Origins of the Universe. A Philosophical Perspective —
by John Anning
How Can We Know "Rationally" That God Exists?
"If Something Exists Now, Then Something Must Exist Necessarily and Eternally!"
Index and Summary of this Page:
The Great Debate — Evolution (Natural Selection) vs. Creationism (Intelligent Design)
Why is Origins of the Universe Important?
Even though it is my desire to keep the focus of this website on Biblical Faith
and Biblical Grace
, it would be an
exercise in futility if the origins of the universe were merely random in nature instead of created by God, as recorded in the scriptures.
Therefore, if God does not exist, then all of the truth claims of Christianity, found in the Scriptures, are nothing but man-made fairy
tales and fiction, including God's divine act of creating the universe, God's creation
of man, man's fall into sin, the forgiveness
of sin, the redemption of man's soul, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Heaven, Hell, miracles, and
so on. However, if God does exist, then all of these subjects are of the utmost importance regarding the truth claims of Christianity.
So then, from a philosophical point of view, let's examine very carefully all of the possible "Origins of the Universe
to better understand not only how
the universe came into existence, but why
it came into existence!
Origins of the Universe - From God or Not From God?
In the last century, there has been much discussion and debate regarding possible origins of the universe. The real issue, however, is
much deeper! The real core of the debate is predicated on the existence or non-existence of "God
with their presupposition that God does not exit, must account for the origins of the universe without any supernatural assistance from
any intelligent, transcendent being, such as God. Creationists, with their presupposition that God does exist, accounts for the origins
of the universe as a supernatural act of God where God is the sufficient "first cause" when accounting for the origins and
existence of the universe. So, how we account for the existence of the universe is directly proportional to our presuppositions regarding
the existence or non-existence of God.
The Fundamental Concept of "Evolution" (Natural Selection)
": Non-intelligent, random change, with it's mechanism of mutations based on a process referred to as "Natural
". This theory is primarily predicated on the idea that given enough time and chance, favorable mutations, through
these mechanisms, are additive and result in higher and more complex forms of systems, beneficial to whatever is evolving.
promote the idea that all species of life can be traced back to a common ancestry of simpler forms of biological systems
that have gradually evolved to their current state over a time span of billions of years. Evolution
is faith in random, non-intelligent,
processes and mutations to account for current state of life on earth. (God not necessary) Evolutionists cannot,
however, account for the existence or origins of the universe and usually do not attempt to do so. They just accept that either the universe
has always existed in some form or another, or that it just mysteriously came into existence from some pre-existing materials that have
always been there. But they still offer no explanation for the origins of even the pre-existing matter, other than it possibly being
" from nothing for some unknown reason by chance through a process referred to by Steven Hawkins as "gradual
". (More on this later.)
The Fundamental Concept of "Creationism" (Intelligent Design)
": Intelligent Design
of purposeful and complete systems, intelligently constructed for the purpose
for which they were created. Time and chance are not factors in their existence. Random mutations, in the "Intelligent Design
model, are generally considered as harmful and is the result of entropy (a proven scientific principle of deterioration) of these systems
that make them less useful or even permanently useless.
promote the idea that all major species of life on earth were created separate (each after it's own kind) and are
relatively young in age. Creationism
is faith in intelligent, creative processes to account for the existence of the universe
and life on earth. (God is necessary) Creationists account for the existence of the universe by the purposeful act of special creation
from an intelligent source transcendent to the universe itself.
Furthermore, since "Creationism
" has its basis in "A Creator
", this Creator (referred to as
) has purpose in His creation and for His creation. A sovereign choice was made to create ex nihilo
, from no pre-existing
matter. His choice to create was not random or accidental but rather purposeful and deliberate for a specific reason. Therefore, a relationship
exists between the Creator and that which He has created.
The Fundamental Concept of "Theistic Evolution" (A Combination of Creationism and Evolution)
There are some who acknowledge God as the first cause of the universe, but also maintain that God then set in motion the macro-evolutionary
processes that did the rest under its own impieties. In other words, it is argued that God created the self-generating process of evolution
and let everything evolve through time and chance by means of natural selection.
- Hard-core evolutionists reject the idea of Theistic Evolution
because they reject the very existence of God.
- Hard-core creationists reject the idea of Theistic Evolution
because they see a gross injustice done to the biblical Genesis
account of creation that is destructive to the idea of a literal Garden of Eden, a literal rebellion, the existence of sin, real redemption,
and anything else in Genesis that is central to established Christian doctrine.
- Theistic Evolutionists, on the other hand, attempt to combine creation with evolution, thinking that they can preserve their religious
or theistic view of God, while observing scientific rationale for evolution at the same time. The problem with trying to combine these
two systems is similar to trying to combine water and oil. Evolution and creation cannot mix rationally because of too many self-contradictory
assumptions between the two. For starters, one views the Genesis account as pure hyperbole and the other as being quite literal. The
fall of Adam (and of mankind) the Garden of Eden was either a fictional story or it actually happened. The biblical record of human lineage
from Adam to Jesus Christ was either a fictional story or it actually happened. Etc., etc...
The only source we have, regarding God's creation of the universe, is the Biblical account of Genesis and references to the book of Genesis
in other Biblical scriptures. If the Biblical account of creation is literal and correct, then Adam and Eve were real people that God
created who fell into sin, and their descendants, through the meticulous linage given (Adam to Noah to Moses to David to Jesus) were
real. So if Christ was real (the Cornerstone of Christianity, through which redemption of humanity comes), then Moses was real, Noah
was real, and Adam was real, resulting in human existence and history that spans only about 6,000 years.
But according to evolution theory, man has evolved from the primordial soup dating back millions of years. If Adam and Eve were just
fictitious characters, not meant to be taken as literal people, then obviously, their descendants were fictitious, all the way to Jesus
of Nazareth. Therefore, if Adam is a hoax, then sin is a hoax, salvation is a hoax, and Jesus is a hoax thereby undermining everything
the Bible teaches about redemption and salvation.
If one embraces theistic evolution or macro evolution, then they must reject the Biblical creation account given in the book of Genesis
and reject everything that the Bible teaches about the redemption of man, because it would all be an illusion. If the creation account
in Genesis is true, then theistic and macro evolution must be rejected as any valid theology or science. Both creation and evolution
cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship because they are contradictory to each other. One is based on the existence
of God and the other is not. One is true and the other a non-truth (a lie).
Science vs. Faith?
Someone may point out that it is science that has persuaded them to believe or not believe in the existence of God. However, this really
makes no sense since science can never prove the existence or non-existence of God in the first place. Science is an extremely useful
tool that can be credited with much of what we have discovered and understand about the material universe, but falls short in scope of
proving or disproving spiritual matters, transcendent beyond the observable material universe.
Often, we hear the argument that Evolutionism
has its basis in science, and that Creationism
has it's basis in faith.
While both are true, this is only half of the picture. The theory of Evolution
has as much basis in faith as does Creationism
has as much basis in science as does Evolution
! Both systems have plenty of science (some good, some
bad) to justify their acceptance. Likewise, both systems require that a certain amount of faith be employed for their acceptance. The
problem here is not with either science or faith, but with presuppositions and bias already held by the one doing the investigations.
Our presuppositions and bias can be a major obstacle in the pursuit of truth and can often lead to false conclusions.
Presuppositions and Assumptions About the Existence or Non-Existence of God
A presupposition is a position held that assumes something to be true before investigations are complete to prove that it is true. It
is a form of "circular logic
" as opposed to "linear logic
". For example, to examine the universe
with an assumption that God exists, or an assumption that God does not exist, without first testing for the existence or non-existence
of God, will lead to subsequent conclusions based on that assumption. Philosophical systems of thought should not be predicated on leaps
of faith or in assumptions of any kind, other than of course, the assumption that we are being rational in our philosophical investigations.
However, it should be understood that some presuppositions of logic are required if we want to make any rational sense of anything; The
presupposition of reason, of non-contradiction, and of causality are all presuppositions that are necessary in order to make sense of
anything. But I hope to dispel the notion that we are presupposing anything else before we examine it and will labor to avoid any philosophical
system of "pre-suppositional apologetics".
To presuppose that God exists or does not exist is to be biased before
we can examine the universe objectively. I will be using "classical apologetics
" as my method of inquiry and will
address this later as we get into an examination of possible origins of the universe.
Same Evidence, Different Presuppositions
Regarding evolution or creation, there seems to be physical evidence that, when interpreted one way or the other, supports one theory
or the other, but not both at the same time. These systems are mutually exclusive because one system depends on the non-existence of
God and the other depends on the existence of God. Both cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. Both camps use
the same observable evidence in developing their arguments and theories, but from different presuppositions. Physical evidence, then,
becomes very subjective and based on one's preconceived view of the existence or non-existence of God. A good example of this are assumptions
regarding light speed and time constants. In today's observable universe, we understand that light travels about 186,282 miles per second
in the vacuum of space. What we don't know is if light has always behaved this way in the past. Is it possible that light perhaps traveled
slower or even faster in the past? If you are an evolutionist, you may be tempted to say slower. If you are a creationist, you may be
tempted to say faster. Why? Because both evolution and creation science have a problem accounting for time vs. distance in their respective
models in the current observable universe. If you are a creationist, the universe appears to look older than it should. If you are an
evolutionist, the universe appears to look younger than it should...
