What Caused The Universe? God, or Nature?
- Jason Pluebell
- Jan 16
- 45 min read
Updated: Jan 19
Where did everything come from? Is the universe self-existent? Is it eternal? Can actual infinities exist within the universe? Is the past infinite? Did the universe have a beginning? If so, can an appeal to matter and energy be made? Why does a singularity mark the beginning of the universe? Aren't naturalistic models more probable? Can't the laws of physics explain why there is something rather than nothing? Is God a reasonable hypothesis?
In this entire series of articles, we have been examining the evidence confirming the main philosophical argument supporting the God hypothesis. If the universe began to exist, and all things that begin to exist have a cause, doesn't that mean the universe has a cause?1 In this first part, we covered the two premises, that if confirmed valid, the conclusion necessarily follows... that the universe had a cause for its beginning. We then went over some of the observational evidence gathered in astronomy and astrophysical cosmology that confirms without a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.2 We covered positive evidence for a cosmic beginning, whether in an inflationary model or not. We also went over the various reasons to reject the infinite past, as you cannot reach an infinite limit by the addition of past events, along with logical absurdities that entail if the past truly is infinite.
Since the universe, as far as we can tell, has had a beginning, the universe has a cause. With the help of Stephen C. Meyer, we examined the four main answers to the question, Where did everything come from? Or, what caused the universe?3 These four answers represent four metaphysical hypotheses to the question of what it is that everything else comes from? The cause of the universe could be the result of nature (nothing beyond the natural world), pantheism (God is equated with the natural world), theism (an intelligent and personal transcendent God created and acted within creation), or deism (an intelligent and personal transcendent creator who has not acted since creation). We also covered another argument, that from design, or the Teleological Argument. 4 We notcied that not only did the universe have an absolute beginning some time in the finitne past, but that it also exhibits properties of extreme fine-tuning in both the initial distribution of mass-energy, arrangement of matter and antimatter, along with the constants of the laws of physics that govern it.
After that, we went over multiple naturalistic alternatives for the origin of the universe that all failed to offer simpler and more probable explanations for the beginning of the universe, as well as making the fine-tuning problem much worse.5, 6 Then we compared the explanatory power of each metaphysical hypothesis about the beginning and fine-tuning of our universe, and the two hypotheses of theism and deism came out to be the most adequate explanations.7 By using sound reasoning and inference to the best explanation, we then concluded that theism and deism offer the best explanations for the beginning and fine-tuning problems that plague naturalistic models. In this final part, I will attempt to offer a final overview of everything we have covered thus far, along with some additions that will help us determine what the most likely cause actually is. What caused the Universe? God, or nature?
God of the Gaps
One of the most immediate objections to the conclusion that God created the universe based on evidence is that this commits a God of the gaps fallacy. This is when someone invokes the action of God to explain a natural phenomenon, and science will eventually discover what natural laws actually produced it, making it a faulty conclusion. Gap arguments use gaps in scientific knowledge or explanations to try to justify the postulation of an act of God. It is assumed that since science cannot explain a process yet, God is responsible for it, and it serves as proof of God. But is the God hypothesis, as laid out by many philosophers, apologists, theologians, scientists, and more, actually a God of the gaps argument? Can we say that science will discover natural laws that explain the cause of the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), or if it had an external cause? Does saying that God caused the material world to come into existence commit a gap fallacy? Is it truly a logical fallacy to posit an immaterial causal agent as the first cause of the material world?
Although we are concerned with the explanatory gaps in naturalistic models, we surely do not conclude that God is a better one based on them. We use “straightforward considerations of causal adequacy along with parsimony and other theoretical virtues to assess the explanatory power of competing metaphysical hypotheses"8 and by utilizing inference to the best explanation, theism comes out as the best and most plausible one. We do not conclude God based on gaps, but based on positive evidence and arguments for such. The God hypothesis does not commit a gap fallacy in any shape or form.
If the universe came into being some time in the past, the cause of its beginning cannot be bound by space, time, mass-energy, or the laws that govern their regular behaviour. It must be transcendent, omnipotent, creative, personal, and intelligent. These attributes fit the concept of God as held by theists. Therefore, God is a sufficient explanation for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and the beginning of the universe, more so than materialism. This argument offers positive evidence to support its position. A gap fallacy does not offer support; it makes the conclusion based on another argument's gap in explanation. It may fill the gaps in materialism, but that is not the only reason we posit God. The God hypothesis stands as the most causally and explanatorily adequate explanation for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.
A good explanation for the cause of the universe will have to account for two aspects of the universe. It's the absolute beginning in the finite past, and the fine-tuning of the constants of the laws of physics and the initial distribution of mass-energy at the very beginning.
The Causal Adequacy of Nature and God
By comparing the causal adequacy and explanatory power of a hypothesis, one can determine which out of a range of competing hypotheses is the most likely to be true based on the simplicity and parsimonious nature of its postulations. By extrapolating predictions based on the beliefs of each worldview, we can determine what to expect in the universe if each were true, and which one most likely expects and explains the two features in question.
Materialism Fails
We went over how naturalistic theories like the Steady-state and Oscillating universe models eventually died out as more observational evidence was gathered. With the Big Bang coming out as the most observation-confirmed. Quantum Cosmology did not offer an adequate materialistic explanation for the beginning of the universe and had direct theistic implications with the lack of causal relation between mathematical entities and physical objects. Positing an immaterial mathematical reality seems to imply an immaterial mind able to act on the range of probabilities within, because nowhere on our unified experience does an equation cause something to happen; rather, they are descriptions of the cause and effect, not literally cause and effect. Inflationary models and String theoretical models suffered from bloated ontologies and unobserved explanatory entities. They simply posit far too many unobservable mechanics to say with any confidence that observation confirms them, as well as many failed predictions over the decades.
