The Irrationality of Atheism

In confronting the nature of existence, ancient philosophers long ago argued that a person is left with only two possible categories of existing beings: "necessary" or "contingent." As explained in an online article with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

What is the universe? Is it necessary or contingent? And what does this tell us about the existence of God?

The Universe as a Necessary Being

The late atheist scientist Carl Sagan is famous for his declaration that the cosmos is "all that is, was, or ever will be." Sagan's cosmos directly competes with God (who, according to the Bible, claims to the "Alpha and the Omega," the beginning and the end). But is this possible? Can the cosmos or universe truly be a necessary being?

The universe, were it a necessary being, would be infinite. That means an eternal timeline, reflecting an infinite number of astronomical phenomena and interactions. This, of course, opens up some serious mathematical issues for it would open the door to innumerable contradictions. Indeed, mathematician David Hilbert writes: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought." 

The second challenge of an infinite universe is that it flies in the face of the theory of evolution. In fact, scientists who embrace the "Big Bang Theory" necessarily reject the idea of infinite, eternal existence for the universe. The same is true for those scientists who accept the proposition that the universe is expanding. It should be noted that these two camps overlap, but are not necessarily identical. They share, in common, though, the idea that the universe had, at some point in the distant past, an origin.