God and Reason

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

| Resolved series |

• Resolutions That Matter
• God and Reason
• How to Know If I Am Saved
• Is an Embryo a Baby? | Scientifically
• Is an Embryo a Baby? | Biblically

---

Where Did the Universe Come From?

Our culture often suggests that it’s foolish to believe in God. I want to explore that and resolve this question for us. Specifically, my goal is to demonstrate that belief in God is quite reasonable. By reasonable, I mean that belief in God, a creator of everything, is consistent with and serves to explain scientific observations. There seems to be this idea that, “Yes society once needed God to explain how everything came to be, but now we have science to explain it to us.” But does science explain it? What has science demonstrated about the origin of the universe?

What about the Big Bang Theory? The Big Bang Theory is a model that describes how the universe expanded. However, one of the most common misconceptions is that the Big Bang Theory offers an explanation for the origin of the universe. So, while science does have a theory for how the universe developed, it currently has no theory for how everything came to exist. Harvard’s Universe forum put it succinctly: “No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose.”

While we don’t have a scientific theory to explain how everything came to exist, we can still evaluate whether or not the existence of a creator is consistent with what science has demonstrated. At a fundamental level, there are only two options: the universe came from nothing or it came from something.

The Problem with Nothing

Let me back up quickly: For a theory to be scientific, it has to have results that are testable and consistent. For example, gravity is a theory because we can consistently observe that things fall toward the earth. In one way of putting it, science, as a whole, is the discovery of consistency (order). You’d be amazed by the way that the existence of life, the very existence of the universe depends on incredibly specific and consistent scientifically observable order (more on this in a minute).

With this in mind, Harvard’s Universe forum summarizes the problem with assuming that everything came from nothing: “If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe “know” how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life?” In other words, the problem with this option is that it fails to explain the order in the universe that we have discovered through scientific study. Instead it requires us to believe that these incredibly specific laws happened by chance out of utter chaos.

Furthermore, if we say that everything came from nothing, then that implies that the formation of this universe violated every law that sustains its existence. For example, you have to ignore even the most basic of scientific principles like the law of cause and effect (which says that every effect, like the formation of a universe, has a cause). Even the most elementary and foundational discoveries in science conflict with this option like the law of the conservation of mass (which effectively says that something cannot come from nothing).

What does this all mean? It means that every scientific discovery we’ve made undermines the likelihood of this option. Further, any new discovery will be based on yet another consistently observable law, yet more evidence of order that we must believe came from nowhere, came from chaos, came from nothing. While you cannot preclude the possibility that everything came from nothing, you can say that scientific theory is definitionally unable to support it.

The Universe Came from Someone

So, scientific evidence undermines the likelihood that everything came from nothing. The only other option is that the universe came from something. By definition, this “thing” would exist outside of the universe (outside of space and time). In other words, this “thing” would be both immaterial and eternal. Further, this “thing” would have to be unimaginably powerful seeing as “it” was able to seed all of the usable energy that the universe has been running on since it began[1] – and that’s a lot of energy.

Also, this “thing” would have to be incomprehensibly intelligent because of the incredible detail and order evident throughout the universe. To demonstrate how incredibly specific the order is in our universe, lets borrow from a book by Martin Rees[2], a British cosmologist and astrophysicist who currently holds the position of Astronomer Royal in the UK (the senior position for an astronomer in the UK government):

• Throughout our universe, the strength of gravity pulls stars together while electrical force keeps stars from collapsing on themselves. If the balance between these two forces (N) were just slightly different, stars would not be stable and long-lived which is necessary to support life.
• How strongly atomic nuclei bind (ε) regulates the power and the elements produced in stars. If this number were even a little different then the abundance of the various elements throughout the universe would be drastically different, making life as we know it impossible.
• The amount of material throughout the universe (Ω) is precisely tuned to support a stable universe capable of sustaining life. If this number were too high, the universe would have collapsed in on itself long ago. If too low, then stars and planets would never form but their matter would be spread like dust throughout the universe.
• There is a cosmological constant (λ) that is an observable antigravity force that slows the rate at which the universe expands. This constant is extremely small and if it were even just a little larger, the galaxies and planets would not exist.
• The degree of structure in the universe (Q) can also be measured. If this number were slightly smaller then our universe would be inert (dead). If this number were larger then our universe would be too volatile for stars and planets to survive.
• The fact that we live in a three-dimensional (spatial) universe (D) allows all of these laws to work. If we had two or four spatial dimensions, the laws in our universe simply would not work. The laws of nature are specifically tuned for our universe with its unique properties to support life.

These are just 6 examples of the incredibly specific order that is observable in the universe; if any one of these were changed even slightly, we can say with certainty that life as we know it would not exist. In seeing this, it’s certainly reasonable to say that the “thing” that caused our universe is intelligent. Furthermore, this order seems to have a specific intent; it’s quite reasonable to say that the universe appears specifically designed to support life. So, this “thing” not only has intelligence, a “mind”, but a will, a desire to create life. Once you add these attributes you are no longer describing a “something” but a “someone”.

So, let’s see how this option measures up. Definitionally, something is reasonable when it is consistent with and explains the evidence we have. Literally every scientific theory we’ve discovered (our evidence) demonstrates that there is order in the universe. The idea that the universe came from nothing does not explain this evidence, is not consistent with it. However, the idea that the universe came from something, from someone explains this order, is consistent with it. Simply put, it is more reasonable to say that the universe was created by someone.

Who Is this Someone?

So, it’s reasonable to say that an eternal, immaterial, powerful, and intelligent someone formed the universe with the desire to create life. Sound familiar? It is curiously similar to how God has been described since long before the scientific discoveries that demonstrate these attributes. Long before we even had the concept of spacetime, we unwittingly described God as existing outside of it. It’s fair to say this someone meets our historical definition of God.

While we’ve demonstrated this, I want to acknowledge that something is missing. Sure, we’ve seen some attributes that this someone has, but who are they? At this point, we haven’t even demonstrated that this is a singular someone. All we really have are a list of attributes. For right now, let me simply say that this is exactly the point of Christianity: to get to know God for who He is, to build a relationship with Him as a person not just as a set of attributes. In our next post we’ll explore the fundamentals of Christianity as we ask the most important question: Am I Saved?

If you liked this type of rational discussion on God but want a more full and personal answer, I’d like to suggest a series by Robert Morris titled “How Do I Know” where He talks about “How Do I Know There Is a God”, “How Do I Know God Loves Me”, “How Do I Know the Bible Is True”, and “How Do I Know Jesus Is the Way”.

---

[1] In his graduate thesis, Stephen Hawking demonstrated that the universe is running out of usable energy.

[2] Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe by Martin J. Rees