Before matter and energy come into existence, they did not exist to do any causing. Thus, matter and energy cannot be invoked as an explanation for the past beginning of the universe; doing so just affirms the prior existence of the very thing coming into existence that did not exist prior. Which is irrational. The laws of nature cannot be invoked either, as laws of nature are mathematical descriptions of events. The laws of nature describe how nature regularly operates, and how different parts of it relate and interact with each other. They do not cause the material world to come into existence, as without nature, you cannot have a description of it. This reveals the futility in waiting for a Theory of Everything to be discovered, where classical gravity and quantum gravity, along with the three other forces, can be described by a single equation. This equation is seen to describe everything, even why the universe had a beginning fine-tuned for life. No laws of physics/nature can fill the explanatory gap materialism creates.
The laws cannot explain their own fine-tuning or the fine-tuning of the initial configuration and distribution of mass-energy at the beginning. Moreover, the laws of physics themselves require external inputs of information about the initial and boundary conditions of the system being observed. Yet the laws are fine-tuned, and the initial conditions of the universe are too; therefore, the laws of physics cannot explain away the causal gap materialism obviously provides here.
God Succeeds
On the other hand, positing God does not jump straight to that conclusion based on the critique just made about materialism. This argument provides positive evidence for the causal adequacy of intelligent agency as a possible cause for the special type of event, the beginning of the universe. We also reviewed evidence and logic that support the causal adequacy of a transcendent and intelligent mind as the best explanation for the origin of space, time, and mass-energy, as well as the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and laws of physics in the universe. Any cause capable of producing a universe must stand causally isolated or transcendent to the universe. The cause must be immaterial, spaceless, powerful, intelligent, and personal.
Invoking God does not lead to an infinite regress of material conditions or an infinite array of unobservable universes that exist inside of prior existing spacetime. God, as held by theists, philosophers, and theologians, is viewed as exhibiting specific attributes that enable Him to produce certain effects based on them. In other words, God has certain attributes that, when taken into account, can be expected to produce a certain effect that correlates to those attributes. Therefore, in the words of Stephen Meyer, by articulating those attributes, philosophers can provide a theoretical rationale for affirming the causal adequacy of a God hypothesis. Indeed, by thinking about the attributes and what they entail, we can extrapolate predictions based on those attributes that warrant a specific effect. Moreover, evidence from the physical world provides further confirmation of the adequacy of God.
We also covered how we can extrapolate from the inventiveness of the human mind to a possible cause of the universe. Human minds, uncompelled by prior material conditions that must be met, can alter material states or create something new by rearranging the prior matter. So it is reasonable to posit a powerful (even omnipotent) transcendent intelligence as the cause of the universe. A divine mind would also explain the fine-tuning very well. We have a unified experience of minds choosing from a range of probabilities to produce information, even complex information. And quantum mechanics has really shed some light on this, as the wave function implies that particles result from actualization of information from an ensemble of possible states enabled by the interaction of an observer or macro-scale object.
“In other words, in quantum mechanics matter results from an informational input as an observation or interaction with a larger macroscopic object results in the actualization of a specific material state from an ensemble of possible states described by a wave function.” 9
Since human minds exhibit this ability to choose and actualize a material state from a range of possible states, it is wholly reasonable to postulate a transcendent mind with expectedly greater causal powers that would by definition transcend the universe, that can choose among the many probabilities described by, say, a universal wave function. If the universe truly did exist as pure mathematical probability (as quantum cosmology proposes), and the only thing we know of that can use that immaterial reality is an intelligent mind, then it is with sufficient reason to posit that intelligent mind as the cause for its actualization.
But still, some people expect that some material process or law that describes the entire universe's history will be found. But as we have seen, neither the fine-tuning nor the beginning of the universe is the type of event that the laws of physics themselves can even in principle explain. This should be a red flag to us that there may be an issue with the assumption that the laws of physics can explain everything in the first place. Other than a faulty placed hope in science as the only avenue for truth, there is a deeper logical issue at play. Excluding explanations involving an intelligent agent may cause one to miss the actual explanation.
“A more intellectually rigorous approach to the challenge of explaining crucial events in the history of the life and the universe would permit scientists and philosophers to consider competing possible explanations even if they posit the activity of a creative intelligence.” 10
We should allow the evidence, void of assumptions about nature, guided by sufficient reasoning, to find its way through the forest of explanation. There is nothing that warrants the exclusion of intelligent agency, only prejudice to anything other than naturalism.
“More succinctly, we cannot allow God as an explanation for the events that leave gaps in our materialistic accounts of the origin of life and the universe, because we know that scientists will eventually develop adequate materialistic explanations of those events. How do we know that? Because the only alternatives to materialistic explanations commit the ‘God-of-the-gaps’ fallacy. And around and around we go.” 11
You run in a materialistic circle by leaving out any other explanations but those that hold to the a priori assumption of naturalism and scientism. We must have more open and logical minds when considering the cause of everything, and try to avoid choosing what we simply like, or what pleases our tendencies, as we “dance to our DNA.”
What was the Cause?
So far, we have gone over what has been written in this series. What we have not done is an in-depth discussion on the two arguments for God's existence provided here. Those are the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God and the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God. Because the universe had a beginning, and all material reality, the cause cannot itself be material, confined in time, or bound by an extended body in space. In philosophical terms, the cause is transcendent or extrinsic to the universe. This means the cause has the attributes of God. We will now review each argument below.
The Cosmological Argument
This argument is a host of smaller arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a first cause of the universe. We covered the main argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but there are two other arguments I want to mention before moving on. These arguments practically deal with the beginning of the existence of the universe, and they can be generalized as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (first cause), the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (sufficient reason for existence), and the Thomist Cosmological Argument (sustaining ground of being).
