Does Quantum Cosmology Explain a Universe from Nothing?
- Jason Pluebell
- Oct 6
- 20 min read
Updated: Oct 7
Thus far, we have reviewed the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the implausibility of an infinitely old universe; the scientific discoveries leading up to the modern consensus that the universe originated from a single point of zero volume a finite time ago; the evidence that our universe exhibits extreme fine-tuned initial conditions and physical laws; along with refuting some naturalistic interpretations and multiverse models. Now we are led to the last big enemy, Quantum Cosmology. Many claim that these theories have proven that our universe originated from absolutely nothing, while others claim that they explain how our universe is somehow eternal in age. So let's dive into what these models posit, and see if angry internet atheists are correct in these claims, or if they have fallen for blown-out-of-proportion article titles and slogans.
Quantum Cosmology has its beginnings in Stephen Hawking's book titled A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes in 1988. If you remember from previous discussions, Stephen Hawking aided in the confirmation of the singularity theorems, but he found the implications of a temporal beginning to be unsatisfying. Thus, he formed a theory of cosmology that was analogous to Quantum Physics, a model that described the universe before it was the size of the Planck Length. This theory of particle physics describes the behaviour and relationships of subatomic particles that exhibit wave-like properties. At some point in the universe's past, it would have been smaller than 10-35m in diameter, a size physicists would have to take into consideration. At this incredibly small size, the laws of General Relativity break down, and Quantum Mechanics must be applied, which is a probability-based theory, as you will shortly see.
“Einstein's general theory of relativity fails to take into account the quantum fluctuations which must be present in any physical process involving gravity; therefore general relativity cannot be extrapolated in an unmodeified form to predict what will happen at or below the Planck length” (Has Hawking Explained God Away?, quoted in Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 349)
Imaginary Time
When Stephen Hawking was working out this new model, he discovered that in order to make calculations about the early universe, he needed to introduce a new concept called Imaginary Time. He then smudged it into Einstein's spacetime metric, sometimes called the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime (C. Allan Boyles, God and Quantum Physics, Pgs 94-99). He simply equated the ordinary time variable with this new imaginary time variable to calculate the possible states of the early universe, which he named the Wick Rotation (Wiltshire, An Introduction to Quantum Cosmology, Pg 488). When he performed the wick rotation, the result depicted a universe with spatial dimensions, but no preferred direction of time, imagine the universe as a cone with a point representing the beginning. Hawking essentially made the point of the cone a curve, eliminating the pointed temporal beginning. His math treated time as another dimension of space, but eliminated the need for a temporal beginning, only if he continued to use the imaginary time variable.
He claimed to have overcome the challenge of a beginning in the past in A Brief History of Time: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it simply would be.” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pgs 140-141). A few years after Hawking produced his Quantum Cosmological model, Alexander Vilenkin also created another theory, one that attempts to explain how the universe originated from a singularity that came from nothing.
Lack of Physical Meaning and Arbitrary Value
When Hawking first released his work, many pointed out that his decision to equate time with imaginary time had no physical justification. It seemed that his only reason for doing so was that it enabled him to make the calculations he desired to make about the early universe. When imaginary time replaced ordinary time in the metric tensor, the resulting mathematical structure has no correspondence to anything in the physical universe.
“Instead, time, when confined to the imaginary axis of the complex plane… has no physical meaning. Hawking himself acknowledged as much. As he explained, imaginary numbers are a mathematical construct; they don’t need a physical realisation; one can’t have an imaginary number of oranges or an imaginary credit card bill.” (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 352)
Moreover, Hawking's justification was that science does not tell us anything objective about the universe; it only creates models to explain what we see at that time, thus it is acceptable to make a model using mathematics that do not correspond to the physical. But if we strong-man this position and impose its logic upon itself, we see that his own theory also tells us nothing objective about the universe either! Therefore, Hawking's method of treating time as another spacetime dimension does not result in a mathematical expression with any physical meaning; there was no sense of a universe changing over time. You see, in General Relativity, time and space are linked (X, Y, Z, and CT), but they are treated fundamentally differently. Events happen in space in a temporal, chronological sequence, but Hawking collapses time into a dimension of space; thus, his math does not offer a description of spacetime that applies to the universe we inhabit.
Stephen Meyer informs us in "Return of the God Hypothesis" that Hawking discusses the lack of realism in his mathematics, but then draws metaphysical and scientific implications, primarily his claim of eliminating the need for a temporal beginning. Also, whenever his mathematical construction of spacetime is transformed back into the real domain, with an ordinary time variable, singularities reappear:
“Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would [we] encounter no singularities… In real time, the universe had a beginning and an end at singularities.” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pg 136)
Analogous to Quantum Physics
When developing quantum cosmology, cosmologists sought to apply phenomena from standard quantum physics to the early universe. Quantum physics was created to describe the nature of wave-like particles (photons, electrons, and other subatomic particles). So, to understand quantum cosmology, you must understand the formation of quantum physics.
The Development of Quantum Physics
Before the year A.D. 1801, the opinion on the nature of light was split. Some believed light was a particle, like Newton, who described light as a particle, claiming it better explained optical reflection; and some who believed it was a wave, because it could be split into different wavelength colors by passing it through a prism. In 1801, Thomas Young performed the famous double-slit experiment. He passed a single wave of light through a slit in a divider; he also passed the light through the first divider, into a second one with two slits, and then finally terminating on a detection plate. Whenever he passed light through the second divider with two slits, the detection plate exhibited a wave-interference pattern characteristic of waves.
When two waves overlap, they create points of increased height where their peaks line up (constructive interference), and areas where their peaks do not align, they cancel out (destructive interference). Where waves interfere constructively appear as light stripes on the plate, while the areas where the peaks cancel out exhibit dark stripes (shown below).
This seemed to confirm that light behaves like a wave, but there was another particle confirming phenomenon, known as the Photoelectric Effect. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz conducted an experiment where he bombarded a piece of metal with light, causing the metal to emit electrons from its surface. Many predicted that since light was a wave, the amplitude (height of the wave) of the light determined the kinetic energy of the electrons, but it was actually the discrete frequency that determined the kinetic energy, characteristic of particles. Albert Einstein suggested that light energy propagated through space in concentrated packets of energy called photons. This is because photons would not cause electron emission unless they reached a specific minimum energy; thus, Einstein proposed that light traveled in small discrete packets of energy called "quanta".
Light was then seen as obviously behaving like a wave, but also like a discrete particle of energy. Then, another experiment came along that further confirmed the particle-like nature of light, also using the double slit apparatus. In 1909, Geoffrey Taylor performed the double-slit experiment, but lowered the light intensity so that the photons were separated enough to practically pass through the divider one at a time. In theory, this would guarantee there would be no interaction between photons, and thus no wave interference pattern should emerge. His method did result in small dots of particle-like packets of energy hitting the detection plate, but as more and more arrived, the same wave-like interference pattern emerged. This suggested that the photons were passing through the slits as single waves, creating two smaller waves via the two slits, but as they made contact with the plate, they collapsed into a specific position along the spread of the waves.
Later experiments confirmed the wave-particle dual nature of light and other subatomic particles, and by the 1920s, a mathematical theory was being developed that was able to describe the wave-particle nature. What resulted from this endeavor was the Schrodinger equation, named after Edwin Schrodinger. This equation allows physicists to calculate the probability that a specific particle will manifest at any given location across the spread of a wave of energy. Before a particle makes contact with a detector, film, or plate, physicists do not know where the exact location of the particle is; they only know where it may manifest upon observation.
How Does the Schrodinger Equation Work?
