One of the most fundamental questions is, “Where did all this come from?” It is a question that science cannot answer, because science operates in the realm of space and time. Science may be able to explain, or theorize, the origins of the universe to a single point, commonly called the “Big Bang” but science cannot say what occurred before the singularity or where all that matter and energy came from in the first place. If it is posited to have come from another universe, then the same problem exists: where did that universe come from? There are several theories, including the infinite universe theory, for explaining where this universe came from. But again, they all suffer from the same inability to explain where all those came from as well.
All these naturalistic explanations still fail to reply to an argument for the existence of a creator-god developed by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, over 2,300 years ago: the Unmoved Mover. Every motion, Aristotle reasoned, has a cause and the one that caused that one has a cause and so on and so on. Eventually you come to a cause, or mover, that has no cause: the Unmoved Mover. If there is no unmoved mover, then the universe itself is eternal (called infinite regress).
Therefore, in terms of the observable universe, we have two options: an Unmoved Mover or an eternal universe. The problem of “where God came from,” is not solved with an eternal universe because then the problem is “where did the universe come from?”. In other words, you either have an eternal creator-god or an eternal universe.
This is a dilemma that science cannot solve. Even prominent agnostic astrophysicists like Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson would agree that both options are equally plausible. Yes, belief in a creator-god is considered plausible by these very popular agnostic scientists with massive YouTube followings.
From the two, I would argue, scientifically and philosophically, that belief in a creator-god makes more sense. There is, of course, another argument. Astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” I cannot deny that this is one way to solve the dilemma. But it leaves us in a universe with no purpose, meaning, or moral compass, as famous atheist Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Stanford biologist Robert Sapolsky takes this to its logical conclusion: determinism. Sapolsky argues that there is no such thing as free will, that “we are nothing more or less than the biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment.” In his two books Behave and Determined he argues that every choice we make is a result of circumstances outside of our control, our brains reacting to stimuli and body chemistry causing us to do certain things. The result of this, he argues, is that no one is responsible for their actions- either good ones or evil ones. Yes, for Sapolsky, the serial murderer or child rapist is not morally responsible. This is where a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe, an eternal universe, leads us. Therefore, choosing the creator-god explanation is more satisfying on a psychological and moral standpoint.
Yet I would still argue for the creator-god origin story from a scientific perspective. There are several aspects of the universe that are so finely tuned that if they were an infinitesimal smidge one way or the other, we wouldn’t be here. Stephen Hawking once wrote, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.” What can explain this fine tuning? Are we just extremely lucky? Even if the universe just kept expanding and collapsing on itself over and over for eternity, what are the odds that anything would ever exist but a hot seething mass? I doubt anyone can calculate such odds. But if an infinitely knowledgeable creator-God with infinite power and infinite being existed, we could easily explain how that fine tuning happened: this god created all the matter in the universe and put it into a space smaller than an atom, and then in one instant caused it to explode at the exact precise rate that would result in all the planets and stars we observe in the universe today. This is not to mention the fine tuning of the strong nuclear force, which if 1% weaker or 5% stronger life would not exist as we know it. Or the electromagnetic, gravitational, or weak nuclear forces if they were a fraction smaller or bigger we wouldn’t be here. Again, if our two options are an omniscient creator-god that is eternal vs. an eternal universe that just exists by chance, the one created by an omniscient, omnipotent being makes more sense to me.
But say we grant the existence of a stable universe, there are many other conditions for life on earth that seem to be finely tuned. Even if we can acknowledge that all of those just happened by blind luck (or our blind luck for being in the right universe out of the infinite number of them) we cannot explain where life comes from. To this point life has not been able to be created from scratch in a lab, but even if it did, wouldn’t that also prove an intelligent designer? The only way to prove the possibility of life forming from non-life without a creator, in this case a scientist prodding it along, would be to put the ingredients in a beaker and have them form into living and reproducing cells all on their own. That has not happened, and I would wager, will never happen.
When estimated, the amount of time for all the conditions of the universe we live in with life on this planet to be met by chance far exceeds the amount of time this universe has been in existence. This theory, called the “Rare Earth Hypothesis,” is advocated by many prominent scientists and philosophers, including the aforementioned Cox and Dawkins. In other words, there are many non-theist scientists who agree that the odds that we would exist are very, very small.
So how did we get here? Blind luck that results in no meaning, no purpose, no right, or wrong? Or an all-knowing creator-god that possesses all power (and thus matter) and exists outside of time?
I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth.