The big question: How did the universe came to be?

Now, This is going to be my personal reflections on what I think about the creation of the universe. This reflection is going to be based on reason only, with no intention to appeal to the scripture or revelations. while doing so I will like to keep an open mind, as one writer rightly said, but not so open that my brain would fall out. In other words, the use of reasoning, logic and common sense is all that matter. This leaves rooms for sceptic altitude towards what I will be reflecting on.

It is undoubted that the universe is a marvel to behold. The sheer majesty of the universe are mind boggling. Saying the universe is an ever incomprehensible wonder is an understatement. Earth is the most luxurious place for life, it is known to be the only place to support life. The ingredient necessary for life to flourish can not only be found on earth but also in space. Without the sun to give its energy there will be no life. Without the oxygen, aside for respiration, there will be no ozone layer to protect life from the constant bombardment of the earths atmosphere by deadly cosmic rays. Without the rotation of the earth on its axis there will be no life. Without gravity, people would probably be flying off the surface of the earth into space. This same gravity that gave human a sense of right side up. In space where there is little or no gravity there is no right side up. There is no up or down, so to speak. I can go on and on to the point of almost infinite on the wonders of the universe.

For those that don't believe in an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe They are faced with an ever insurmountable problem about where matter, energy, time and space came from. For matter to be created, that means it was never in extistence, therefore what ever created matter must in it self not be matter. Same goes for time, space and energy. If they are created, that means they were never in existence before they where created, therefore, whatever created them must be outside of time and space. Some evolutionist might argue that they dont speak of the universe as being created rather it evolved. But regardless, there must be that first step. Who or what took that first step? The universe has been scientifically proven to have begun at a point in the past through the discovery of the "radiation after glow" and the "second law of thermodynamics".

There was this one time I was driving home from work in the evening. The receding sun was already on the horizon and was graciously splattering its rays through the golden cumulus clouds and on to the golden leaved trees. The scenery was just too pleasant to the eyes. I had to crave the indulgence of my friends in the car with me. After a few minuts drive, we got to the airport. Not that we are going to the airport, we were just driving through the airport when I noticed a distant plane making its way to the landing and pointed it out to my friends. On seeing the distant approaching plane, one of my friends asked me why do I look up to the skies almost all the time to the point of noticing a distant approaching plane even while driving. Well, I didnt know he noticed because I am really obessed with looking up to the skies not for anything less than wonderment.

Given my little knowledge about the universe, I am amazed and humbled by The sheer majesty of the universe. And its intricacies are mind boggling to say the least. The stars, planets, galaxies, matter, space, time, laws; everything working together to sustain the universe and sustain us humans. Each time I look up to the skies several questions come flooding to my mind. The most important and overbearing of all the questions is: How can all these come from "Nothing" with no purpose, just a random coincidence, without the help of an intelligent being?

There are several questions that can be asked when am intelligent being is taken out of the picture. And one such questions that gets me shaking is the realisation that the earth is hurtling around the sun at the speed of 67 thousand miles per hour with no one in control. Just stop reading and imagine the earth travelling at such an incredible speed around the sun with no one in control. And the sun happens to be 1.3million times the size of earth. The delicate part is that to maintain the earth's proximate location to the sun the force pulling the earth away from the sun must be exactly the same amount of the force of gravity pulling the earth to the sun. That means just one mistake, the earth could spiral out of control into the lonely, colder and darkest part of the universe where human civilization will be subjected to a farely slow and miserable cold death or worse still the earth could fall into the sun. And the effects will be like throwing a stone into a small lake. I said one mistake because nothing is certain when no one is in control. Any thing can happen at any given moment. But then scientists will say the laws of gravity and nature would not allow the earth to spiral out of control or fall into the sun. On this point, I have come to realise that the laws of nature or gravity are just extrapolations from the description and observations of how things are, and not how things must be. In other words, it is not the laws that makes earth orbit the sun, but rather, the laws are the observation of how the earth moves around the sun. But no one knows why.

Now, haven considered the debates and evidence for cosmic beginning and the theory of spontaneous generation of life as propagated by atheist and evolutionist, I would confidently say that for those who believe in these theories either do not have full understanding of the theory or are not willing to accept the alternative theory that the cosmos and everything in it, including life is created by God even if it is true. Coming from a moderate religious background, I was astonished the very first time I heard about these theories. That not only did time, space and matter was created by the cosmic big bang, that it was created from "nothing" or without any transcendent cause . That life as we know it originated from non life without the need for a creator.