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument for a Sufficient Reason for Existence
The Leibnizian Argument was coined by hthe 17th century polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who sought to coin an argument for the contingency of the universe. It seeks to counter the claim that the universe is abrute fact, or a necessary being. Contingent means that the object could have been otherwise, and that its existence depends on something separate from itself. In other words, something caused it to exist that very well could not have. Leibniz is famous for writing, “the first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?” 12 This question was a universal one that was applied to all things we observe to exist.
He based his argument on the principle of sufficient reason that he defines in The Monadology, that "no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise." He stated that believing the universe is a necessary brute fact is not a sufficient answer to his question. He also argued that this sufficient reason cannot be found within the universe itself; therefore, there must be an ultramundane (other than the mundane world) or supernormal being that is metaphysically necessary in its existence. In other words, the reason cannot be found in what exists; therefore, there must be a being whose non-existence is impossible in order to offer grounds for any other finite and contingent existence.
“It is a sufficient reason for its own existence, as well as for the existence of every contingent thing.” 13
William Lane Craig, in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, notes that the biggest objection to this argument is that Leibniz's sufficient reason seems to be misdefined. There cannot be an explanation for the existence of any contingent states of affairs. If the explanation itself is contingent, it would also need an explanation. However, if the explanation is necessary, then the states of affairs it explains must also be necessary. As a response, some people agree that at some point an unexplained brute fact will eventually rise. The Philosopher Richard Swinburne argues that the best explanation other than a brute fact is God. As an infinite being, not made of any parts, God is far simpler than a material, variegated, extended, and finite universe. It would thus be very important that we look at the premises of the argument.
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, its explanation is God.
Premise one requires that anything that exists has an explanation for its existence that will either be in the necessity of its own nature or in another isolated cause. This gives rise to two types of beings. Necessary beings exist out of their own nature and do not require an external cause to exist. Contingent beings are those whose existence is dependent on external causes or states of affairs in order to exist. Premise two is a bit more debated among atheists because, on atheism, the universe is the only brute fact, and nothing extrinsic to it exists. But when the atheist responds with this, that the universe is a brute fact, they recognize that if the universe did have an explanation (if it were not a brute fact), then that explanation would be God. For why would they appeal to an eternal self-existent universe rather than a finite one if the explanation isn't God?
Premise three states that the universe is an existing thing that has an explanation for its existence. This premise is obvious due to the observational evidence with the red shift, CMBR, and singularity theorems that the universe is expanding and had a beginning a finite time ago. Still, the atheists may respond that the universe is the necessary being whose existence is explained in its own nature. The main issue with this is the surmounting evidence against this, as our universe is obviously finite and past incomplete. Along with the fact that the laws of physics are consistent with differently arranged universes. And the fine-tuning evidence that implies contingency, it is obvious that our universe is not wholly necessary, as it very well could have been different. The atheists must then provide a better reason for suggesting the universe is a necessary being other than avoiding theism.
The Thomist Cosmological Argument for a Sustaining Ground of Being
This argument also seeks to demonstrate the contingency of the universe and is named after the 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. He coined an argument for a first cause, not based on temporal events like the Kalam, but in the sense of rank. “If the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited for this origin of the world and of motion.” 14 According to Aquinas, who was influenced by Aristotle, all existing things are composed of essence and existence and are "radically" contingent. Essence is a things individual nature that defines what it specifically is. Aquinas states that if essence exists, there must be united with it an act of being, and if everything that exists were not constantly sustained by this act of being, all things would be annihilated (or not exist). Craig further notes,
“Essence is in potentiality to the act of being, and therefore, without the bestowal of being, the essence would not exist.” 15
Potentialities cannot actualize themselves; they must be acted on by an external cause or mind, because the object would have to already exist in order to bestow being on itself (x caused x to come into being), which is contradictory. If all material reality is contingent and could not have been, and any finite substance is sustained in existence by a ground of being, then this ground of being cannot be composed of essence, existence, or smaller parts and would require no sustaining cause itself. It would be a being that just exists, like the name of the God that revealed Himself to Abraham as "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). Craig continues,
“We cannot say that this being’s essence includes existence as one of its properties, for existence is not a property, but an act, the instantiating of an essence.” 16
This being's essence must simply be existence, the pure act of being. This argument would further establish, on top of the Leibnizian argument, that the universe is a contingent being dependent on a necessary being for its existence that is not the universe itself. Not only does God offer a sufficient reason for why there is something rather than nothing, but He also provides a necessary being whose existence is explained in the necessity of His own nature. The only issue with the Thomist Cosmological Argument is that it is difficult to jump from naturally contingent beings (dependent on material conditions) to metaphysically contingent beings (dependent on a necessary being's sustenance of being for existence). We need another argument to solidify our conclusion, for we have not yet established a fully necessary being. We need some confirmation that our universe truly is contingent and finite.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument for a First Cause of the Universe
This is the argument that we discussed in a previous article. It aims to show that the universe has abeginning at some point in the past. Since something can not come from nothing, the universe must have a cause that transcends it. This includes both deductive arguments for the impossibility of an infinite regress and existence of an actual infinite, and also inductive arguments based on the observational evidence found in astrophysical cosmology that led to the most accepted cosmological modelm the Big Bang Theory. This theory posits that the universe originated ex nihilo or from nothing at a finite time in the past. And since, again, something cannot come from nothing, the universe has a transcendent cause. The premises are as follows.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
One of the properties of metaphysically necessary beings is to be eternal, or without beginning or end. If the universe began, then that means it is a contingent being, because if it were not, it would not have begun. Also, if the universe started, it cannot be a metaphysically necessary being, or, as the atheists would put it, a brute fact. The Kalam Cosmological Argument aims to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning in the past. It shows that the universe did in fact begin, and is a contingent being. But this contingency is unlike any object in the universe, as it came into existence ex nihilo. Therefore, the atheist is forced into a weird position, as they would have to affirm that the universe is a brute fact and that it came from nothing for no reason... and that's worse than magic! Premise one is thus obviously true. As it is grounded in the mere impossibility of something coming from nothing. To affirm the opposition leads to logical absurdities. It fails to offer a reason why anything isn't coming from nothing right now. It is making a contradictory statement, that something came from nothing, which is a contradiction of the definitions of something and nothing.
The word nothing is a negative universal quantifier that means "not anything". A universal quantifier is a statement that applies to all things, hence the word universal. So when cosmologists say the universe came into existence from nothing, that is what they mean, not something in a state of nothingness. They are saying that there was nothing before the universe came into existence. Academics like Lawrence Krauss say that there are a variety of forms of nothing, or that the universe is actually mostly nothing, or that quantum mechanics tells us that nothing is unstable. People like these are misguiding people on a semantic basis to treat nothing as if it were actually referring to something. Doing this does not change anything; nothing still refers to not anything, and is still a universal negative.
“On the atheistic view, there was not even the potentiality of the universe’s existence prior to the big bang. But then how could the universe become actual if there was not even the potentiality of its existence?” 17
Craig is right, if an atheist stays honest with the definition of nothing, and what the evidence in the universe suggests, then the universe truly did not come from anything. It makes much more sense to say that the potentiality of our universe was in the hands of God rather than matter, and that he existed as an immaterial being that caused it. Theists do not say that the universe came from nothing; we say that the universe came from nothing physical, which aligns with the best cosmological theory. Now, premise 2 has been supported by both deductive and inductive arguments that provide observational evidence that the universe is expanding and began at the cosmic singularity. It justifies postulating God. Some of the deductive arguments will be listed below, and after that, the inductive evidence.
The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite
A potential infinite is where the infinite serves as an upper max limit, and some natural number increases to that maximum. A key aspect of a potential infinite is that it will never be reached, which directly ties into an actual infinite. An actual infinite is an actually existing infinite collection of things. In this case, the universe's past would need to be an infinite regress of temporal events. Since change happens over time, and time is a measure of change within space, there is no such thing as truly instantaneous causal events. Likewise, there is no infinitely slow event, as that would just mean it isn't changing. Therefore, any causal event in the universe will have a nonzero duration, or in other words, will be finite. This means that if the past is truly an infinite collection of actual events, an infinite amount of time is entailed. So then, is the universe's past infinite or finite?
But an actual infinite cannot exist. Take my lollipop example. Say I have a chest full of an infinite collection of lollipops, and I hold an event where every person entering gets a lollipop. Say 5,000 people attend and all get lollipops, how many lollipops do I have left? I still have an infinite amount. Say the candy government taxes 1/3 of my lollipop supply, how many do I have left then? Still an infinite number of lollipops, but even worse, the division the government took is also infinite. Now, say I have a nail salon with an infinite number of pedicure stations and employees. Now, an infinite number of people come and check in for appointments. All stations are full. Now, say I have another infinite number of people come to check in. Since there will always be another station and employee, I can simply move the first person to the third station, and the third person to the fifth station, and every odd-numbered station gets moved to the station that is two numbers ahead of it, and so on. I would now have all odd-numbered stations empty, and since a division of an infinite is another infinite, I would have another set of infinite stations for the new customers. And the logical absurdities go on and on.
These absurdities do not arise because we lack knowledge of infinites. They arise because we know so much about them that we can identify reasons why they can't exist in the real world. If the universe truly were infinite in the past, then all of the absurdities mentioned (and more) logically follow. If an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world, and an infinite regress represents an actual infinite, then an infinite regress of events cannot actually happen. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning for today to happen.
The Inability of Successive Addition Reaching an Actual Infinite
The next step is to consider the impossibility of successive addition forming an actual infinite. This is also called the impossibility of traversing an infinite, which brings to mind the concept of a potential infinite, where the maximum limit can never be reached by an increasing collection. If the universe were eternal, the past would most certainly have to traverse an infinite past to reach today. In other words, there must have been an actually infinite series of events preceding today. This means that today was preceded by the prior day, and that day was preceded by another day, preceded by months, and years, on and on ad infinitum (to infinity). Therefore, if the universe never began in the past, then the present day would have never arrived, and we are not observing that.
If a collection of natural objects formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite, and if the past is a collection of events that were formed by successive addition, then the past, without a reasonable doubt, cannot actually be infinite.
The Impossibility of an Infinite Past from the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The last deductive argument I will mention is the impossibility of a truly infinite past based on the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that any process within a closed system will always tend towards decay, or equilibrium. This means that everything is running down. If you leave your car out in the sun with its new paint job, it will eventually lose its clear coat and begin to oxidize and peel, then the metal underneath will begin to rust, and your car will be unusable. Naturalism sees the universe as a closed system, as space, matter, and time are the only things that exist. This means that given enough time, the universe will run down, and all of the energy available to perform work will be transformed into useless heat, and the entire universe will reach a state of equilibrium. This is known as the heat death of the universe.
If the universe were infinitely old or eternal, then it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium an infinite amount of time ago. This implies that at some moment in the past, the universe was "wound up" or organized, indicating the start of its deterioration. To make this point clear, imagine you walk into your friend's house while they are at work. When you open the door and look down the hall into the kitchen, you see a small wind-up racecar zooming around a small toy track. You walk up to it, and soon the toy car begins to slow down and stops. You may reasonably make the inference that someone was present who was able to wind up the toy just before you came in. Likewise, we experience the same thing when we think about the second law of thermodynamics and an eternal universe. Because if the toy car had been there an infinite amount of time prior to walking in, then there is no reason for the toy car to still be moving when you walk in, unless an intelligence was present to do such a thing, which has theistic implications.
