Did God Create The Universe? The answer to this question is, “No.” And using the Law of Non-Contradiction as well as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy I will demonstrate why the idea of a god creating the Universe is a logical impossibility. Before we proceed we must first establish the fact that god cannot violate the laws of logic. However, this should not be too difficult, as I have yet to meet a believer in god that claims otherwise. For example, try asking a believer whether god can create a square circle? This question puts them in an difficult position. If god is omnipotent, meaning all-powerful, then god should be able to do anything. However, by the following laws of logic we know:
“Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense.”, as stated by the Law of Non-Contradiction. “Something is either A or not A.”, as stated by the Law of Excluded Middle. And “If a thing is A, then it is A.”, as stated the Law of Identity. Therefore, believers are forced to answer the question of whether god can create a square circle with a resounding “No.”
In order to get around the paradox of omnipotence, believers claim logic is part of god’s nature. Essentially, the reason god cannot violate logic, is because god is logic. God can no more stop being logical than he an stop being god. As a side note, many believers employ this same reasoning in order to justify existence of morality, but that’s for another discussion. As we can see, god cannot do the logically impossible, such as making A not A. In other words, the nature of a thing can only be itself, and not even god can make it something else (A=A). This is an extremely important point, and one to which I’ll be latter referring.
Now that we have established god cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, we can begin to examine the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. If you remember from your grade school science classes, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed — they only change forms, thus they’re said to be “conserved”. For example, let’s say I ask you to create a chair. Perhaps you would grab some glue, wood, a few tools, and get to assembling the piece of furniture. However, this is not creation in the ultimate sense of the word. In order to “create” the chair you must to act on pre-exiting matter, you do not create it from nothing, which is known as “creation ex nihilo”.
If I ask you to destroy the chair it is likewise impossible to do so in the ultimate sense of the word. Burning the chair results in a chemical reaction between fire, wood, and oxygen, producing, heat, light, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon charcoal, and perhaps other trace elements as well. If you could somehow manage to gather up all the atoms and energy released from the burnt chair, it would be equal to that of the original piece of furniture. In fact, this is the principle upon which nuclear energy is produced. Splitting the atom don’t destroy it, it’s only converted, according to Einstein’s famous equation: m=E/c^2 → E=mc^2.
The Law of Conservation is a well-establish scientific principle, and one that’s really not up for debate. However, even if someone were to challenge this law, my following argument still remains valid, and I will demonstrate why a little bit later in this video. So for now let’s take the conservation of matter and energy as being a fact. The Law of Conservation is a property of the Universe. In other words, this law defines how the Universe behaves, which is another name for the Universe’s nature, and by logic this nature cannot be violated. In much the same way, the definition of what makes a square a square or a circle a circle cannot be violated.
A square is an object with four equal sides that form right angles. In contrast, a circle is a round object whose circumference consists of points equidistance from the center. Anything that does not adhere to the definition of a square or a circle cannot be called so. The nature of a square, a circle, a human, and even a universe, can never be anything other than what they are. This means in our Universe creation ex nihilo is a logical contradiction. The conservation of matter and energy is a property of the Universe’s nature, and to violate this nature would be to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction: to make the nature of the Universe something other than what it is. But as we’ve agreed, god cannot do the logically impossible, like creating square circles. A universe where matter and energy are conserved cannot be created from nothing, for that would serve to make A not A, which is a logical contradiction. This means the Universe has always existed in one form or another. God cannot be responsible for creating the Universe, because the Universe was never created.
But perhaps some believers may challenge the Law of Conservation, claiming it is possible for matter and energy to come into existence from nothing. In fact, there might even be evidence to suggest quantum fluctuations are able to cause subatomic particles to momentarily come into existence in the vacuum of space. Therefore, it may be possible to violate the conservation of matter and energy. Now, to my knowledge this has not been scientifically demonstrated in a laboratory setting, but if it is indeed possible for matter and energy to spring into existence from nothing, without any cause, then where does that leave god? It would seem that we are justified in cutting out the middle man and accepting the proposition that the Universe sprang into existence from nothing, without any cause. Whichever way you cut it, god is not required for the creation of the Universe. We only have one of two choices. Either the Law of Conservation is in effect and matter and energy have always existed, or the Law of Conservation can be violated and matter and energy can come into existence from nothing — god need not apply.