The Schrodinger equation is a differential equation, which is an equation that generally describes the behaviour of objects in a physical system or apparatus. Their solutions do not represent specific numbers, but rather entire functions. Differential equations also generally have a near infinite number of possible solutions when left alone. But these solutions are functions in themselves, all having specified constants, and must be defined after a mathematician fixes these values by providing what are called boundary and initial conditions. For example, an equation describes how much damage a car may experience during a collision, but to predict how much damage will be done, a physicist must know the mass and material of the car, and the initial conditions of the vehicle must be known, like the initial velocity and forward momentum. A physicist must also know how fast the car is moving and what it may collide with (boundary conditions). Before this information was put in, the amount of damage could have manifested many possible values, but once these conditions were applied, it limited the possibilities to a fixed value that would occur if a car of (x) mass traveled at (y) mph into a wall made out of (z) materia. Similarly, the Schrodinger equation must have boundary conditions specific to the system being observed to be solved.
When the Schrodinger equation is solved, it produces a wave function that is represented with the symbol, Ψ. The wave function can only be produced once a physicist fixes boundary conditions in accordance with the experimental apparatus she is using. Since the wave function allows a physicist to calculate the possibility that a particle will manifest in a specific location along a wave, the wave function represents the wave before observation, and the collapse of the wave function is when the wave collapses into a manifested particle with a position. This concept also introduced the idea of superposition: before an observation is made on a wave of energy, particles exist as mathematical possibilities in multiple indetermined states at one single time, only manifesting a location in space after an observation.
This is why quantum physics is fundamentally a probability-based theory; there is no 100% prediction of where or how a particle will behave, only predictions of possibilities. When this was discovered, that particles existing in the Planck length exhibited a probability behaviour, cosmologists sought to apply this to the early universe, when it was at a size smaller than 10-35m; therefore, quantum cosmology is analogous to quantum physics.
Quantum Cosmology
Since the universe is presently expanding, reversing that expansion back in time would result in a smaller universe. Eventually, you would reach a size on the scale of quantum phenomena, where gravity as described by General Relativity does not apply. To date, there have been no successful models for a theory of quantum gravity. Thus, quantum cosmologists sought to develop a theory of quantum cosmology mathematically analogous to ordinary quantum physics.
The Wheeler-DeWitt Equation and the Universal Wave Function
Recall how the Schrodinger equation is a differential equation that allows a wave function to be derived, which offers possible locations for a particle to manifest along a wave. In quantum cosmology, the Schrodinger equation is replaced by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This differential equation allows cosmologists to develop a wave function for an entire universe, a universal wave function. The universal wave function describes different universes with different possible spacetime curvatures and mass-energy distributions that affect their overall gravitational field. The universal wave function then describes different possible spatial geometries and configurations of matter and energy that a universe may manifest.
Superspace
In quantum physics, before a wave is observed, a particle exists in many different indeterminate locations along the wave, and this is called superposition. In quantum cosmology, this concept is taken into consideration as well. The mass-energy distributions within space that affect the curvature of spacetime determine what kind of gravitational field a universe may have. The universal wave function describes different pairings of spatial geometries and mass-energy distributions, represented as ordered pairs that exist in an abstract space of pure mathematical possibilities called Superspace. The ordered pairs, representing different universes, are written as: Ψ(Spacetime Curvature, Mass-energy Distribution). This idea of superspace was analogous to the concept that there are many possible locations a particle may manifest along the spread of a wave of energy in superposition (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 362).
Thus, physicists can create a universal wave function that describes the entire universe from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and then calculate the probability that any specific universe will emerge from a singularity (Wiltshire, An Introduction to Quantum Cosmology, Pgs 496-498).
The Quantum Cause
For quantum cosmology to offer an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation must produce a universal wave function that includes our universe as a reasonably probable outcome. Stephen Myers says, “Understanding how physicists use quantum cosmology as an origins theory requires keeping just three main elements in view: first, the origin of the universe… the thing to be explained; second, the universal wave function, the mathematical entity that does the explaining; and, third, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the mathematical procedure for solving it, and the alleged justifications for treating the universal wave function as an explanation fo the origin of the universe.” (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 363).
