Origins of the Universe—Does God Exist? A Philosophical Perspective

---

---

---

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)?

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, no dark matter, not a hint of anything—absolutely nothing! So if there were ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, what would possibly exist now? Absolutely nothing! How can we know this rationally?

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit—(From Nothing, Nothing Comes)
In order for something to exist now without anything existing in the past, at some point in time, something would have been required to create itself. Is this even possible? Rationally, we can be confident 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" at the same time and in the same relationship. Nothing!! Additionally, self-creation also violates the Law of Causality as it would require an effect without a cause, which is also based on absurd reasoning. These are very important and necessary laws of logic to observe for any hope of rational conclusions based on reality. (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 HAD to always exist—necessarily! There could NEVER have been a time when absolutely nothing existed because if there 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! Its 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! From a rational point of view, 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 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 lend themselves to revealing the truth that has its basis in absolutes.

Did the Universe Create Itself?—Can ANYTHING Create Itself?
We already looked into the irrational idea of "Self-Creation", but it is worth drilling into a bit further, just for the sake of clarity and thoroughness in the matter. (No pun intended) The idea behind the theory of a self-created universe is the assumption that at some 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 materials 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 both the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality in their reasoning, or in this case, their lack of reasoning, by declaring that the universe existed before it existed, or that the universe was caused with no cause, to be self-created. 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 a rational truth of reality. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit (From Nothing, Nothing Comes) is not some deeply profound philosophical jargon—It is simple logic and quite frankly, just common sense!

Can Time and Chance Play a Role in any Self-Creation?
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 and/or chance might have on anything.

Nothing + Time + Chance = Nothing Because Nothing Plus 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 has any being or power to motivate anything. 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, which maintains that God created the universe Ex Nihilo (from nothing) is guilty of the same claim as 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 existing matter.

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 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 potentially exist, including some god!

The mantra and gods 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 do 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. Evolutionists would be quick to argue that the "goal" of evolution is to improve itself, but without any implied or necessary intelligence.

Note: It is important to distinguish the differences between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution systems.
The mainstream evolutionist will argue for the "Macro-Evolutionary" model, which promotes the belief that man has evolved from lower forms of life (the ape) and that all species of life are the result of progressively lower species, all the way back to microbes and back to the "primordial soup" that everything owes its existence.

The creationist 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 when accounting for the existence of the universe.

Back to Top

(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 known 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 subscribe to the eternal universe model must proclaim that the necessary materials or building blocks (or something even before these) have existed forever, perhaps in some altered state of existence referred to by some as a "point of singularity". 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 (faith) system, other than believing that the universe has always existed in some form or another, before 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 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, therefore
   (4) 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 of causality as well as an argument from contingency), whether it has influenced the universe as a 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 it should be the same now and 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, because something is necessarily eternal, and it is not the universe!

Back to Top



(3) The Universe is the Result of Something or Someone Self-Existent (Created)

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 finite mutable universe. Something with the power of being in and of itself, with the 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.

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 before 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 being intelligent 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 are creation scientists who are not even comfortable with the term Intelligent Design, claiming that they do not want to be identified with the Intelligent Design group that accepts the existence of God. Some Intelligent Design advocates still deny the existence of God, declaring 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 Intelligent Design 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 Biblical 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 Biblical 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 an amoral source.

The Eternal Source, Transcendent to the Universe, Must Have Being, Intelligence, and Purpose for His Creation!
An eternal, intelligent, Sovereign Being, personal in nature, all-powerful, creative, and sufficient within Himself, willingly and purposely chose 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 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 the book of 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 (NIV), 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 cannot prove scientifically. I would point out that evolutionists and secular scientists have a way of rejecting or accepting things that they do not understand or cannot prove scientifically, either. The "Big Bang Theory" and "Theory of Evolution" are both guilty of gross speculations based on pseudoscientific, unprovable, preconceived ideas regarding the nature, behavior, and age of the universe. What it really boils down to is faith in presuppositions. A secular scientist presupposes that there is no God. Christian scientists presuppose 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 determine 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 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 interesting presuppositional apologetic by Dr. Jason Lisle that specifically deals with this issue.)