The "Starlight-Distance-Time" Problem with Creation Science
How can starlight, billions of light years away, be seen in a universe that's only 6,000 years old?
(A Light-Travel-Time Problem)
If distant starlight is indeed billions of light years away, how is it that we can see this light in a young universe? This is a great
question and an honest one! However, there are many philosophical assumptions being made by asking this question. One must assume the
following: light speed has always been constant, time passage has always been constant, and that there has been no supernatural influence
on the origins or mechanisms of the universe. If any one of these assumptions are incorrect, then our conclusions will be suspect.
Possible explanations for the "Starlight-Distance-Time
" problem have been (1) Because of early gravitational forces
present in the beginning, light may have traveled much faster in the past, (2) Time may NOT be fluid and may have had a different rate
of passage in the past, (i.e. Time Dilation
) and (3) God would not be bound to current observable laws of physics which was
created by Him, so perhaps God's creation of the universe employed temporary conditions or laws which were different then as compared
to His conditions for maintenance of the universe in its present form. If that were the case, He could have created the universe in such
a way for man to enjoy the starlight of His created universe immediately. When we dig into the details of the Starlight-Distance-Time
issue, we find that it does NOT prove that the universe must be old. (For more on these possible explanations, please visit the following
link: "Does Distant Starlight Prove the
Universe Is Old?
The "Horizon" Problem with Evolution Science
How can the random "Cosmic Microwave Background"
radiation (CMB) be at equal temperatures from one side
of the visible universe to the other side of the visible universe in only 15 billion years, when it should have taken much much longer
for this to be possible at the speed of light?
(A Light-Travel-Time Problem)
According to modern science, acknowledged by everyone, the measured temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background
(CMB) is essentially the same everywhere—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). However, according to big bang
theorists, in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different at different places in space due to the random
nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant
regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler
ones until they had the same temperature.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated
regions of space. So how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated
with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem!
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from
distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At
the time the light was emitted (supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang) space already had a uniform temperature over a range at
least ten times larger than the distance that light could have traveled (called the “horizon
”) So, how can these
regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe “know” about the other side
if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is refereed to as the “horizon problem
Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to this problem, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date.
Some evolutionists have even suggested time-dilation or light-speed differences in the past to account for their Horizon problem
It's interesting to note that when creationists suggest these solutions for their Starlight-Distance problem
, it is regarded
as a desperate attempt to reconcile their view of a young universe and is considered as unprovable and unacceptable science. But when
these same solutions are applied to evolution's Horizon problem
, it is regarded as good science in reconciling their view of
a very old universe. So, both creationists and evolutionists have Light-Travel-Time problems
to deal with. In essence, creationists
have the task of demonstrating that the universe is younger than it appears and evolutionists have the task of demonstrating that the
universe is older than it appears. The problem is that there is no way to demonstrate or replicate conditions or variables that may have
been different in the past with current conditions or variables. In other words, it is beyond the scope and possibilities for science
to test, replicate, and prove evolution or creation processes in a science lab because evolution would take too much time in its randomness
(15 billions years?) and creation was an exclusive event performed supernaturally by God just once, not likely to be repeated by mere
mortals. So where do we go from here?
Philosophy Can Help When Science Cannot
Since evolution or creation processes cannot be reproduced in a science lab, pure testable and reproducible science cannot confirm or
debunk either system, nor can it prove or disprove the existence of God. This is where philosophy can step in and help. Taking a philosophical
approach, we can test, rationally, for the existence or non-existence of God. Since the existence or non-existence of God is at the central
core of the evolution/creationism debate regarding origins, it is important that we know, rationally, if God exists or not. If we can
prove this rationally either way, we have taken a huge step in how to properly interpret the observable evidence of the universe in accounting
for its origins, and just as importantly, for its very existence at all!
A Critical and Important Question:
If there were ever a time when absolutely nothing
existed, what would exist now?
It's almost impossible to even imagine a time when absolutely nothing existed; no space, no gravity, no mass, no molecules, no light,
no dust, not a hint of anything... absolutely nothing! So if there were ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, what would exist
right now? Absolutely nothing!
How can we know this rationally?