Stephen Hawking developed his model with James Hartle based on the previously mentioned Wheeler-DeWitt equation. They were attempting to remove the need for a singularity by explaining the beginning of the universe on purely naturalistic terms. In doing so, they used a method called sum-over-histories. In ordinary quantum physics, the sum-over-histories method is used to sum up all the mathematical expressions that describe the possible paths a particle may take in an experimental apparatus, allowing them to construct a wave function. Hawking and Hartle wanted to apply this method to sum up the expressions that describe possible paths from the presupposed singularity, through superspace, to possible universes with different gravitational fields.
They assumed the universe originated from a singularity they called Point A, with many different trajectories to possible Point B's, or other universes. This trajectory travels through superspace and into a possible gravitational field. If Hawking and Hartle summed up all the possible paths, just like in quantum physics, they could construct a universal wave function. When this universal wave function is made, it produces a probability distribution that allows them to calculate the probability of any universe (Point B) emerging from Point A. If the wave function includes a universe like ours as a probable outcome, then they could claim to have explained the beginning of the universe on quantum terms.
But, they could only solve the Wheeler-DeWitt equation by replacing ordinary time with imaginary time. When Hawking and Hartle performed the Wick rotation, the resulting mathematical expression temporarily described a universe with no temporal singularity. They were also able to make a universal wave function that included our universe. They began by calculating a ground-state function for the universe. In quantum physics, a ground-state function describes an electron in its lowest energy state, allowing physicists to determine the probable position of said electron in its lowest orbital. By analogy, a ground-state universal wave function allows cosmologists to calculate the possibility of any given universe emerging from superspace. But Hawking and Hartle's function only described closed universes, ones that do not continue to expand, but recollapse into a singularity (our universe is an open universe). To explain this problem, they postulated that some closed universes can undergo quantum tunneling into an open state with continuous expansion. In doing so, they still never removed the singularity; they continued to assume it (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pgs 508-509, notes 47-49).
First-Glance Problems
But their model had some first-glance issues. First, they did not eliminate the singularity that they presuppose many universes could emerge from in superspace. Their interpretation of a non-temporal beginning was from a mathematical expression with zero physical meaning. Second, Hawking and Hartle had to limit the number of possible paths through superspace in order to create a universal wave function that includes our universe. They only chose certain paths, ones that met criteria they made up. They only included universes that were isotropic, closed, spatially homogenous, and with a positive cosmological constant. In other words, they had to arbitrarily restrict the mathematical freedom of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, as well as positing a rare quantum event of tunneling into a higher energy state of continuous expansion.
Redefining Nothing
Apart from Hawking and Hartle's model, there was another person who attempted to create a quantum theory of the origin of the universe. This model was created by Alexander Vilenkin, as he lays out in Creation of Universes from Nothing. In his book, he proposed that the universe began from a singularity of zero volume, but experienced the previously mentioned quantum tunneling into a space able to experience continued expansion. The probability of this tunelling occurring was determined by the universal wave function Vilenkin used. Lawrence Krauss further popularized this model in his book A Universe from Nothing, where he claims that the laws of physics explain how the universe came from nothing. This implies that a mathematical equation created in the human mind causes the universe to come into being, a position that has some startlingly theistic implications.
Quantum Tunneling
In order for the universe to reach a state of continuous expansion, the singularity must have experienced some sort of quantum tunneling phenomenon. In quantum physics, tunneling refers to a process where a particle can overcome an energy barrier, despite lacking sufficient kinetic energy to do so. The wave function not only allows a particle to manifest along the spread of a wave, but also the slight chance that a particle may manifest on the other side of a barrier.
Vilenkin applied this idea to the development of the expanding universe. He first assumed the universe began as a singularity, which begins to expand slightly but recollapses under the gravitational energy barrier of the mass-energy within it. He posited that such a closed universe could randomly undergo tunneling and overcome the gravitational barrier and continue to expand. In the standard Big Bang model, fine-tuned initial conditions account for the continued expansion of space, but in these models, the universe tunnels through the gravity barrier into continued expansion.
