How To Find God

how to find God

Wonder how to find God?

It's easy: you just have to look.

Just kidding of course. The question is not really "how to find God" as much as it is "how do you know where to look?

We're going to go very deep here. The subject demands it. There is no bigger question, and tackling it means going big. I'm going to split this into several posts--the first one (this one) is what I consider to be the most powerful answer, split out clearly and treated on its own. The subsequent parts will surround this answer with more strong support. Together, they provide an incredibly solid foundation upon which everything to follow is built. Here we go!

Why The Creator Is Necessary


In the beginning there was "nothing."

No matter how one attempts to describe the origin and subsequent existence of the universe, the fact above is inescapable. The possibilities can be reduced to three cases:

  1. The universe began to exist.
  2. The universe has always existed.
  3. The universe has an origin that is more complex and/or does not fit within our general sense of the "arrow of time."

In each of these cases there must be a cause, and this cause must have properties that are generally associated with "God." The scope of this argument is limited to "creation" and will not address anything beyond that.

Science, and more specifically physics, does not have a definitive answer to this question and perhaps never will. We are (scientifically) limited to what we can observe and measure, and the answer to this question may reside across a boundary we cannot cross. Therefore it presently can only be addressed logically and philosophically, and it is quite possible that this will always be the case.

The first case is the easiest to address. Whether the universe began to exist at the moment of the "Big Bang" or a previous but similar singularity, there existed a "nothingness" prior to that where the universe would be considered to not exist. How do we account for that change? One could argue that the change was a result of the laws of physics, and required no caused event. However, this is unsatisfactory as it leaves unanswered how the laws of physics happened to be there to drive the event in the first place.

This leads naturally to the second case. Perhaps the universe has always existed. But again, the question of origins is left unanswered. How does such an entity happen to exist?

The third case is really no different, just generalized to account for our lack of imagination. Perhaps the actual origin is something we (in our limited capacity) cannot fathom.

While this leaves open many possibilities, the challenge that must be confronted exists regardless of what follows:

How is it possible that the universe exists at all and by what mechanism did it come to be?

This issue is dodged by those who wish to cite the big bang, or a steady-state model, or a many-universes "explanation." It is clear that the Big Bang is on very firm footing as a theory, and is by far the closest model we have to what unfolded in space-time. At the moment of the big bang and before we leave the domain of science and enter the realm of speculation. It is certainly possible that the Big Bang happened as a consequence of an event in some "other" universe, whatever that means or looks like. But note that this does not truly resolve the challenge.

A frequent critique of first-cause arguments is that you can set up an infinite regress of them. I do not view this as a valid or logical point. The very nature of any "entity" capable of the design and creation of the universe negates the assertion. Sure, one can ask "what made THAT." However, that argument implicitly accepts the notion that such an entity necessarily exists and is a sufficient cause for the existence of the universe. This does resolve the challenge. Whether that entity had its own creator is far beyond the scope of what we could reasonably hope to determine and is unnecessary given the acceptance of the necessary initial cause.

Atheists make the negation of this argument the foundation of their faith. It is often claimed to be some sort of misguided faith in science, which is of course foolishness. To assert that there is no creative entity is as much an article of faith as to assert that there is. I would suggest that in fact it requires more faith to hold the athiest view, as the first cause argument is so decisive it leaves little to no room for rebuttal.

We will take this principle to be clearly established:

The universe and all of its rich structure (as evidenced by mathematics, physics, and the other natural sciences) was created by an entity, whose existence and "action" provide a necessary and sufficient cause for the creation.

This is a view almost universally held by the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known. Some have gone farther. You can find numerous mid- to low-tier players who will assert athiest views. But the greatest are not among them: Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Leibniz, Bayes, Euler, Lavoisier, Volta, Ampere, Cauchy, Faraday, Babbage, Maxwell, Mendel, Riemann, Joule, Hertz, Pasteur, Kelvin, Marconi, Planck, Godel, Heisenberg, and many, many, many more. All were at least in agreement with the general principle I state above, if not clear theists.

Ignore those who gin up conflict between "science" and "religion." At best they understand neither. At worst, they deliberately distort and fabricate for economic gain. Go see for yourself what great thinkers believed, whose contributions stand the test of time.

So that's how to find God. The Creator MUST exist, and a vast majority of those towering intellects who have pondered the fundamental structure and origins of the universe agree. While there may be a range of views around what that means, there is clear agreement with this logic.

You've found God. Now what? There is much, much more. This Creator has left amazing evidence of his handiwork everywhere you look. We are going to explore this.