Epigraph

اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ ۚ لَا تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلَا نَوْمٌ ۚ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ مَن ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ ۚ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ ۖ وَلَا يُحِيطُونَ بِشَيْءٍ مِّنْ عِلْمِهِ إِلَّا بِمَا شَاءَ ۚ وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۖ وَلَا يَئُودُهُ حِفْظُهُمَا ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْعَظِيمُ

God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. All that is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His leave? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not comprehend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; it does not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous. (Al Quran 2:255)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

Abstract: This article presents a thematic analysis of a video discussion on whether God’s existence is metaphysically necessary and our universe contingent, drawing from both Islamic and Christian thought. We summarize the video’s key themes – particularly the contingency argument – and bolster the argument with insights from Islamic sources (the Qur’an and Muslim scholarship) and Christian philosophical perspectives. We argue that the universe, with all its physical laws and abstract structures, is not self-sufficient; it is a contingent reality that points toward a necessary ultimate cause. By examining the idea that “nothing comes from nothing,” the insufficiency of quantum cosmology to truly explain creation ex nihilo, and the ontological status of abstract objects, we conclude that belief in God as a necessary being is both philosophically and theologically sound in the Abrahamic traditions. Selected quotations from the video and related writings support each theme, illustrating the convergence between Islamic and Christian reasoning on this fundamental question.

Introduction

Why is there something rather than nothing? This profound question lies at the heart of the contingency argument for God’s existence. In philosophical terms, the universe and everything within it are often described as contingent – they exist but could conceivably have not existed, and thus they require an explanation beyond themselves. In contrast, God is traditionally conceived as a necessary being – one whose non-existence is impossible and who contains the explanation of His own existence. Thinkers in both Islamic and Christian traditions have long advanced this distinction. For example, medieval Islamic philosopher Avicenna spoke of God as the wājib al-wujūd (Necessary Existent), and Thomas Aquinas in the Christian West formulated a “Third Way” arguing that all contingent beings must trace back to a being that exists by its own necessity home.csulb.edu edwardfeser.blogspot.com. Both traditions, despite doctrinal differences, converge on the notion that the reality we observe cannot be self-originating or self-sustaining – it points to a transcendent source.

This article explores the theme of God’s necessity versus the universe’s contingency, following the structure of a video discussion moderated by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (host of Closer To Truth). The video features several scholars weighing whether anything in reality must exist necessarily – be it God, the universe itself, or perhaps abstract principles. We will present a thematic summary of the video’s content, interwoven with an expanded essay that draws on Islamic and Christian perspectives. Key arguments are supported by direct quotes from the video and relevant writings. In doing so, we aim to show that modern debates echo ancient wisdom: that the cosmos, however described by physics or mathematics, is contingent and points beyond itself to a necessary, uncaused cause – understood by Muslims and Christians alike to be God.

Thematic Overview of the Video Discussion

In the video “Is God Necessary (or Who Made God)?”, a panel of philosophers and theologians examines whether God’s existence is required as the ultimate explanation for reality. The discussion, as summarized by Kuhn in the concluding segment, revolves around three possible candidates for a necessary reality or foundational existence:

1. Mathematical laws or equations – the abstract truths of mathematics or physics.
2. Some form of consciousness – a necessary mind or mental reality behind existence.
3. God – the traditional God of theism, endowed with aseity (self-existence).

Kuhn presents these options explicitly as “three choices for what may be necessary” thequran.love. Notably, the scholars on the panel have diverse views. Some explore whether the universe itself (or the space-time fabric and laws governing it) could exist by a necessity of its own nature – in other words, could the cosmos be the “necessary being” instead of God? Others question if abstract objects like mathematical principles could exist necessarily and serve as the foundation. The video features insights from prominent thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne, Bede Rundle, and others, each bringing a perspective shaped by their religious or philosophical stanceclosertotruth.comclosertotruth.com.

Despite this variety, a thematic consensus emerges: our material world is contingent – it doesn’t explain its own existence – whereas God is the best candidate for a metaphysically necessary reality. One participant points out that “our material world is contingent and would need an explanation,” whereas a necessary entity would exist as a brute fact, not requiring an external cause thequran.love. In the Abrahamic view, only God fits that description. As one Muslim commentator on the video observed, the second and third options (a necessary “Consciousness” vs. God) ultimately collapse into the same idea – since a fundamental conscious reality with power over the universe would effectively have the attributes of God thequran.love. The video also addresses the common rejoinder “If everything needs a cause, who or what caused God?” by clarifying a key point: the contingency argument does not say everything needs a cause – rather, everything that begins or could fail to exist (everything contingent) needs a cause or explanation. A truly necessary being, by definition, exists eternally and without external cause. Thus, asking “Who made God?” is a category mistake if God is the uncaused, necessary foundation themuslimtimes.info themuslimtimes.info.

Toward the end of the discussion, Kuhn weighs the alternatives and, in the last two minutes, sums up the reasoning. He notes that while some might propose ultimate mathematical laws or a form of cosmic consciousness as the necessary ground of reality, these still do not evade the classical idea of God. Mathematical equations by themselves seem insufficient – they are descriptive, not creative – and a disembodied “consciousness” that is eternal and creative is effectively what theists mean by God. As Kuhn recounts, even renowned physicist Stephen Hawking once poignantly asked, “What puts the fire in the equations?” thequran.love – meaning, what actualizes mathematical laws into a living universe. The consensus in the video is that neither abstract equations nor an impersonal cosmos can answer that question adequately. Instead, a necessary Creative Mind – God – “breathing fire” into the equations is the more coherent explanation thequran.love biola.edu. In sum, the video’s theme reinforces a classic cosmological intuition: the universe, full of wonder yet contingent, points to something beyond itself – an eternal, self-sufficient deity affirmed by both Islamic and Christian thought.

Read further in PDF file: