THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY SOMETHING UNCREATED.
The belief that the universe was created by something uncreated is compelling because it could offer a fundamental explanation for why anything exists at all. If everything were caused by something else, you run into the problem of infinite regress, and that doesn’t account for existence. An uncreated or necessary origin, provides a grounding that avoids infinite regress, explains the apparent beginning and contingency of the universe, and supports the idea that reality is a bit intelligible or quite intelligible rather than a brute fact. It also accounts for a clear beginning of the universe and the emergence of time itself. Philosophy has long argued that there must be an ultimate reality, and this framework provides a foundation for it. Under this, there are creator-based beliefs and non-creator-based beliefs
The universe arose from a metaphysical reality.
This view argues that the universe arose from a necessary reality or principle, such as abstract laws, logic, or a foundational metaphysical structure, rather than from a personal creator. But a major objection to this thought is that abstract laws, logic, or mathematical truths are descriptive rather than causal. Laws explain how things behave once they exist, but they do not seem capable of bringing anything into existence. An abstract principle cannot cause a concrete universe. Furthermore, laws of nature/physics presuppose a physical reality to operate on. If nothing exists, there is nothing for laws to act upon. This raises the question of how laws could exist or function before the universe itself came into existence.
Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through purely chemical processes. The first problem is that it presupposes that life can come out of non-life. I don’t know about you, but that’s where I get stuck, cause how can being come from non–being? That’s the kind of thing we can sufficiently call a miracle. To generate life from something infinitely different, such as nonlife, we must assume that in the deepest recesses of physical matter, imperceptible to our finite particular senses, life is already present in lifeless matter. Even if we accept that life came from non-life, abiogenesis does not explain why the universe is capable of supporting life at all. It also assumes that chemistry alone can account for the biological, which is not true, or rather, an oversimplification. Life cannot be reduced to chemistry alone: biological systems are characterized by higher levels of organization, information processing, regulation, and self-maintenance. Beyond the chemical and biological, it encompasses consciousness, morality, love, meaning, and other dimensions that purely chemical processes cannot account for, highlighting the profound gap between mere molecules and the fullness of living experience. Abiogenesis does not account for the laws of physics. It assumes that the universe already exists and that physical laws, such as thermodynamics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics, operate consistently. The existence of these laws, and their remarkable suitability for life, is itself another miracle. In short, abiogenesis may offer a framework for understanding the emergence of life within the universe, but it does not address the deeper questions of why or how the universe exists, why it is orderly, or why it is capable of sustaining life at all.
Big-bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the observable universe, stating that the universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago from an extremely hot, dense, and compact state, often described as a singularity. From this initial state, space itself expanded, carrying matter and energy with it, giving rise to the galaxies, stars, and cosmic structures we observe today. The Big Bang provides the cosmic stage: space, time, matter, and physical laws, (what abiogenesis can’t account for,) but it cannot explain the emergence of life or humans directly.
It predicts that the universe began from a singularity, a state in which matter, energy, and spacetime were compressed to infinite density and temperature. In such a state, quantities like density, curvature, and temperature reach infinity, which signals a breakdown in the mathematical framework of general relativity, the theory that normally describes the behaviour of gravity and the structure of spacetime. When the equations of physics produce infinities, they cease to provide meaningful or predictive descriptions, indicating that our current understanding of physics cannot fully describe the universe at that point. This creates a fundamental limitation: the Big Bang does not actually explain the universe’s ultimate origin, but only its evolution after the singularity. It also reveals that the universe is highly fine-tuned for the formation of stars, galaxies, and life. It seems almost miraculous, for even the slightest changes in the fundamental constants or initial conditions would have prevented the universe from being what it is. The Big Bang explains how the universe evolved, but not why there is something rather than nothing. It does not account for ultimate purpose, or the reason for existence. Any attempt to describe a “before the Big Bang” runs into conceptual problems, as time itself began with the expansion of space. It also does not explain why these laws exist or why they are capable of producing a stable, life-permitting universe. To address its shortcomings, the Big Bang theory is often paired with speculative models: Inflationary cosmology, to solve the horizon and flatness problems. Multiverse theories to explain fine-tuning. Quantum cosmology for the origin of the universe from vacuum fluctuations. While these are mathematically sophisticated, they lack direct empirical evidence, a strange situation for people who insist that everything must be empirically proven.