Observational Evidence in Astrophysical Cosmology
The last bit of support I will offer is the inductive observations from astrophysics and cosmology. We reviewed how Albert Einstein formed his General Theory of Relativity, which was a theory of gravitation. It viewed space as a four-dimensional geometric model that unifies the three spatial dimensions with a fourth continuum of time. This model suggested that space and time are ultimately linked, birthing a new entity, spacetime. Einstein applied space-time to the entire universe, which led him to some revelations. He realised that if gravity were the only acting force in the universe (that objects with mass warp the spacetime around them so that less massive objects essentially "fall" into them), then the universe would have collapsed in on itself, but that obviosuly didnt happen. This led him to punch in his fudge factor that counteracted the attractive force of gravity, a repulsive force, the Cosmological Constant.
Around the same time, discoveries in the heavens were being made. Edwin Hubble would expand on the previous work of many astronomers to collect evidence that suggested the universe was expanding. This was the records of redshift. Where a universe moving towards us will squish its light to the blue end of the spectrum, those moving away will stretch it out to the red end. He essentially made the correlation that the more distant a galaxy was, the more redshifted it was. He formulated this relationship to create Hubble's Constant, which states that for every megaparsec, the universe expands about 73-77 ± 14 Km/s. Then Aleskandr Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre produced the solutions to Einstein's field equations that demonstrated that the Cosmological Constant was so fine-tuned that practically any other value would either cause the universe to rapidly expand forever (a heat death) or collapse in on itself as gravity overpowers the Cosmological Constant (the big crunch). This, combined with the expansion evidence, led to the consensus that the universe was expanding.
If the universe is expanding, then it must have had a beginning, because at some point in the past, there would be a point in time where all of the space and matter of the universe was so small, it would basically not have existed prior. This period of time represents a singularity, where spacetime curvature, temperature, and density reach an infinite value, and the volume of space becomes zero. It represents a boundary of spacetime, as there is nothing that exists outside of the singularity. This is because the universe is everything, including space, so there was nothing for anything to exist in beforehand. Video representations of the Big Bang are very misleading, as there is no outside for which someone could see the bang, for there is nothing but the universe under naturalism. This was the Friedmann-Lemaitre Model that became the Standard Big Bang Theory, which postulates that the universe had an absolute beginning ex nihilo. Not only does mass-energy, but also space and time, emerge at the singularity.
“It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity…. entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity…. This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process.” 18
The Big Bang Theory has been confirmed time and time again in its predictions, trumping alternative theories in prediction, parsimony, and explanatory power. Furthermore, in 2003, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin formulated a theory that applied to all universes that are on average expanding, including the eternal inflationary multiverse, which will have to be past incomplete, or not eternal. This comes from the principle that no information or energy can travel faster than the speed of light. In an infinitely expanding space like ours, as time is reversed, the space around objects receeding form eachother becomes smaller, along with the space in between them. Due to this, their apparent velocities will speed up as time is reversed further and further back, eventually reaching the speed of light, which would mark a physical barrier for the energy. This would necessarily mark the beginning of the expansion (See 2 for an in-depth explanation, reference, and drawing). Moreover, William Lane Craig offers a very interesting critique of Quantum Cosmological Models. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking's theory posits that classical spacetime emerges from a "quantum gravity regime" (describing space before its size at the Planck Length, or in other words, when the universe was smaller than 1 x 10-35m) that essentially makes the pointed edge of spacetime a round curve that is smooth with no edge.
It is not past eternal in the classical sense, but this is not the issue at hand. The quantum gravity regime, which includes superspace (see 6 for more details on superspace), cannot literally exist timelessly because it is in a state of constant fluctuation, which implies before and after relations. Since it is seen as existing before classical time, and classical time actually emerges from it, there seems to be some type of temporal relationship between superspace and classical time. Even if it is not temporal in the classical sense that we understand, there would still be some sort of time. But if it is temporally infinite (past eternal), and unstable due to fluctuations, then it would have produced a universe an infinite time ago, but we do not observe that. Moreover, this would entail all of the absurdities previously mentioned about an actual infinite. Craig's critique can be paired with the problem of what "breathes fire" into the universal wave function to collapse into our universe. The period before the classical universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, that is not a sufficient explanation as to why it did not produce a universe an infinite time ago, since it would inevitably do so.
In addition, simply postulating mathematical entities does nothing to produce a universe, as mathematical entities do not stand in causal relation to material affairs. Mathematical entities can only be incorporated into a change of material states via the activity of an intelligent agent able to utilize them. In 2013, cosmologist Aron Wall developed a new singularity theorem that appeared to rule out the possibility of a quantum gravity theory resolving challenges related to thermodynamics and time. Given the second law of thermodynamics in the quantum gravity era, he says, the universe must have had a beginning unless one posits a reversal of time, which would still imply a thermodynamic beginning. Wall concludes,
“It is reasonable to believe that the results will hold in a complete theory of quantum gravity.” 19
These arguments offer massive support for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The second premise seems to be confirmed, where the conclusion follows necessarily that the universe has a cause for its beginning. There seems to be some minimal properties that this being must have to be adequate to cause the universe on the Cosmological Argument. It must transcend space and time, and exist a-temporally (timelessly) and nonspatially (spaceless) without the universe's existence. This means it will be a changeless and immaterial being, since it is not bound by a space to exist in and time to change. Timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness also implies immateriality. The cause of the universe must therefore be beginningless and uncaused; it must be an immensely or all-powerful being to produce the entire physical universe; and it must be a personal being in order to have the properties needed to cause a material state without prior material conditions compelling it to do so. It must also be a person due to its ability to choose from a range of possible universes, ours.
The Cosmological Argument does not lead someone to conclude that the universe caused itself, or is a brute fact; instead, it leads to it being a contingent being with an absolute beginning in the past. This means that the universe's cause cannot itself be a contingent being, since the universe is seen as "all that is," and cannot be bound by the universe itself; in other words, it must transcend spacetime reality. In this case, it is transcending nature, or supernatural. No natural entity or process can meet the required attributes needed to produce a universe from nothing physical. God, as conceived by theists, and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, is such an entity that is wholly explanatorily adequate to produce the universe we observe today.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (John 1:1-5)
The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God
Any account of the origin of the universe must not just account for the beginning of it some time in the past, but also the fine-tuning of the constants of the laws of physics and the initial distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe. Despite the Cosmological Argument alone being a rather solid argument for the existence of God based on the beginning of the universe, there is one other argument that, when paired with the Cosmological Argument, is near unstoppable. The argument from the fine-tuning of the universe is known as the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God. Teleological, derived from the Greek words telos (τέλος), meaning end or goal, and logos (λόγος), meaning explanation, emphasizes understanding why things exist, instead of merely how they came into being. With reference to the Teleological Argument refers to the appearance of design in the natural world, hence its aim at demonstrating that the universe is designed for life, or an argument from fine-tuning.
It seeks to show the existence of God from the appearance of design, or fine-tuning, built into the very structure of the universe that cannot be explained by the universe itself. It does seek to demonstrate God on the basis of the design of biological systems, but that is not the focus of this series. Suffice it to say that the Teleological argument seeks to prove the existence of God based on the fine-tuning of both the universe for life, and the life within it. Indeed, the universe seems to exhibit complex and sensitive initial conditions that guarantee the thriving of life. The chances of our universe appearing from random chance are far too great to brush off as mere coincidence. As well as the sheer fine-tuning of the relations of the constants of the laws of physics, as well as their individual values, with respect not just to each other, but to themselves concerning the later development of the universe.
When the regular behaviours of nature are given a mathematical description, they contain constants whose values are not mandated by the laws of physics themselves; in other words, the laws of physics cannot explain their own fine-tuning. Therefore, to call upon the laws of nature to explain fine-tuning does not suffice, as the fine-tuning is of the laws themselves. A car engine itself cannot explain why it may or may not have a certain number of 10mm bolts, or a specific hose size; the engineer must be asked. When we say these values are fine-tuned, we mean that the values of the constants are set so that if they are altered even slightly, it renders our universe life-prohibitive.
Einstein's field equations help determine the universe's spatial configurations based on mass-energy distributions. Initially, this distribution needed small fluctuations besides being uniform to allow large-scale structures to accumulate in the universe. Einstein's famous equation E=MC2 shows energy and matter as forms of the same substance. At the universe's start, it was a dense energy point, not yet forming matter, affecting future large-scale structures like stars and galaxies. If the initial mass-energy distribution varied slightly, it would either lead to a universe of black holes or one too sparse for gravity to form structures, preventing elements, stars, and galaxies. General Relativity posits that mass bends spacetime, affecting gravity. The initial energy distribution, which cooled into matter, determined future structures. This distribution is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10-55, meaning any change would lead to different universe outcomes. Physicists call this initial distribution the universe's initial entropy. A high initial entropy would create black holes, while low entropy results in ordered structures. Our universe's later ordered structures (galaxies) indicate low initial entropy.
To evaluate the necessary entropy, we must determine alternative configurations leading to a life-permitting universe, assessing potential fine-tuning. Black holes have the highest possible entropy due to the many chaotic forms matter takes within, while galaxies have low entropy due to their ordered structure. The universe's current low entropy, with more stars and galaxies than black holes, implies lower past entropy, increasing over time. Roger Penrose calculated initial mass-energy configurations for a life-permitting universe. Assuming no universe could exceed a black hole's entropy, he used the Bekenstein-Hawking Equation to find the maximum entropy for our universe. He calculated 1043 per baryon, multiplied by 1080 baryons in the observable universe, resulting in 10123 entropy for a black hole universe. Penrose then calculated the current universe entropy, assuming each galaxy has a central black hole with one million solar masses, yielding an entropy of 1021 per galaxy. Multiplied by total baryons, this gave a universe entropy of 10101. The universe's initial entropy was improbably low compared to the possible mass-energy configurations, as 10123 is far greater than 10101 (subtracting 10101 from 10123 yields 10123 again!). Thus, our universe's initial entropy was extremely improbable, resulting in a life-permitting universe.
A universe capable of supporting life depends not only on its initial conditions, but also on various other factors that could have been different, and if they were, intelligent life on Earth would not have flourished. Another key aspect is the universe's expansion rate, which significantly influences whether a universe can support life. Stephen Hawking calculated the universe's expansion rate to be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10-17. This means that if the expansion rate were reduced by 0.000000000000000001 of its current value, gravity would have dominated expansion, leading the universe to collapse under its own gravity. However, the expansion rate is influenced by other factors that are also finely tuned. The mass-energy density would have been approximately 1024 kg, and a change of even one kilogram per meter³ would have prevented galaxy formation. Thus, the expansion rate is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10-17, with an additional fine-tuning of 1 part in 10-24 in its mass-energy density per meter³. Moreover, the cosmological constant (Λ), which represents the mass-energy density in the equations governing the expansion rate, is fine-tuned to 1 part in 1090. This indicates that the expansion rate is fine-tuned on multiple levels.
Roger Penrose not only calculated the total entropy of the universe, but also the chances of the low-entropy energy condition (high order) being met from random chance is no less than 1 chance in 1010(123) (that is 10, to the power of 10, to the power of 123). 20 What we have done in comparing the explanatory power of competing metaphysical hypotheses is using Inference to the Best Explanation (abduction) to make an inference to design. With William Dembski's Design Inference, what testifies to the activity of an intelligent agent is a highly improbable collection of things or events that conforms to an independent pattern or functional end we recognize from our experience as intelligent agents. Appealing to the cosmic fine-tuning under the Teleological Argument can be stated as follows:
Premise 1: The fine-tuning of our universe is either due to necessity, random chance, or the design of an intelligent agent.
Premise 2: It is not due to necessity or random chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of our universe is due to the design of an intelligent agent.
We will now discuss each premise below, starting with whether the universe's fine-tuning is due to necessity or random chance.
Can the Fine-tuning of Our Universe be due to Necessity?
This claim posits that the values of the constants of the laws of physics and the initial distribution of mass-energy must have had the values they did. This would require someone to believe that a life-prohibitive universe is impossible. But if the distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe were slightly different, or if the universe expanded slightly slower, or if the gravitational constant were slightly greater, the universe would not be compatible with life. Moreover, the laws of physics are consistent with many arrangements of mass-energy, and again, there is nothing mandating the values of the constants. So another universe with different values surely seems logically possible. Still, some may hold to a theory of everything. But as already mentioned, a theory of everything has its limits. On one hand, it has the limits of confusing the explanatory category of the laws of physics. A theory of everything would still not explain the fine-tuning of the values within it, even if it did produce a universe. On the other hand, there are parts of theories of everything that cannot explain themselves. For example, string theory requires our spacetime to be anywhere from 11 to 26 dimensions of space, yet it does not explain why space should be this way. But there are other initial conditions, as Paul Davies notes,
“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. ... The laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. There is nothing in present ideas about "laws of initial conditions" remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply unigueness, Far from it. It seems, then, that the physical uni- verse does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.” 21
Any attempt to reduce or explain fine-tuning under naturalism just makes the fine-tuning problem worse and pushes it to another location. As seen with models like the Chaotic Eternal Inflationary Multiverse, the cosmological constant (the force behind inflationary expansion) must be fine-tuned to at least one part in 1053. It then seems reasonable that necessity does not suffice as an adequate explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.
Can the Fine-tuning of Our Universe be due to Random Chance?
If the fine-tuning cannot be due to necessity, as many consistent probable universes do not allow life, could the fine-tuning be the result of mere chance? Could the universe simply have assumed the values it has because it is more likely than not to? Proponents of the chance hypothesis usually hold to a many worlds interpretation of the fine-tuning. Where they believe that there are other causally isolated universes other than ours, even an infinite ensemble, so much so that the chances of a life-permitting universe are rendered more probable than not. Indeed, if there is an infinite number of universes, then there is bound to be a life-permitting one. But there's an issue with affirming an acutal infinite, as this means there would be an infnintie division of life-permitting universes, not just one that is probable. All types of universes are equally probable to an infinitesimal degree. This too would represent a metaphysical hypothesis, because there is simply no direct evidence for the existence of a multiverse, and it is postulating a source form from which everything came. Simply pretending that it is scientific because our universe exists is simply fallacious. The many-worlds interpretation is no more metaphysical than the theistic hypothesis, so both will be treated with the same respect.
But, as we have seen, many-worlds interpretation is an inferior hypothesis compared to the theistic one. The theistic hypothesis represents a simpler explanation. Ockham's Razor states that we should try to avoid multiplying unnecessary explanatory entities, or causes beyond those which are necessary to explain the effect in question. Positing a single mind is vastly simpler than a bloated ontology of an infinite array of universes governed by an equally, if not more, fine-tuned system than our current universe. The atheists would need to posit a mechanism simpler than mind action that is able to produce a universe, but none have ever been able to do so. There is simply no evidence for the existence of any other universe other than the fine-tuning evidence, which is better explained by the theistic hypothesis. The many-worlds interpretation bases its entire motivation on avoiding theism. Compare this single piece of evidence for the multiverse to the long line of arguments and evidence for God that includes the fine-tuning, and it becomes clear that the God hypothesis is a better explanation.
Moreover, the most probable universe with observers is one which appears to be fine-tuned, but is actually al illusory to the observer as it is just a small random fluctuation that just happens to form obervers in a small local region. In other words, a smaller world with the illusion of fine-tuning is much more probable than an actually fine-tuned universe for observers. This idea originates from the 19th-century physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann. He hypothesized that the universe as a whole exists in an equilibrium state that is not ordered like it appears to be, but that over time fluctuation in the energy would occur, and at some point, a small area of the total equilibrium in disequilibrium would appear. Boltzmann called these regions of disequilibrium "worlds." And since in the infinite ensemble of worlds, there is bound to exist a few universes in disequilibrium, and the one we observe is just that. The issue with this hypothesis is that if our universe were simply a fluctuation of energy in a larger collection of energy, then shouldn't we expect to observe a much smaller region of fine-tuning than we do? A small world with the illusion of fine-tuning is much more probable than a larger one that begins at an extremely low level of entropy that decayed over time into a still low-entropy system.
Roger Penrose calculated the odds of our universe forming from random chance at 1 part in 1010(123). He also calculated the chances of only our solar system appearing from random chance at 1 part in 1010(60), which is a tiny fraction of 1010(123).
"In fact, Boltzmann’s hypothesis, if adopted, would force us to regard the past as illusory, everything having the mere appearance of age, and the stars and the planets as illusory, mere ‘pictures’ as it were, since the sort of world is vastly more probable given a state of overall equilibrium than a world with genuine, temporally and spatially distant events.” 22
This issue has led to the Problem of the Invasion of the Boltzmann Brains. Because the most plausible universe is that which is a single brain that pops into existence and observes its universe and life in a random fluctuation and then disappears. So, if we were to hold to a many-worlds interpretation, the most likely explanation for our existence (individually) is that we are that single brain that is only a random fluctuation of energy in a total ocean of energy in equilibrium. You woud be forced to believe that you are the only person who exists, everything is illusory, even you, and there truly is no meaning to anything. Nobody sane truly lives like that. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that there exists an infinite array of universes, even under atheism. The solution to this problem is to postulate a transcendent mind that can order and fine-tune that system to produce a finely-tuned universe able to produce fine-tuned life and bestow it with meaning. Any form of the many worlds hypothesis, without the existence of God, would lead one to a random fluctuation of one brain, and that nothing in human perception is actually real and objective. The fine-tuning is not due to random chance.