Hawking and Hartle posited that tunneling occurs to transition their closed universes into open ones that can expand indefinitely, but this doesn't account for the beginning of the universe, only the development of it. Their model made a solution that described a universe that was initially closed; they then envisioned this already existing closed universe tunneling into an open state of expansion.
Can Quantum Tunneling Explain a Universe from Nothing?
So then, does quantum tunneling offer an explanation/physical mechanism for explaining how the universe originated from nothing? Vilenkin assumed an already existing universe before it tunnels through its gravitational energy barrier; likewise, Hawking and Hartle assume an already existing closed universe that tunnels into an open state of expansion. In both cases, an already existing universe is presupposed that is able to undergo tunneling. But does this explain the origin of the universe? It does not. It only explains the universe's later development to be suitable for life.
How then could the process of tunneling preexist the universe, when it is the universe that is experiencing the tunneling? Moreover, for the wave function to be solved, an experimental system must already exist so that it can describe the possible paths of a particle. It logically follows, then, that a universe must already exist for cosmologists to create a universal wave function that describes its possible properties within superspace. The system and particle logically precede the Schrodinger equation in quantum physics; thus, a universe with possible features must also precede the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Quantum Tunneling cannot explain the origin of the singularity because it presupposes it in order to function.
Can Physical Laws Cause Universes?
Some people, including Lawrence Krauss, claim that the laws of physics explain the origin of the universe. When they do this, they are referring to the mathematical structure of the equations within quantum cosmology. They envision these laws causing a physical event to occur, but this logic is making a category mistake.
When a cue ball hits an 8-ball on a pool table, the law of conservation of momentum allows one to predict the movement of the 8-ball after being hit by the cue ball. But the law itself is not what causes the 8-ball to travel into one of the pockets; the cue ball colliding with it is what causes the event to happen. The physical law simply described what happened. Similarly, the law of gravity is not what causes objects to fall to the ground on Earth; it only describes the interaction of material objects with each other after they are inside space. The laws of physics describe the interaction of matter and energy that already exist.
Causes are events that precede other events in time that meet specific material conditions to produce said effect. Since laws describe relationships between events and variables in nature, and descriptions of nature do not cause events in nature, the laws of physics do not cause events. The universal wave function only describes the superposition of the universes that could exist without ever specifying anything that can cause one path through superspace to be favored over another. Also, in both main models, universes arise from an already existing singularity with zero volume. Quantum cosmology presupposes a singularity while never providing a cause for the origin of the universe in the wave function or the superspace that may come out of it.
According to proponents of these models, before the universal wave function, there was no space, no time, and no energy to describe possible gravitational fields. There is nothing physical prior to the wave function, and superspace represents an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and infinite realm of purely mathematical possibilities with no necessary physical existence. Thus, no material condition preceded the beginning, and it cannot be by definition, not even in quantum cosmology.
Prior Information and the Problem of the Mind
With the fact that the laws of physics cannot cause the universe, and mathematical equations do not cause events, what is it that does anything at all with these equations? Alexander Vilenkin acknowledged that his process of quantum tunelling is subject to laws that should be there prior to the universe itself: “Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?” (Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, Pg 205). If the laws of physics predate the universe, then what caused the universe, if equations, again, cannot cause anything alone?
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe to describe?” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pg 174)
This left them with two options to explain this problem. They could either claim that the laws only exist in the minds of humans, and thus have no causal power, or they could claim the laws exist separately from the human mind, and through an unknown mechanism produce universes, like the SAP seems to claim. But there was another option, if they were willing to entertain it, namely, that these laws exist inside of and originate from a preexisting transcendent mind. But math has no material causal powers apart from minds that can use it to understand nature. To deny that is to treat math like an actual material entity, which is logically fallacious. We have zero unified experience of mathematical equations creating a material state. Thus, if mathematical entities preexist the universe, they alone would have no causal adequacy to produce a universe, themselves only describing possible ones existing at once in superspace. It seems like a mind must act upon these laws, and from our experience, these laws must originate from a mind as well.