Evolution.
The theory of evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life, describing how simple organisms gradually evolve into more complex forms over millions of years. However, evolution does not explain the origin of life itself, because it presupposes that life already exists. Therefore, anyone who accepts evolution must also rely on another explanation for how life began. Broadly, there are two main approaches: one is abiogenesis, which proposes that life arose naturally from non-living matter, and the other is belief in a Creator or God as the source of life.
Even combining evolution with abiogenesis won’t fully explain the origin of the universe. To account for the universe’s beginning, many people add the Big Bang or another cosmological model out there to their worldview. Evolution describes process, not purpose. It explains survival and reproduction, but does not account for the philosophical or existential question of why life exists. It explains physical and behavioural traits but struggles to account for subjective experience, consciousness, self-awareness, and abstract reasoning, the qualities that make humans more than purely biological machines. Similarly, evolution can describe behaviours that promote survival, but it does not account for morality, which sometimes runs counter to mere survival. If life is only about survival, unethical actions can therefore be justified by their usefulness. Human history is also full of martyrs and endless acts of selflessness that defy simple evolutionary logic.
Evolution does well in explaining past adaptations, but predicting the precise future trajectory of species or the emergence of entirely novel biological structures is inherently uncertain. Some biological systems, like the eye, appear irreducibly complex, and therefore to say that it came to be through coordinated development of multiple interdependent parts, makes its gradual emergence seem extraordinarily improbable, almost miraculous.
Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution is the belief that God created life through the process of evolution. While this view attempts to solve the problem of life arising from non-life, it introduces significant philosophical and scientific tensions. Evolution explains life as developing over millions of years through natural, unguided processes, whereas creationism holds that life was intentionally created, often in a short timeframe. Combining these views creates logical strain because they rely on fundamentally different mechanisms and timelines, often resulting in cognitive dissonance.
Science depends on testable, natural explanations, while creationist claims invoke a supernatural cause that cannot be empirically tested. Integrating the two risks undermines scientific methodology. Evolution also relies on random mutation and natural selection, which conflicts with purposeful design by a creator: if evolution is guided, it is no longer truly random; if it is unguided, divine purpose becomes indistinguishable from chance.
Further contradictions arise concerning human uniqueness and origins. Evolution implies biological continuity with other animals, while creationism asserts special creation. A literal Adam and Eve conflict with population genetics, while a symbolic interpretation challenges doctrines such as original sin. Adding a predetermined goal to evolution changes it into something scientifically unrecognizable.
Theistic evolution also raises unresolved questions about morality, specifically, when and how moral responsibility emerged. When science and scripture disagree, one must be reinterpreted or subordinated, weakening its authority. As a result, theistic evolution often produces explanations that are neither fully scientific nor fully theological, or ones that lean on one side, or satisfying neither framework.
A Creator God.
Belief in a Creator God offers a unified explanation across several key areas: existence, by answering why there is something rather than nothing and avoiding infinite regress; the universe, by grounding its beginning, order, natural laws and laws of physics, time, and fine tuning; life, by explaining the origin of life without reducing it to non-life; mind, by accounting for consciousness, rationality, and our ability to know truth; morality, by grounding objective moral values, human dignity, and self-sacrifice; and meaning, by providing purpose, hope, and coherence to human existence. Together, these areas form a concise framework that explains not only how reality develops and how to exist but why it exists and matters at all.
Just as those who accept the Big Bang cannot ultimately explain why the singularity emerged at all, or what stands behind it, or whatever explanation is offered to explain what was behind it, belief in a Creator also reaches a stopping point in explanation. Creationists do not claim to explain who created God or what came before God, because God is understood as uncreated and eternal, not part of the chain of causes that will require explanation. At the deepest level, human understanding reaches its limits because we are finite.
In this sense, every worldview rests on what might be called a miracle. Naturalistic accounts accept the miracle of a universe emerging from an unexplained singularity and of life arising from non-life. Creationist accounts accept the miracle of creation itself. In the end, you don’t get to choose whether to believe a miracle or not; you only choose which miracle(s) to believe.
May Love Be Your Power
