In the beginning, nothing created everything that is out of nothing!

There are basically three philosophical possibilities for origins. Firstly there is the possibility that the universe always existed. In spite of the fact that this contradicts the theory of relativity, many Scientists held this view even as recently as the 1960's (it was called the steady state theory). Even Einstein believed this until the red shift observed in the spectrum of light emitted from distant stars confirmed the expanding universe. As far as I know nobody holds this view today.

The second possibility is that something outside the Universe and independent of it (God, god, gods, the force etc.) created everything that is out of nothing. The third possibility is the naturalistic explanation, the view that the observable universe is all there is. The claim by those who hold this third view is that this is the most logical of the three positions. But is it?

There are many who affirm that evolution has given us a perfectly valid explanation of it all. Now I am not writing today to debate evolution (but see “Not invested in the truth or falsity of evolution” November 2012), however it is simply not true that evolution explains it all. Even if you hold that the evolution of all things evolved from a single cell, you still have to ask where the single cell came from. In an interview Richard Dawkins, the well known evangelical (in his zeal) proponent of this view, was asked what evidence he had for his belief that only natural explanations of the universe are valid. He had to admit that he had none. So he and others who hold this view hold it by faith. And in terms of origins, their faith statement boils down to “In the beginning, nothing created everything that is out of nothing!” Is this really more logical than the theistic view?