The fundamental basis of this push to insert God (the Christian version, of course) into American secular affairs is predicated on accepting the existence of this being.

We must also go beyond just accepting existence and agree this being has always existed. William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and Christian apologist, puts it this way when it comes to the universe.

1. Everything has a beginning
2. The Universe had a beginning (the Big Bang)
3. Therefore God created the universe.

This obviously raises the problem of infinite regression when one ask, who created the being that created the universe. Unless, of course, we merely accept as fact that there is a first cause, an uncaused cause, which must be God and, in Dr. Craig’s view, this can only the Christian God.

But quantum physics shows evidence of random, uncaused, events ocurring all the time. To which, I am sure, Dr. Craig would argue, ‘ well, God created quantum physics.’

But is God really necessary? Instead of inserting an eternal God before the universe isn’t it simpler to accept the universe as eternal? An eternal universe wherein the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of time but a consequence of quantum uncertainty.

A sophisticated version of the “eternal universe” argument draws from both metaphysics and contemporary cosmology. It begins by questioning the assumption that everything that exists must have a beginning. This assumption, while intuitive, is not logically necessary. Time itself may be an emergent, relational property of physical processes rather than an independent dimension requiring a first moment. If time emerges from deeper physical laws, the idea of a temporal “start” becomes nonsensical—much like asking what is north of the North Pole.

From a metaphysical standpoint, positing a God to explain the universe’s existence simply transfers the explanatory burden rather than resolving it. If everything must have a cause, then a God must also have a cause, leading to an infinite regress. To avoid that regress, proponents of the eternal universe suggest that the universe (or a larger multiverse) could be the fundamental brute fact—uncaused, necessary, or self-subsistent. In this view, the universe does not come into being; it simply is, and its existence is explained by its own nature rather than by external agency.

Modern cosmology offers models that cohere with this metaphysical picture. Theories such as conformal cyclic cosmology, bouncing cosmologies, and certain interpretations of quantum gravity propose that the universe is eternal in one form or another. These accounts do not require a creator because physical laws—whether classical or quantum—govern transitions from one cosmic phase to another without appealing to a supernatural cause. Creation ex nihilo becomes unnecessary when the universe never transitions from “nothing” to “something,” but instead moves through cycles or exists timelessly in a quantum state from which spacetime emerges.

Finally, the principle of parsimony supports this position. When two explanations attempt to account for the same phenomenon, the simpler one is typically preferred. An eternal universe governed by impersonal laws is less ontologically extravagant than a universe plus a supernatural creator. Therefore, unless there is compelling evidence for divine intervention, a self-existing or eternally cycling universe remains the simpler and more economical explanation.

In the interest of fairness, this is my understanding of the counter arguments for the existence and necessity of God.

A Philosophical Theistic Counter‑Argument

A common theistic response begins by challenging the idea that the universe can be self‑existent or eternal without explanation. While an eternal universe avoids a temporal beginning, it does not address why the universe exists at all rather than not existing. The principle of sufficient reason holds that every contingent reality—anything that could have been otherwise—must have an adequate explanation. The universe appears contingent: its physical constants, laws, and structure could have been different. Because it does not contain within itself a reason for its existence, it requires an external, non‑contingent cause.

That leads to the argument for a necessary being. A necessary being is one whose non‑existence is impossible and whose existence is explained by its own nature. Theists argue that stopping with a brute, unexplained universe undermines rational inquiry. If the universe is treated as a “just‑so” reality, the demand for explanation is arbitrarily abandoned. By contrast, positing a necessary being provides a coherent endpoint to explanation, grounding the existence of contingent things without invoking an infinite regress of causes.

Furthermore, the universe displays order, intelligibility, and mathematically describable laws. These features suggest that the universe is not merely a chaotic brute fact but structured in a way that supports life and rational investigation. Theists argue that such deep rational order points more plausibly to an intelligent source than to mere chance or impersonal necessity. Even if the universe or multiverse is eternal, the existence of rationally ordered laws still calls for an explanation. Theism provides one by proposing a mind as the foundation of those laws.

Lastly, theistic arguments contend that naturalistic explanations ultimately describe how physical processes unfold but cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. The existence of contingent physical reality, the fine-tuning of constants, and the intelligibility of the cosmos all point beyond the physical domain. God, as a necessary, non‑material, uncaused cause, serves as the ultimate ground of being—something an eternal universe, still contingent and law‑bound, cannot fully account for.

Needless to say, when comparing the two sides of this issue, it seems quite evident to me God is a creation of man who needed to feel important and purposeful in a vast universe beyond his comprehension.

But, if I concede for the sake of argument God created the universe and all that is in it. A universe of incomprehensible complexities. Does it make sense a being capable of such grandeur and wonder would demand the adoration of one evolution-produced being?

And, even more troubling, in the absence of such devotion punish this behavior with eternal torture and damnation? Hardly consistent with someone who created the Milky Way the Andromeda galaxy, the orchid, or the hummingbird.

Or, to borrow lines from Blake,

“Tyger, Tyger, burning bright
In the forest of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

God isn’t necessary in a universe that is eternal and to which we all belong and will return.