Faith in the existence of God is not only rational but also supported by much evidence. Even more than that, the existence of God is a requirement for anything to exist at all. One need not apologize for their faith in Intelligent Design and therefore in a supreme Intelligent Designer that has the power to create Ex Nihilo. Rationality and logic demand the existence of a force or power transcendent to the universe that is responsible for the 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 conflict with evolutionary theories of the universe but are 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 a result of revelation or evidence that supports it. Every conclusion that one draws from observed evidence will be directly affected 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 be!

The Biblical Scriptures contain many mysteries, and perhaps some paradoxes, but certainly no self-contradictions. The truth claims of the Biblical Scriptures are accurate, reliable, and support all testable and provable science. Good science and Biblical Scriptures are in perfect harmony. This is because God not only understands all scientific principles, but He created them for us! His physical laws are as authoritative 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, then 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 it exists as an act of creation for a specific meaning and purpose. Since meaning and purpose seem to be very 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 existence!

Rational Conclusions
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), and self-existent, being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (eternal).

Romans 1:20 (NIV)
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.


Back to Top

---

The Biblical Timeline of Creation

Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
In The Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth.

In the Beginning...
The first two chapters in the Book of Genesis lay out God's timeline of His literal 6-day creation. Chapter one presents us with a literal twenty-four-hour-a-day, day-by-day account of the six days of creation, while chapter two presents us with an event-by-event account of just the sixth day of creation. They are not in conflict with each other; rather, they complement each other. God's creation was supernatural and is beyond the understanding of human wisdom or scientific knowledge that mankind possesses. Science cannot explain it, nor will it ever be able to explain supernatural events. I don't believe that mankind is in any position to tell God how He should have created the universe based on modern scientific models—we need to just accept it as God's sovereign design and miraculous work of creation as He spoke everything into existence in the timeline sequence given. God was not governed by any universal laws in creation—He created them too! (See "The Biblical 7 Days of Creation in Genesis" timeline, courtesy of "Got Questions")

Secular Science
Modern secular science models of the universe are based on the assumptions of naturalistic, random processes such as gradual spontaneous generation, the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Evolution, and do not consider the existence of God as a reality, nor subsequently God as being a first cause for the existence of the universe. This is what is taught in our academic educational systems as science and has no resemblance to what the Bible teaches us in Genesis. Sadly, the outdated information found in the current educational science textbooks has not been updated to include important scientific findings that refute the secular scientific views of an old universe, nor have they been updated to include new compelling evidence found for a young universe model. It is a real shame that many secular science textbooks are written in a way that is dishonest in their presentation of science, as they are biased in their presupposition of the nonexistence of God.

Interpreting the Genesis 1 Account of God's Creation Timeline—Literal or Symbolic?
When we start reading Genesis chapter 1, we are immediately faced with three ways that we might interpret the creation timeline that is presented:

(1) Interpreting and believing what the creation account says literally about God's creative timeline and then what follows. (New Earth Creationism)
(2) Interpreting the creation account as just being symbolic, but interpreting other texts as literal, preserving core doctrines. (Old Earth Creationism)
(3) Rejecting Genesis altogether as just being a bunch of made-up nonsense. (No Creationism)

Interpretation (1)
Most people reject interpretation (1). I don't believe that Christians should reject it because the book of Genesis is absolutely foundational to all of the truth claims found in the Bible and subsequently in the Christian faith! I have no problem accepting "young earth creationism" where the universe is only about 6,000 years old, as I believe that current secular scientific estimates of the age of the earth and universe are grossly inaccurate, due to fatal flaws of unproven scientific assumptions in assessing age! There is so much that science has yet to learn regarding the age of the universe, and to date, there is no irrefutable proof that the universe must be old. In fact, there has been much learned in the last twenty years or so that would suggest otherwise!
For more information on this, see the following links:
"The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem—strophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle"
"Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?—Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle"
"Evidence for a Young Universe—Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle"
"Six Evidences of a Young Earth—Answers in Genesis"

