The Origin of the Universe

Many people refuse to believe in a Creator because they can’t fathom how an entity could be eternal. Yet scientists used to teach that the universe itself was eternal—it just always existed— and people were content to believe that. So if anyone believes it is possible for something (such as the universe) to be eternal, to be logically consistent, they would also have to admit it’s possible there could be an infinite, omnipotent Being who is eternal.

These days, scientists have concluded that the universe had a beginning. But how did it come into being? According to the Law of Cause and Effect, every effect must have a cause. In other words, everything that happens has a catalyst; everything that came into being has something that caused it. Things don’t just happen by themselves.

Most secular scientists say that the universe began in an event known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory claims that “nothing” suddenly became time, space, matter, and energy, forming a vast, complex, orderly universe composed of over 100 billion galaxies and containing an estimated trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter. Now these scientists have an even greater dilemma: Where did the initial matter come from? How could something come from out of nowhere, by itself? Second, what caused it to go “bang”? What was the catalyst that sent the particles flying?

Famed cosmologist Andrei Linde, professor of Physics at Stanford University, is honest about the evolutionists’ dilemma:

The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first? The universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.

If a book coming into existence by itself is obvious nonsense, why is the Big Bang theory any more “scientific”?

“It’s unavoidable—at some point, you’re forced to conclude that there must be an uncaused cause (a First Cause) that brought everything else into being. This conclusion agrees with logic, reason, and scientific laws.”

Share on twitter Share on facebook

Scientists say they may have resolved the cosmic question of where we came from. “In the end, everything comes from space dust,” according to Ciska Markwick-Kemper of the University of Manchester in England. This isn’t just ordinary space dust, but “dust that was belched from dying stars” about 8 billion light-years from here. Dr. Michael Barlow states that “dust particles in space are the building blocks of comets, planets, and life, yet our knowledge of where this dust was made is still incomplete.”

The dilemma is, no matter how far away or how long ago scientists estimate the very first dust particle came from, the logical question remains: Then where did that dust come from?

It’s unavoidable—at some point, you’re forced to conclude that there must be an uncaused cause (a First Cause) that brought everything else into being. This conclusion agrees with logic, reason, and scientific laws. In all of history, there has never been an instance of anything spontaneously appearing out of nowhere. Something being created from nothing is contrary to all known science. Even Darwin admitted that logically the universe could not have created itself:

The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God…I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.

Even more difficult to explain is how our incredibly fine-tuned universe could be so amazingly complex and orderly. Evolutionist Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges:

The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on.

In short, the evolutionary view cannot offer a logical, scientific explanation for either the origin or the complexity of the universe. There are only two choices: Either no one created everything out of nothing, or Someone—an intelligent, omnipotent, eternal First Cause—created everything out of nothing. Which makes more sense?

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Sir Frederick Hoyle

Order The Evidence Study Bible today.