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
We know that nothing can be self-created
because of a fundamental and inescapable law of reason: "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
- "From Nothing, Nothing Comes
". This reasoning conforms to the law of non-contradiction
and MUST be true
or reason itself means nothing! If it were possible for something to come from nothing, (self created) it would have to be
before it is
. In other words, it would have to be, and not be, at the same time and in the same relationship. This is absurd
reasoning and violates the Law of Non-Contradiction
! Nothing can "be
" and "not be
the same time and in the same relationship. Nothing!! This is a very important and necessary law to observe for any hope of rational
conclusions. (See my "Philosophy" page for more on this...
Therefore, if something exists now, then something exists necessarily and eternally. In other words, if something exists now, then something
to always exist! There could NEVER have been a time when absolutely nothing existed because if that were such a time, then
nothing would or should exist now! Therefore, since something does exist now, then something has had to always exist out of necessity!
It's existence would have to be eternal without beginning or end. It would have the necessary power of being within itself to have always
existed. Whatever it is out there that is eternal, it cannot, not be
! It must exist necessarily!!
I'm certain that at some point, some newfangled ideas or theories, masquerading themselves as valid science, will argue that indeed something
could have come from nothing. How they will argue this will probably be through some creative expression of quantum physics and/or complex
mathematics, or who knows what. But all of the quantum physics and mathematical speculation in the world cannot overcome the problem
of the existence or the non-existence of something. Something either exists, or it does not exist, but not both or neither at the same
time. Philosophically speaking, we just cannot have it both ways and be expected to make any rational sense of it! Nothing can create
itself. If anything exists, then something exists necessarily!
Like it or not, something is eternal! Something has always existed...necessarily!!
I wanted to demonstrate this point of reason before continuing, because it is crucial at every point of a philosophical debate to understand
the difference between reasonable and unreasonable thinking. Unreasonable thinking and randomness never lends itself to revealing truth
that has its basis in absolutes.
Accounting For Reality As We Experience It
An Initial Presupposition To Deal With
Before accounting for the existence of the universe, we are already guilty of presupposing that the universe does indeed exist. So, for
starters, in order to not assume anything here, or leave any stone unturned philosophically, we must first consider the idea that nothing
exists, and that any reality that we think we are experiencing is nothing more than an illusion. So if we doubt that anything exists
at all, there is at least one thing that does exist and that is our doubt. And if we doubt our doubt, we still have doubt. So at least
doubt exists. The very act of doubting is an act of conscious thinking. And the act of thinking can only be possible by something existent.
To doubt is to think and to think is to be.
René Descartes, a famous 17th century French mathematician and philosopher, coined this famous motto: "Cogito Ergo Sum
translated "I Think, Therefore I am
". After decades of philosophical inquiry and skepticism, he determined that his
knowledge of his own self consciousness was trustworthy in concluding that indeed, at least something exists even if it is nothing more
than his own consciousness and experience!
Another way to approach this is to ask this question: If nothing exists and everything is just an illusion, who is having the illusion?
At least the illusion exists, therefore, something exists even if it is just an illusion. Someone may argue that even the illusion of
something is just an illusion. However, we would still be left with an illusion to account for! Therefore, we cannot presume that absolutely
nothing exists since even an illusion is something!
A final point regarding the idea that nothing exists and everything is an illusion is that it violates the philosophical law of non-contradiction.
If nothing exists, then an illusion would not exist either! If an illusion exists, then something exists, even if it is just an illusion!
Nothing existing and an illusion existing at the same time and in the same relationship is a nonsense statement. So if we are making
contact with reality at all here and can trust rationally that something does indeed exist, we can move on, discounting any notion that
nothing exists and continuing our quest to account for what does exist.
Accounting For The Existence Of The Universe
There are three and only three scenarios to consider, when accounting for the existence of the universe:
The universe was self created
(Ex Nihilo - It created itself from nothing)
The universe is self existent
(Eternal - It has always existed in some form or another)
The universe is the result of something or someone
self existent (Created by something that is eternal)
These three scenarios cover EVERY possible theory and explanation when accounting for the existence of the universe. Let's
examine each one.
(1) The Universe Was Self Created (Ex Nihilo - From Nothing)?
Did the Universe Create Itself? - Can ANYTHING create itself?
