How Did the Universe Originate?

We live on a planet in a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy.  Why is there a universe here instead of nothing?

Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."


Hebrews 11:3

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

(He spoke it into existence out of a state of nothingness.)

Psalm 33:6, 9

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”

“For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

Scientists are pretty much in agreement that before the universe came into existence, there was a state of nothingness.  They agree that the universe had a beginning.  This is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


This is also known as the Law of Energy Deterioration, or the Law of Increased Entropy.  While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.  Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

Isaac Asimov writing in the Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, on p.6 said: 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the second law is all about.”


Because of this, scientists believe that the universe had to have a beginning.  They are also in agreement that the universe appears to be expanding.


Are there other laws of science that should be considered in forming our hypothesis regarding the existence of the universe?  How about the Law of Cause and Effect?

The universal Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause. The effect would be the universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy coming into existence out of a state of nothingness. What was the cause? The existence of the universe, when there once was a state of nothingness, demands that there be a Cause.


What about the Law of Motion?  Would that have any bearing on the existence of the universe?

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain in that state, unless acted upon by an external force or agent, and a body in motion will remain in that state unless acted upon by an external force or agent. Sometimes called the Law of Inertia.


Question: Would a state of nothingness be like a state of perfect rest? If so, it should remain in that state, unless acted upon by an external force or agent. Scientifically, it should not change, in and of itself.  Why did a state of nothingness change?  That takes us back to Cause and Effect again.


What about the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Albert Einstein stated: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."

Statements By Scientists:

Some scientists believe this law would not allow matter and energy to come out of a state of nothingness; at least through natural processes.

Dr. Robert Gange in Origins and Destiny,1986, p. 17 stated: "The First Law has been the object of considerable thought since it was first introduced to the world by William Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius. It forbids a natural process from bringing something from nothing."

Physicist Paul Davies in his book - The Edge of Infinity, says this about this explosion from nothingness that brought everything into existence: "(It) represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle."


Would the First Law seem to indicate this is not something that we should expect to happen scientifically, or naturally?


Would it be correct to hypothesize that based on the First Law of Thermodynamics; a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy should not come into existence out of a state of nothingness through a natural process?  If not a natural process, it would have to be something beyond the natural.  Combine that with the Law of Cause and Effect; would it appear that whatever that first Cause was, it was not what would be considered a natural process? 

Factor in the Law of Inertia; and whatever that first Cause was, would it be correct in stating that it would have to be in the form of an external force or agent that acted upon that state of nothingness to bring something out of nothing?  How do we put this in the form of a hypothesis?

Observations Generate Hypotheses

It is extremely important to keep in mind that it is the observations that generate hypotheses. My hypothesis should be based solely on what is observed. The laws of science are well established observations. It is these observations that should be used in formulating my hypothesis from a purely scientific perspective.


If it was not a natural process that acted upon a state of nothingness and brought a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy into existence; then it would seem it would have to be something beyond a natural process.  Based on the known laws of science, should scientists consider a "supernatural" outside force or agent in regards to the origin of the universe?

Question for thought: 

Would it be appropriate to predict evidence of purpose and design in the world around us if a supernatural outside force or agent was involved in the beginning of our universe? Why or why not, scientifically?


Earth is just the right distance from both the sun and moon. We have just the right amount of gravity, air, atmosphere, thickness of the earth’s crust, etc. Was the earth brought into existence and formed for the purpose of being inhabited?


Isaiah 45:18 says:

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”


Should the extreme complexity of the human body be considered evidence for purpose and design? In testing our hypothesis should we predict that no such evidence should exist?

Drawing Conclusions 

An explosion from nothingness would seem to be in violation of the Law of Cause and Effect; the First Law of Thermodynamics; and the Law of Inertia.

 

The Law of Inertia would seem to require the existence of an external force or agent (God) that acted upon that state of nothingness to bring a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy into existence.


The First Law of Thermodynamics would seem to require something other than a natural cause to be responsible for the origin of the universe.


As for the Law of Cause and Effect, the effect would be the universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy coming into existence out of a state of nothingness.


What was the cause?

Some have asked: "If an external force or agent (God) brought this universe into existence, who created God?"


Is that a scientific question?  Does a Cause require another Cause?

If you are reading this document, you are probably are looking at this issue through one of two worldview investigative lenses.  Worldviews, as I have said before, are like wearing a pair of sunglasses.  Sometimes we have sunglasses on and forget we are wearing them.  If someone else might attempt to remove those sunglasses for us, we will probably react defensively.

 

Scientists and other folks react the same way regarding their worldviews.  I have a serious question for you.  Are you able to clearly separate your philosophical worldview from real scientific investigation and not be affected by it?


A supernatural view for the beginning of the universe is not only Biblical, but it lines up with the Laws of Science.


My desire is that at the very least, we would be honest sincere seekers of truth.  I hope we will develop a real passion for knowing the truth, not just the "truth" as we want to imagine it.