What is the Theistic argument from First Cause

If we conclude that the universe had a beginning, we must then ask whether that beginning was caused or not caused. The Bible’s position that the cosmos was created by God clearly recognizes that there was cause, and identifies what that cause was.



This assertion contrast sharply with those who would maintain that, out of absolute void (no force, no, mass, no energy) and by an unknown principle of science, matter just popped into existence. Which of these explanations sounds the most plausible? First, we should ask if it is even possible for matter to come from nothing. The answer is no, not if we are going to be able to rely on the universal laws governing matter. This fact is critical to the question at hand, because from an atheistic point of view, these are the only laws there are.

Of these laws, certain ones are recognized as being the foundations of all scientific disciplines. The law of conservation matter/energy, for example, is the foundation of chemistry. If matter can spontaneously pop into existence out of nothing, then the foundation of chemistry is compromised, and no longer reliable.

The law of the conservation of angular momentum is the foundation of most of the physical sciences, particularly atomic physics. If matter can naturally come into existence out of nothing, endowed with the property of angular momentum, then all of physics is likewise uncertain therefore unreliable.

Electronics is based upon the laws of conservation of electrical charge. If matter possessing charges can mysterious come into existence out of nothing, then all of electronics would be equally mysterious. There are many other conservation laws. In all cases, to accept the idea that matter was not caused means to deny that we can consistently rely on any scientific observation. Such a conclusion in not worthy of serious consideration if we are to think pragmatically and base our conclusions on available evidence.

(Clayton, The Source, p 20)