The idea behind the theory of a "self-created" universe, is that it is assumed at one point in time past, absolutely
nothing existed, and then in an instant, or in some measure of time, the universe, or at least the building material necessary for
the universe, suddenly and mysteriously appeared from nowhere and from nothingness through a process referred to as "spontaneous
generation". Can anything accomplish a feat of this magnitude? Remember, that for something to create itself, it must be,
and not be, at the same time and in the same relationship. It would be called on to bring itself into existence before it is. How is
this possible? By sheer reason, it is not possible! Again, for something to create itself, it must be and not be
at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a gross and preposterous contradiction of all things regarding a reasonable
and rational explanation. Nothing can create itself! To argue for a self-created universe is to argue that it had to exist
and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. One must violate the law of non-contradiction in their reasoning,
or in this case, their lack of reasoning, by declaring that the universe existed before it existed, in order to be self-created.
What? This does not seem like a compelling argument that has any basis in reason or rationality but rather an argument that completely
dismisses logic as any valid methodology in determining truth. "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" (From Nothing, Nothing
Comes) is not some deeply profound philosophical jargon. It is just simple logic!
Did Time and Chance Play a Role?
Some argue that given enough "Time" and "Chance", anything can happen, even "self-creation".
In centuries past, some scientists held to a self-creation view referred to as "spontaneous generation" to account
for the existence of life from non-life. Even though this theory has long been abandoned, in recent scientific history, a modified
version of the term called "gradual spontaneous generation", coined by the famous Steven Hawking, has been used,
suggesting that a slow and "gradual" time frame could make this "spontaneous" event more scientifically
acceptable with time added. In other words, you can't get something from nothing quickly... you must wait for it! Aside from
Gradual spontaneousness being self-contradictory as any temporal possibility, I would like to briefly explore this
idea because I think it is important to understand just what influence"Time" or "Chance" might
have on anything.
What is time?
Time is a word. Time is ONLY a word used to express an abstract idea of motion in the passage of events that make up our lives. Time,
regardless of what science fiction writers would have us believe, is NOT another dimension in which we can travel in freely, other
than in the natural flow of time passage itself. There are only three dimensions in the physical, cosmological world; height, width
and depth. We live in a three-dimensional world. These three dimensions are observable and are necessary for anything to exist in
the physical universe. To define any other dimension, beyond the three (in the physical world) would be metaphysical in nature and
outside of any observable or acceptable concrete science, even though it makes for some great science fiction. If a "4th
dimension" were to be defined, it would have to be referring to the spiritual realm that is transcendent and outside of
the constraints of the material, physical universe and its properties. I suppose in the spiritual realm, time would have no relevance
or reference regarding its subjects. Additionally, the rate of time passage throughout the history of universe may not have been
constant. This could explain why distant starlight could be observed in a young universe. In any case, time is "No
Thing"... Time is "Nothing". It has no power, because it has no being or real existence outside of an
idea. It is only a word and nothing more!
Ironically, even if Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity were true hypothetically, it could be argued that the seemingly
billions of years that have passed in our space-time continuum (from our perspective) may have only been a mere few thousand years
of relative time from the perspective of the universe. However, this does not change the fundamental point here... given
six thousand years or a six trillion, something cannot come from nothing, or be before it is. All the time in the
universe is still not sufficient for self creation of the universe.
What is Chance?
Chance is just another word. It is a word we use to describe mathematical probabilities based on relative factors. If a coin is flipped,
it is commonly understood that the "chance" or "odds" of that coin turning up "tails"
only, will be at 50 percent. But does "chance" itself influence this result? No. What does influence the result
are variables that are real and that can be quantifiably accounted for and measured such as... weight, air density, pressure exerted
on the coin when flipped, which side we started with, how we catch it, whether we turn it over after caught, etc ..There are several
variables that will determine the coin's final side of exposure. But chance itself does not have power for determining the
end results, because chance has no being, thus no power to do so. It is "No Thing" It is "Nothing!".
At least with a coin, we have something existent to work with. But if nothing existed, of what value would "Chance"
be on influencing nothingness, even if it could influence anything already in existence. And remember, if there is "nothingness"
then "chance" wouldn't exist either! Interestingly, "chance" is the most frequently used explanation
for a self-created universe. But it's nemesis is self-contradiction! The chances of a self-created universe from nothingness
are zero simply because chance cannot exist in nothingness, and nothing can create itself from nothingness.
Time + Chance = Nothing Because Nothing Plus Nothing Still Equals Nothing!
Starting with nothing, and given enough time (Nothing) plus enough chance (Nothing) will still result in NOTHING.
Time and chance cannot be motivators for a self created universe, because neither time nor chance have any power to do so, as they
have no being to do so. And if time and chance had being and power, then we would not be starting with nothing, since anything
with "being" is something.