These models also presuppose existing universes before the very mechanisms they claim explain how they originated can act. But not only do cosmologists presuppose a universe, they also smudge information into the equations before a universal wave function is derived. An act that reflects a transcendent intelligence. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation allows for an infinite number of possible solutions. To calculate a specific solution, a physicist must choose boundary conditions and impose them on the equation before solving it. But this raises an issue: how will they impose boundary conditions when they claim there is no system to derive them from in existence yet?
Differential equations describe the behavior of systems, and without specific boundary conditions of a particular system, they will have an infinite number of possible solutions. Once the conditions of the system being observed are derived through observation, differential equations allow one to predict and describe the future behaviour of objects in the system. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation also has an infinite number of solutions, but physicists need information about specific boundary conditions to solve it. “In ordinary quantum mechanics, the boundary conditions for the wave function are determined by the physical setup external to the system under consideration. In quantum cosmology, there is nothing external to the universe, and a boundary condition should be added to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation” (Vilenkin, Quantum Cosmology, Pg 7, quoted in Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 378).
Thus, physicists themselves must arbitrarily limit the mathematical freedom of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in order to solve it and produce a wave function that includes our universe. They do this by applying boundary conditions that limit the values of superspace, creating what they call mini-superspace. Furthermore, Vilenkin decided to make arbitrary assumptions about the nature of the possible universes to emerge, namely, ones that were isotropic, homogeneous, and closed. Therefore, the wave function they produce is the result of very arbitrary limitations they themselves apply to the equations.
On the other hand, Hawking and Hartle also committed the same act by only choosing certain kinds of universes with specific geometries to be included in their sum-over-histories approach. They only chose paths through superspace that included universes that were isotropic, homogeneous, and had a positive cosmological constant. They further restricted the equations' freedom by only choosing paths that exhibited an imaginary time variable, none that had ordinary time. (Hawking and Hartle, Wave Function of the Universe, Pg 2967). Stephen Meyer claims that these models that restrict superspace “constitute ad hoc constraints on the process of constructing the universal wave function. In a recent interview, James Hartle acknowledged as much. ‘I have to tell you in confidence,’ he explained, ‘that whenever we do one of those calculations, we have to use very simple models in which lots of degrees of freedom are just eliminated. It’s called mini-superspace…. It’s how we make our daily bread, so to speak.’” (RGH, Pg 381, referenced from https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-quantum-cosmology).
Someone commits the ad hoc fallacy when they provide a new, unsupported, or untestable explanation to support their argument. Often seeming to be too unrealistic or of a "storytelling" nature in a debate or discussion. In this scenario, claiming to explain the universe from nothing, while obviously not explaining the beginning and origin from nothing and redefining nothing to be something, exhibits an unrealistic and untestable, doubtful response to these criticisms mentioned above.
Conclusion
As we have seen in this article, the famous quantum cosmological models that claim to create the universe from true nothingness all fall short of actually explaining origins from nothing. The mathematics that "produce" a universe require prior information that simply wouldn't exist if nothing were beforehand. No model determined specific boundary conditions imposed on the equations; the one doing the math arbitrarily decides them. This implies information being acted upon prior to the universe leaving superspace; in simpler terms, a mind must have created a mini-superspace that guaranteed our universe. The Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of the wave function also supports this. By positing that an observer causes the collapse of a wave to a particle position, an observer must have observed the universal wave function in order for it to collapse into a possible universe, because on their own, equations do not cause material events. There are no mathematical equations that have ever caused or created a material state; only when a mind uses them to understand nature can they act upon them and cause things. Minds have causal adequacy, but math does not. Therefore, if equations precede the universe, they would have to exist within the confines of a transcendent mind that can use and act upon them.
Quantum Cosmology does not explain the universe; it actually supports theistic design. May God give you the discernment to decide what is true and what is false. through a sober and logical mind. So come, and let us reason (Isaiah 1:18), and decide on the nature of what caused the universe... our LORD Jesus Christ. Amen.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)
"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:6)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)
Comments