Fine-tuning is Due to Design
The second premise has been confirmed, that the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and distribution of mass-energy, and the constants of the laws of physics are not due to necessity or random chance; therefore most reasonable explanation is that it is due to the activity of an intelligent mind. And since this fine-tuning has existed since the beginning of the universe, we may appeal to the same transcendent cause that produced that beginning to have also produced the fine-tuning.
An objection to this is that a cosmic designer would remain unexplained. It claims that an intelligent mind exhibits more complexity than a fine-tuned universe, so if the universe requires an explanation, then so too does the designer. But this misunderstands the nature of explanation. For an explanation to be the best, a person does not need to explain the explanation, as that would inevitably lead to an infinite regress of explanations for even the simplest phenomena. If you stumble upon a log cabin in the deep forests of Alaska, you do not need to explain the people who were there in order to recognize that they are the most likely explanation for the cabin's existence. In a similar way, the conclusion that design is the best explanation does not depend on our ability to explain the designer. Nor does this objection make much sense, as we would need to understand something transcendent to our existence, which is impossible. If God exists, then we would not expect to be able to explain Him fully. He would have to reveal Himself to us in some way.
Besides, this objection is false. The complexity of a mind differs from that of the universe, as a mind is inherently simple. It is an immaterial entity without pieces or parts. Furthermore, attributes such as intelligence, consciousness, and volition are not contingent properties that a mind might lack; they are fundamental to its essence. If you do not have an entity with those properties, then it is not a mind. Therefore, postulating a mind is not the same as postulating an uncaused and uncreated universe. As we have explained in the series, mind agency is simpler than material agency, as a mind can act on material affairs without being compelled by prior material conditions, unlike a material cause. It is therefore much simpler than a material agent.
A Colossal Material Failure
Materialism puts a limit on the types of explanations that can be offered, which in turn places a wall in front of materialism. Every single materialistic/naturalistic model for the origin and fine-tuning of the universe does not offer a simpler explanation than Theism and Deism do. The many-world interpretation, of its many flavors, makes the fine-tuning problem worse, and seems to imply the existence of a first cause as well, or that there was an immaterial mind that can act on mathematical possibilities to stand in causal relation to the universe. The singularity marks a point from whcih nothing can exist external to, essentially putting a limit on spacetime. This boundary represents an absolut ebeginning, as nothing exists external to the universe to cause or continue its existence. If the spacetime curvature of the singularity approaches an infinite value and the total volume of space is zero, then it is physically impossible to place nature outside of it. If nothing exists outside the material universe, then the universe, or more space, time, and energy, cannot be appealed to for causing. Therefore, the universe was not caused by nature.
The God hypothesis solves all of these issues by positing an immaterial entity able to act without prior material conditions being met to do so. According to the nature of the event, the beginning of the material world, the cause must be transcendent to the effect, in this case, the universe. It re[resents the simplest explanation not based on the explanatory gaps of materialism, but on the basis of positive evidence supporting such explanatory power it offers. Posotong God as the cause of the universe does not comitt a gap fallacy, as the conclusion is not based on gaps in the first place! Those gaps are identified and discussed when comparing the explanatory power and causal adequacy of different metaphysical hypotheses, in this case materialism and theism. This is a valid form of abductive reasoning and is in no way fallacious. The objector would thus be required to offer a reason for denying this conclusion that cannot be reduced to an avoidance of theism. But none can be offered based on the nature of the cause and explanation required.
God Caused The Universe
Theism and Deism specifically offered the best explanations for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe we observe today. What is left now is determining if the God that caused the universe fine-tuned for life has acted within His creation, or has ignored it. We will examine the origin of biological life and the appearance of design in biological systems on the microscopic level.
Suffice it to say that the universe did not appear out of nowhere from nothing, nor has it always been here. Our best evidence suggests the cause of the universe, under suffiecient reason, is an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, intelligent, personal, conscious, omnipotent, and increated entity. These attributes all match what theists have conceived as God. Thus far, we have concluded that a God-like being caused the material universe to come into existence some time in the past. But has He acted in His creation? Has God created life in the universe? Or has the first cell appeared out of nonbiological molecules in a blind chemical process guided by random natural forces?
By examining the design and origin of life, we may be able to see if this God has acted within creation, and if so, has this God contacted us in any way to make Himself knowable? In doing do, we will review the major world religions and worldviews to see if we can discover if God has actually reached down to man, and if Jesus Christ is the reliable Object of Truth from which all else is grounded.
Creation Ex Nihilo
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)
"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 11:3)
" For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." (Colossians 1:16)
"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 11:3)
"“This is what the Lord says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself." (Isaiah 44:24)
"As it is written: 'I have made you a father of many nations.' He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not." (Romans 4:17)
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4:11)
Universe Expansion
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)
“This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24)
"It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." (Isaiah 45:12)
"But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." (Jeremiah 10:12)
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." (Job 9:8)
"The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a ten.t" (Psalm 104:2)
"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together." (Isaiah 48:13)
"A prophecy: The word of the Lord concerning Israel. The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:" (Zechariah 12:1)
The Design of Creation
" Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you. I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,[d] that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:1-32)
"For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything." (Hebrews 3:4)
"Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:9-12)
"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together." (Isaiah 48:13)
"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:14-15)
"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 11:3)
" From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." (Ephesians 4:16)
(8) (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 417)
(9) (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Chp 20, n. 20, Pg 516)
(10) (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 425)
(11) (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 425, emphasis mine)
(12) (Leibniz The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason)
(13) (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 478)
(14) (Summa Contra Gentiles 1.13.30)
(15) (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 477)
(16) (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 478)
(17) (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 480)
(18) (Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Oxford Clarendon, 1993, Pg 120)
(19) (Aron Wall, The Generalized Second Law Implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem, https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513, Pg 38)
(20) (Penrose, Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity, in Quantum Gravity 2, https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2088850, 249)
(21) (Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Pg 169, quoted in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 496)
(22) ((J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Pg 499)
Comments