is another angle on possibility 2. We’ll get back to that.
Unfortunately, possibilities 1 & 3 also have a severe problem. How can anything be self-existent?
If “two plus two equals four” can conceivably be self-existent, then the concept of self-existence is established. This allows for a self-existent creator. Unlike two plus two equals four, the creator is beyond our comprehension, but the concept of self-existence isn’t.[2]
So, we’ve opened the door to possibility 3. We’ve also opened the door to possibility 1, but the second law of thermodynamics closes it. The universe can’t be infinitely old because everything always runs down thermodynamically (entropy always increases). It would have already suffered thermodynamic heat death.
That rules out 1—a self-existent universe.
There is a view advocated by some physicists, which might best be categorized as possibility 2. “The Grand Design” by Hawking and Mlodinow posits a “mother universe” from which our specific universe was born. They do not (at least not in the book) explain how this mother universe could be self-existent.
Instead, they use a definition of nothing that assumes many self-existent principles (beyond abstract mathematics, even getting into laws of physics). They build their case from those self-existent principles. That’s not nothing. They’re using equations that aren’t just in the abstract; they’re in action. That’s starting with a lot of universe.[3]
So, only one possibility stands on solid ground—#3, the self-existent creator.
Non Self-existence
It can also be useful to show that something cannot be self-existent. Unlike the argument for self-existence, the arguments against it needs to be very strong. The thermodynamic argument against the self-existence of the universe is an example. It shouldn’t be labeled as proof because it depends on the current state of physics, but the theories that would have to be overturned include prohibiting perpetual motion of the second kind. Permitting perpetual motion is an instant turn-off for physicists. Thus, that argument borders on proof.
In general, if something has characteristics and dependencies on other created things, then it cannot be self-existent. Given 20th century advancements in our understanding of creation, we now know of a startling and important example of this—time.
Some form of time might conceivably be self-existent, but not our time. Time in this universe depends on things like gravity and motion. These dependencies are now observable. This isn’t just a theory; it’s a fact. For example, time runs faster on the moon than on earth because the gravity is less. (Gravity slows down time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00185-z
Thus, time in this universe isn’t some transcendent, self-existent thing; it must be part of the created universe.
This has huge theological implications. The creator of time (i.e., our time) cannot be constrained to live in it. Clearly God does interact with His creation, but He doesn’t live inside of it. That means He is outside of time.
This is hardly a radical idea in Christendom. Many verses in the Bible support the idea that God is outside of time (e.g., Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9). It’s even in the Athanasian Creed.
He is God from the Father, begotten before time;
And He is man from the essence of His mother, born in time.
This has great impact on one’s interpretation of the Bible. Just consider this passage.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.” — Isaiah 55:8–9
The view from outside of time is a magnificently higher way of seeing things.
Unfortunately, God being outside of time raises more than a few troubling issues. What happens to free will if God knows the future? What happens to responsibility?
This leads down a path that’s familiar to folks in the reformed branch of Christianity. It’s not an easy one, but it’s worth a visit.
More to come on that in the next installment of the Sunday Special DEEP.
[1] This is referring to normal arithmetic. The field of mathematics includes other types of arithmetic, which sometimes use the same words to mean different things. For example, angles generally use modulo arithmetic. In trigonometry and many other applications, 180° plus 180° equals 0° because angles don’t add normally, they’re modulo 360. However, the formula for the sum of the internal angles of a polygon with n sides is (n−2) ∙180°, which tacitly assumes normal arithmetic, even though it involves angles.
[2] There’s a misunderstanding that should be precluded here. If I can conceive of two plus two equals four being self-existent—meaning it must exist—the word must in the definition of self-existent doesn’t mean it must be self-existent. It can be the case that it must exist; not it must be the case that it must exist. Two plus two equals four might be self-existent or it might not. I can conceive of both possibilities. Numbers and arithmetic might be part of what was created by the creator. I can’t imagine how, but that’s just me.
[3] Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. If only we had some apples. The equation cannot create the apples. When it exists only in the abstract, it isn’t in action. If apples exist, the equation can apply to something and be in action. The physicists’ argument is basically that, “Nothing is an unstable state.” The problem is the definition of unstable—prone to change over time. If only we had some time. The equations of physics that have t in them (e.g., Schrodinger’s Equation) are in the abstract. They’re powerless to create the time. Where did we get the time? Thus, “That’s starting with a lot of universe.”
To forward this devotional, see the link in green below.
This Sunday Special DEEP is written by Mike Slay. The Saturday DEEPs are written by Matt Richardson. To subscribe to the DEEP click here: https://www.ailbe.org/resources/community
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.