Cosmology and the Argument from Space for Atheism
The argument from space, often invoked in discussions about cosmology and atheism, posits that if God exists, He must be contained within space, and if so, He cannot be everywhere or truly great [9]. This line of reasoning suggests that a God who is spatially limited would contradict traditional theological understandings of divine omnipresence and transcendence. However, Christian theology, both patristic and Reformed, offers counter-arguments to this perspective.
Early Christian thinkers addressed the nature of God's relationship to the cosmos. Athanasius of Alexandria, for instance, argued that the cosmic organism itself cannot be God, because such a view would imply that God consists of dissimilar parts and is subject to dissolution. He emphasized that God is self-sufficient and self-contained, and that all things have their being in Him, rather than Him being contained by them [4]. Similarly, other patristic writers, when refuting polytheism, noted that if there were multiple gods, they could not all occupy the same space, and if they were in separate spaces, they would be limited and not truly divine [6]. Theophilus of Antioch, in his writings, also critiqued the notion of a spatially confined deity, asserting that God is not contained by space but rather contains all things [7].
Reformed theology, as articulated by Charles Hodge, maintains that the existence of God is a self-evident truth, and that atheism, polytheism, and pantheism involve "absolute impossibilities" because they leave the problem of the universe "unsolved and unsolvable" [5]. Hodge further argues against the idea that the universe operates solely by natural law without divine intervention, a view he attributes to figures like Lamarck and Darwin (though he notes that Darwin's theory can be held in a form consistent with theism) [1, 3]. For Hodge, the universe's order and complexity point to a "Supreme Intelligence" whose will is the only operative force [1]. John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, similarly dismissed the Epicurean idea of the universe arising from a "concourse of atoms," emphasizing that such a view fails to account for the intricate order and function observed in creation [8].
The cosmological argument, which posits that every effect must have a cause, is a traditional argument for God's existence, suggesting that the universe, as an effect, must have a divine cause [2]. This argument implicitly counters the idea that the universe is a closed system that could contain or limit God. Instead, God is understood as the ultimate cause, transcending the spatial and temporal dimensions of the cosmos He created.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 5: not believe that there is any such thing as matter or unintelligent forces; all force is mind force; and the only power operative in the universe is the will of the Supreme Intelligence. Dr. Gray 26 26 In the October number of the Atlantic Monthly for 1860. endeavours to vindicate Darwin’s theory from the charge of atheism. His arguments, however, only go to prove that the doctrine of development, or derivation of species, may be held in a form consistent with theism. This no one denies. They do not prove that Mr. Darwin presents it in tha”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 1: The Knowledge of God is not due exclusively to Tradition 201 § 4. Can the Existence of God be proved? 202 CHAPTER II. THEISM. § 1. Ontological Argument.—As presented by Anselm.—By Des Cartes 204 —By Dr. Samuel Clarke.—By Cousin 206 § 2. Cosmological Argument 207 Principle of Sufficient Cause.—Nature of Causation.—Intuitive Conviction of the Necessity of a Cause for every Effect.—The World is an Effect.—Hume's Objection to the Cosmological Argument 211 § 3. Teleological Argument 215 Its Nature.—Evidences of Design in the World 217 viii § 4.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 5: vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man, but he argues against the intervention of mind anywhere in the process. God, says Lamarck, created matter; God, says Darwin, created the unintelligent living cell; both say that, after that first step, all else follows by natural law, without purpose and without design. No man can believe this, who cannot also believe that all the works of art, literature, and science in the world are the products of carbonic acid, water, and amm”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 73: §28. But neither can the cosmic organism be God. For that would make God consist of dissimilar parts, and subject Him to possible dissolution. How then can these things be gods, seeing that they need one another’s assistance? Or how is it proper to ask anything of them when they too ask help for themselves one from another? For if it is an admitted truth about God that He stands in need of nothing, but is self-sufficient and self-contained, and that in Him all things have their being, and that He ministers to all rather than they ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 12: the facts of observation and consciousness, and that the denial of his existence leaves the problem of the universe unsolved and unsolvable. In other words, it may be shown that atheism, polytheism, and pantheism involve absolute impossibilities. This is a valid mode of proving that God is, although if be admitted that his existence after all is a self-evident truth. Theism is not the only self-evident truth that men are wont to deny. 24 B. Scriptural Argument for Natural Theology . The Scriptures clearly recognize the fact that the works”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 2: Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria — CHAP. VIII.--ABSURDITIES OF POLYTHEISM. (part 1): As regards, then, the doctrine that there was from the beginning one God, the Maker of this universe, consider it in this wise, that you may be acquainted with the argumentative grounds also of our faith. If there were from the beginning two or more gods, they were either in one and the same place, or each of them separately in his own. In one and the same place they could not be. For, if they are gods, they are not alike; but because they are uncreated they are unlike:”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XLIX. (part 1): Let us notice now what follows, where, expressing in a single word his opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, without offering, however, a single argument in its support, he finds fault with it, saying: "Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely silly."(8) Now, if he had produced some credible proofs of its silly character, we should have endeavoured to answer them; but it does not appear to me reasonable that I should be called upon to demonstrate, in answer to his mere assertion, that it is not "silly." If any ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 21: so far from obscuring the glory of God, that it rather illustrates it. Let Epicurus tell what concourse of atoms, cooking meat and drink, can form one portion into refuse and another portion into blood, and make all the members separately perform their office as carefully as if they were so many souls acting with common consent in the superintendence of one body. 5. But my business at present is not with that stye: I wish rather to deal with those who, led away by absurd subtleties, are inclined, by giving an indirect turn to the f”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 8: Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts, Epistles, Apocrypha, Decretals — CHAP. VIII.--GOD'S FIGURE: SIMON'S OBJECTIONTHEREFROM REFUTED. (part 1): "But someone will say, If He has shape, then He has figure also, and is in space; but if He is in space, and is, as being less, enclosed by it, how is He great above everything? How can He be everywhere if He has figure? The first remark I have to make to him who urges these objections is this: The Scriptures persuade us to have such sentiments and to believe such statements in regard to Him; and we know that their declarations are true, for witness ”