Interpretation (2)
To accept interpretation (2) is a little confusing and troubling to me. Even if the Theory of Evolution is rejected, and the core doctrines in Genesis are preserved, some literal interpretations of Genesis will still be required. I don't know why God would choose to use words like "evening", "morning", and "day" in some symbolic context, while at the same time referring to "Adam" as a literal man that He placed in a literal "Garden" where a literal rebellion against God had occurred. There is no reason not to interpret the creation account literally, despite it being contrary to modern secular scientific theories regarding the age of the universe. The "old earth creationism" model tries to conform to the modern secular scientific argument for a 13.8 billion-year-old universe. An old-earth creationism model requires a lot of assumptions in the way that secular science measures the age of the Earth. The wisdom of humanity is very limited and is often flawed in its conclusions. The literary context of Genesis 1 would suggest a literal interpretation of the twenty-four-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week pattern that we are all so familiar with. We do not need to interpret these "days" as "eons" as a rescue device to satisfy secular scientific theories. If Genesis 1 is merely metaphorical or symbolic, why did Jesus say in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.'..." From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning", not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence! Lastly, if the intended context of Genesis 1 is symbolic or metaphorical, how does one go about interpreting the metaphors? What would any of it mean for us rationally?

(Note: I do not view "old earth creationism" as heresy, but I profoundly disagree with the "billions of years" timeline involved. The meticulous lineage given in the Bible seems to indicate only about six thousand years of documented human history from Adam to our present time, and is a historical record as such, so I am persuaded by the literal and historical interpretation of the Genesis account of creation in this regard. I believe that the days of Creation were literal 24-hour time periods. Biblical scholars have shown that this is the intended meaning of the text. I am not going to question the faith or motives of my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me on this issue. Ultimately, one can hold to views other than "young earth creationism" and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. However, this would still require some literal interpretations of the Genesis text regarding a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, a literal fall of mankind into sin, a literal lineage of Adam and his descendants, etc.)

Interpretation (3)
To accept interpretation (3) is, in my opinion, a rejection of all subsequent doctrines that emerge from the book of Genesis, including the meticulous lineage given that led to the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the very Cornerstone of Christianity! The Genesis account of creation is either the inerrant, authoritative Word of God in a historic context, or it is not! We must choose to trust either the fallible human wisdom of modern secular science or the Scriptural account given to us by God that Christian-based science affirms.


Back to Top

---

Are We Alone in the Universe?

Could Intelligent Extraterrestrials Exist?
Even though this subject is a little off topic from the origins of the universe, it is loosely related, so I will briefly comment on it. I sometimes get asked about the possibilities of intelligent alien life on other planets. Is mankind alone in the universe? Could there be other intelligent physical beings like us out there somewhere? It certainly is a popular topic these days, and with all of the apparent UFO/UAP sightings reported in the last 75 years or so, it makes one wonder what might be going on.

From A Theological Perspective
From a purely theological perspective, based on the Genesis account of God's creation, and of the Biblical doctrines regarding the salvation process, my short answer is no, there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere else out there in the physical universe beyond planet earth! This may be a disappointing answer to some, but the Bible seems very clear about God's plan for mankind here on earth and that humans are specially created beings, created in the "image" of God. (Although I'm not denying the existence of angels and demons, I'm not considering or including these beings here because they would be considered beings that are part of a spiritual realm, separate from the physical cosmological universe and therefore would require a separate investigation.) The topic of intelligent extraterrestrials also deserves a separate and dedicated investigation and is too extensive to deal with here, but for those who may be interested, here is a PDF link to a short apologetic that I wrote on the subject: "Do Extraterrestrials Exist?"


Back to Top

---

Biblical References (NIV)

Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Psalms 95:5 (NIV)
The sea is His, for He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.

Psalms 95:6 (NIV)
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker...

Psalm 147:4 (NIV)
He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.

Proverbs 3:19 (NIV)
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place...

Isaiah 43:10 (NIV)
"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.

Isaiah 44:24 (NIV)
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...

Isaiah 45:18 (NIV)
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".

Jeremiah 10:12 (NIV)
But God made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His understanding.

John 8:58 (NIV)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Romans 1:20 (NIV)
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.

Romans 1:25 (NIV)
...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Hebrews 11:3 (NIV)
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.

Hebrews 13:8 (NIV)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

James 1:18 (NIV)
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created.


Back to Top