Some may try to point out that the Christian view of the universe, that maintains that God created the universe Ex Nihilo
(from nothing) is guilty of the same claim of the cosmological view of the universe, stating that the universe was created Ex Nihilo
(out of nothing). The Creationist / Intelligent Design view never claims that the universe came from absolutely nothing
because the view maintains that God is something and has always existed with sufficiency to create the universe from no other
Surely, No One Really Believes That The Universe Actually Created Itself Do They?
Evolutionists don't like to talk about origins very often because they cannot explain events and/or circumstances prior to their "Big
Bang", even in theory. However, some evolutionists proclaim that nothing existed before the Big Bang (which hopefully
I have successfully argued against). These evolutionists have the impossible task of proving that nothing existed at some point in
time in an attempt to to prove that at least God doesn't exist. Ironically, by holding to a "self-creation" view
of the universe, they have also unwittingly left themselves open to the idea of a self-created god! Therefore a self-created view of
the universe does not bring any relief for those who are really trying to rule out the existence of God. If indeed ANYTHING could create
itself, then ANYTHING could exist, including God!!
The mantra and god's of evolution are time, chance, and natural selection (as if anything in nature, without
intelligence, can make intelligent choices in "selecting" anything at all). In other words, their faith
(belief system) is predicated on randomness rather than on order. It is the belief that disorder and non-complexity
can and does evolve into order and complexity, given enough time and chance, through helpful mutations, that somehow know or can discern
what is helpful to the system evolving. But a value judgment involving "what is helpful" would require intelligence
or intelligent design, which they avoid at all costs, because this would suggest intelligence transcendent to the universe for which
they would have to account for and be accountable to.
There is no true, hard science involved in any "macro-evolutionary" process, (microbe-to-man) because it
is not testable, provable or reproducible. It is a belief system, based on faith, that everything we have is the result of nothing
for no apparent reason (because reason requires intelligence). Evolutionists would be quick to argue that the "goal"
of evolution is to improve on itself—but without any implied or necessary intelligence.
Note: It is important to distinguish the differences between "Micro-Evolution" and "Macro-Evolution"
The mainstream evolutionist
will argue for the "Macro-Evolutionary
which promotes the belief that man has evolved from lower forms of life (the ape) and that all species of life is the result of progressively
lower species, all the way back to microbes and back to the "primordial soup" that everything owes its existence.
recognizes that there is justifiable evidence to support a "Micro-Evolutionary
" process that
involves change and mutations within a given species, as an adaptation to environmental conditions, but NOT a process that causes one
species to evolve into another.
The Universe Could Not Have Created Itself Because Nothing Can Create Itself!
To summarize, the universe could not have created itself because nothing can create itself! For "self-creation" to be a possibility
at all, it would be required to exist before it is, or exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. Philosophically
and even metaphysically, this is impossible and not a rational option to consider regarding the origins and existence of the universe.
(2) The Universe is Self Existent (Eternal)?
Has the Universe Always Existed?
Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed in some form or another before a Big Bang, it must be known
that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature. Appeals to multiple
or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations, as essential elements of
the proposed mechanisms, are not acceptable in submissions, due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are
without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation
to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature or provable with any
know science. The laws of physics simply do not support such claims. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for
gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests that the cosmos is finite rather than
infinite in age.
Also, evolutionists who prescribe to the "eternal universe
" model must proclaim that the necessary materials or building
blocks (or something even prior to these) have existed forever, perhaps in some altered state of existence referred to by some as a "point
". But as to why or how this pre-Big Bang point of singularity
or material suddenly materialized
into the current universe is a subject matter that they will avoid at all costs because this forces them to deal with "causality
(More on this below
) This is the hallmark position of an atheist because they have no other possible choice available to them
in their belief
) system, other than believing that the universe has always existed in some form or another,
prior to the Big Bang
. Philosophically, if the universe has always existed, then by reason and by definition, there could not,
and can not be any change involved with the universe. Change requires influence. And if something is defined as "eternal
then self-change cannot be an attribute, or it would not, by definition, be eternal
at all. However, the material universe has,
and indeed still is, undergoing continual and drastic change. It is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The universe is mutable,
changeable, and in constant flux. Therefore, the material universe cannot be self existent and eternal for these reasons. Change can
only be accounted for by an an external or transcendent influence for any change to be possible at all. The ultimate explanation of the
existence of all things, therefore, must be the existence of some necessary Being as the transcendent source of influence and change.
