If it is
valid to ask about a stone’s continuing existence, it is
certainly valid to pursue the question to a conclusion.
So let’s iterate the principle that everything, even
constancy, has an explanation. We ask, “Why don’t the
conservation laws cease to operate?” As the observed constancy
of energy requires a law of conservation of energy, so that
law’s observed constancy requires a meta-law conserving it. No new
premise or logical principle is involved. We can then ask why
the meta-conservation law continues to operate and get a
meta-meta-law. It is easy to see that an infinite regress of meta-meta-meta-laws
gets us nowhere. In fact, the entire series is just one more
thing in need of an explanation. The only way to satisfy the
scientific requirement for an explanation is with an object
that does not depend on a further conservation law, but is
self-conserving. That is God. Unless there is a being that
holds itself in existence, the whole structure of science –
that phenomena have explanations – fails. The choice is to
accept God’s existence and on-going operation, or to abandon
An analogy may help.
Naturalists are like children whose toys
work when plugged into wall sockets. Because the toys
work, they think they know all there is to know about
powering toys. In the first stage of the proof, I take
them outside, show them the power lines and explain that if
the socket is not connected to the power lines, their toys
won’t work. Then we trace the power back through
transmission lines and substations. Naturalists believing
in infinite regresses think if we just keep
adding more lines and substations, we won’t need a power
plant. They are wrong. Unless there is a power plant on line,
their toys won’t work.
some points before moving on to objections:
The argument doesn’t depend on time-sequenced
causality. For A to be conserved here
and now, its conservation law must operate here and now. The
argument says nothing about creation in the past.
Accordingly, supposing the big bang was resulted from
fluctuations in a prior chaos does not avoid the logic. To
have explanatory value prior state fluctuations must be
subject to natural laws leading right back to God.
The universe is as inseparable from God as from its other laws.
This is an immanent God. However, there is nothing in the
argument confining God to our universe. If one believes in
dynamically linked multiverses, the same explanation, the same
God, causes them all. Multiverses depend on God – not the
reverse. The only dependence of God on the universe is
logical. The universe is our evidence for knowing God, not
God’s reason for existing. God is self-explaining.
immaterial in the same sense the laws of nature are. The conservation
and other laws are not composed of particles or fields. They
are immaterial governing principles. So is God.
this show? First, the
laws of nature are an incomplete
answer to why Paley‘s stone continues to be. There are
gaps, as required by Stenger. Second, the premises of scientific
logic entail that God exists, is the ultimate
source of the laws of nature, and through them of the
continuing existence of every material object. This answers
Stenger’s requirement that God be “a nanosecond by nanosecond
participant in each event.” It does not show that God is
intelligent. I will discuss mind in the universe in the next
Return to the Table of