This necessary being is readily identified by proponents of the "cosmological argument
" as God
. This involves
a philosophical and cosmological argument from "contingency
" which can be summarized as follows:
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently, therefore...
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence, then that reason is God, therefore...
(5) God exists.
One may argue that even though the universe is changing, the original components, atoms, particles, etc.. may have always existed without
any necessary being such as God. But even if these so-called "eternal particles
" are eternal, then even their order
and configuration should not have ever changed. Again, change requires outside influence, (the philosophical "law
" as well as an argument from "contingency
") whether it has influenced the universe in whole,
or at least in some sub- matrix component of the universe not yet known about. In other words, if the universe always existed before
any big-bang or singularity in some space/time existence for eternity past, then is should be the same now and exactly the same in eternity
future. The obvious problem here is that the universe has apparently changed for some reason at some point in time! No matter how we
break it down, the universe is changing and we must look to a necessary, transcendent source outside of the universe for the motivation
and causality of its ever-changing condition.
Since that which is necessarily eternal cannot exhibit change on itself (otherwise it is not eternal) and since the universe is undergoing
extreme change, then we must look beyond the universe itself to an eternal force or being that transcends and is responsible for the
changing universe. We need to look beyond the universe itself for that which is
eternal because something is necessarily eternal,
and it is not the universe!
(3) The Universe is the Result of Something or Someone Self Existent
The Universe Was Created!
The only option left in our philosophical process of deductive reasoning, is the reality that something or someone self-existent, eternal
and transcendent to the universe, is directly responsible for the existence of our ever-changing mutable universe.
Something with the power of being in and of itself, with necessary power and self existence, eternal and unchangeable, is at the very
core of all things that exist. All things that exist have their origins from this source. And since the source is not the universe itself,
then something or someone transcendent to the universe must be the source by virtue of philosophical deduction and abstract reasoning.
We could stop right here proclaiming that we have gone as far as we need to go with a compelling argument for the existence of something
eternal and transcendent to the universe. Philosophically, there is compelling evidence that something has always existed prior to the
existence of the universe. But for the sake of argument, and to push on a little further, let's examine the rationale for this eternal
source having intelligence rather than just being eternally non-intelligent.
Is the Eternal Source, Transcendent to the Universe, Just Inanimate In Nature?
An inanimate, lifeless and impersonal source, if eternal, would eternally be incapable of creating, because the act of creating, or producing
something on its own, outside of itself would require the power of choice which requires intelligence and therefore purpose. By definition,
anything inanimate is without life or intelligence. Without life and without intelligence, there is no independence of choice, reason,
purpose, or anything else creative enough to "choose" to influence anything nonexistent outside of itself, into something existent
outside of itself. And, by reason, if something inanimate is the eternal source we are looking for, that which has always existed before
the universe should be all that would still exist now and nothing more, including the universe.
Does "Intelligent Design" Prove the Existence of "God"? - Philosophically, It Should!
Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. However, some would argue that the existence of an intelligent designer does NOT
necessarily prove the existence of "God
". In fact, there a number of creation scientists who are not even comfortable
with the term "Intelligent Design
", claiming that they do not want to be identified with the "Intelligent
" group who refutes the existence of God. Some "Intelligent Design
" advocates still deny the existence
", claiming that the intelligence they are referring to is a non-personal, amoral agent with no righteous requirements
or expectations of its designed creation. If this were the case, philosophically, it would make one wonder why any of us would have any
sense of morality or righteousness at all. Where does that come from? What distinguishes right from wrong? And if there is no ultimate
right or wrong, why does mankind expect any kind of justice in our cultures? Scientifically speaking, it is true that the existence of
" does not prove the existence of "God
". Science cannot prove the existence
or non-existence of "God
". However, philosophically speaking, the "God
" that is referred to in
the scriptures, displays all of the attributes of an intelligent designer that would be necessary for the existence of the universe as
currently observed. The evidence needed to support the idea of a personal, moral, intelligent designer (as described in the scriptures)
is obvious to anyone being honest with themselves in light of all of the supporting evidence surrounding us. Philosophically speaking,
an "Intelligent Designer
", who has created a universe governed by scientific laws, and with creatures who dwell in
it who demand righteous behavioral laws, must necessarily be moral in nature! Our sense of righteousness, right and wrong, laws and rules,
must have a source or it simply would not exist.
The Eternal Source, Transcendent to the Universe, Must Have Being, Intelligence, and Purpose!
An eternal, intelligent, Sovereign Being, personal in nature, all powerful, creative, and sufficient within Himself
and purposely choose to create all that exists external and separate from Himself
. Since no one, in a human sense, was around
when the universe was formed, and since recorded historical records and documentation only go back about six thousand years or so, the
ONLY one who could possible describe the creation account with any authority, detail, and accuracy is the Author Himself—God
Therefore, if God
is indeed the author of the universe and of life, and there is no logical reason why He is not, then God
and only God
has the authority to speak about it. Actually, He
has! (See Genesis Chapter 1
There is only one such ontological Being that resembles the sovereign attributes of the eternal source we have been looking for here
that is responsible for the first cause of everything in existence. That first cause and source is described in remarkable detail in
the pages of the Bible
, specifically in the very first sentence in the very first book, Genesis 1:1
which states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Not only does the "God
" of the Bible exist, but He must exist - necessarily! There are no other rational options when
accounting for the existence of the universe. I would encourage those of you who are interested in learning more about this incredible
Being, to whom we and the universe owe our existence, to read the Biblical Scriptures that refer to Him
, for a more complete
understanding of His
divine nature and of His
passion and plan for His creation.
Secular scientists may argue that creationists and creation scientists have a way of rejecting or accepting things that they do not understand
or can prove. I would point out that evolutionists and secular scientists have a way of rejecting or accepting things that they do not
understand or can prove either. What it really boils down to is faith in our presuppositions. A secular scientist presupposes that there
is no God. A Christian scientists pre-supposes that there is a God. Both use the same scientific data and evidence to study and evaluate
the universe, but will draw different conclusions based on presuppositions. Our presuppositions and faith determines how we will interpret
something. However, after considering everything we have just considered, we no longer have to presuppose the existence or non-existence
of God now because we can test for this rationally by philosophical reasoning. The reasonable and rational conclusion from our investigations
here is compelling enough to conclude that God not only exists, but exists necessarily! In other words, God's existence is absolutely
necessary for anything to exist at all! Furthermore, it could also be argued that God's existence is necessary for anything to be proven
rationally. (See an excellent apologetic by Dr. Jason Lisle
that deals with this issue.
Faith in the existence of God is not only rational, but supported by much evidence. Even more than that, the existence of God it is a
necessary requirement for anything to exist at all. One need not apologize for their faith in Intelligent Design
in an Intelligent Creator that has power to create Ex Nihilo. Rationality and logic demands the existence of a force
transcendent to the universe that is responsible for universe's origins and purpose. To believe that the universe is nothing more than
a cosmic accident, actually requires an enormous leap of faith because of both the irrationality of such a belief, and the lack of any
compelling philosophical argument for it. Even in physics, the well known and provable laws of thermodynamics are in conflict with evolutionary
theories of the universe but perfectly consistent with creation science
A secular scientist, by faith, believes that there is no God. A Christian scientist, by faith, believes that there is a God. Faith can
be a very powerful tool if developed as the result of revelation or evidence that supports it. Every conclusion that one draws from observed
evidence, will be directly effected by their presupposition of whether God exists or not. Philosophically speaking, it is perfectly rational
to accept that God not only exists, but must exist. He simply cannot, not
The scriptures contains many mysteries, and perhaps some paradoxes, but certainly no self-contradictions. The truth claims of the scriptures
are accurate, reliable, and support all testable and provable science. Good science and scriptures are in perfect harmony. This is because
God not only understands all scientific principles, He created them for us! His physical laws are as authoritive as His spiritual laws.
Meaning or No Meaning?
If the universe and life are the result of Intelligent Design
, by an intelligent Designer
, then there must be meaning
and purpose to the universe and life. If the universe is the result of random processes
and natural selection
there must not be meaning and purpose to the universe and life. The universe is either one big cosmic accident, requiring billions of
favorable but rare circumstances for its existence with no intelligent meaning or purpose, or exists as an act of creation for a specific
meaning and purpose. Since "meaning
" and "purpose
" seem to be important to us, it would seem strange
to me that they would exist in a meaningless or purposeless universe that owes its existence to randomly occurring events. Where there
is design, there is a designer. Where there is purpose, there is a plan. And where there is love, there is someone who cares about our
Philosophy can only take us this far, and cannot offer any more detail regarding the personal nature of God. But I believe it has taken
us far enough to support the truth claims of Christianity, found in the the pages of Genesis, and of the God
of the Bible who
is described as being all powerful (omnipotent
), all knowing (omniscient
), all present (omnipresent
self-existent, being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow
Biblical References (NIV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The sea is His, for He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;
He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place;
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and
understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.
"This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched
out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself,
For this is what the LORD says—He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did
not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other".
But God made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created.