This gave me sleepless night as I pondered it day and night. My curiosity peaked as I began to think about the ramifications of these assertions. How could the universe be created without a creator? How could life spontaneously come into existence from non life without the need for a creator. If the universe was created without a creator, how can this be? Did it create itself? Because according to the laws of nature matter can not create matter, energy can not create energy, neither can space and time create themselves. And to complicate things, matter, time and space are all bed mates. In order words, they are inextricable linked and intertwined. That means, one can not have matter for instance without space and time. If one has just matter without space, where would you put it. Or if you have matter and space without time, when will you put it. So matter, time and space are thought to have come into existence simultaneously. Of all these, thinking about space is the most troubling to me. I don't seem to get me head around a situation where there is no space. I can think about situation where there are no matter, or even time. But not space.

The question of how life could have started without the need for a creator is a very important one also. And as I continue to enquire further with open mind how these could be, I came to realised two kinds of false propogators. The first kind are the evolutionary biologist and scientists who are atheist. This kind of false propagators are desperately looking for alternative explanation of origins without the need for a transcendent first cause or creator at all cost even if it contravenes obivious facts. I will point out how this is evident in their descrption of the orign of the universe caused by "Nothing". The second kind of propagators are college students, university students and those who fall outside of these groups that either do not fully understand these theories or are equally desperate for an alternative explanations at all cost. For the sake of clarity, I will take each in turns. That is cosmic evolution, followed by biological evolution.

THE COSMIC EVOLUTION
I am going to begin with the cosmic evolution. This is because cosmic evolution is the first in the line of the evolutionary theories. Followed by biological evolution. I will like to point out that they do not follow in that order, it is just the order i wish to discuss them.

It is imperative at juncture that i point out false dichotomous views regarding religion, science and atheist. It is very obvious that religion is not science, Neither is atheism. Science is science thats if i can put it that way. Science is neutral, and can be used by anyone to prove or disprove material or physical things. Atheist can use science to prove a point, same goes for religious people. And there are limitations to what science can prove. Like the existence of God, science can neither prove nor disprove it. It is often said that the God question is beyond the realms of science.

It goes without saying that the most problematic explanation of the cosmos and subsequently life, is the explanation of the first cause. Of course, as for the cosmos, this explanation must be such that has nothing to with matter, energy, space, time or physical and naturally occurring things, the universe.
At this point, one of the the most important question to ask is; what is a universe? Some define the universe as all of observable reality, all that can be seen and detected. All of nature, everything natural.

When it comes to the universe, only one of the following is true.
Either the universe created itself, or
it is uncreated or
it was created by a transcendent being.

It can only be one of the above. But since we now know not only through the discovery of the "radiation after glow" and "the red shift" that the universe was created at a particular time in the past, the question and option of the universe being uncreated goes out the window faster than it was suggested. so with the universe being uncreated out of the way, we will now be left with only just two possibilities. So, either the universe was created by a transcendent being or it created itself. It can only be one of the above.

Now, lets consider the possibility of the universe creating itself. I will like to remind the readers that at this point or before the universe came into being there was "nothing", no matter, no laws of nature, no energy, no time, no space. Or according to one famous astrophysicist, "no nothing" ( of course, thats a grammatical blunder). I understand that when it comes to the issues of contemplating and assesing the ramifications of theories pertaining to creation, and the first cause, ones way of expressions begins to deteriorate. Words cannot be adequately put to good use. Back to the point. It goes without saying that the question of the universe creating itself literally makes no logic sense because we can't possibly conceive how this could have happened when nothing existed. For "all things" all of nature, all laws" was created when the universe was created. So if "everything" was created during or subsequently after the big bang, the big question now will be with what did the universe created itself? Because prior to the universe coming into existence, nothing existed. Not only do scientists believe that nothing existed prior to the big bang, they believe if something existed before the big bang it must be unnatural, must not have any physical or material property . This is because everything natural was created during the big bang. So therefore, there is no possible naturalistic explanations of the origins of the universe. This is the single most reason why honest scientists will say they don't know what caused the big bang.

I aware of some scientists theorising that laws of quantum mechanics might be what created the universe. Now for the laws of quantum mechanics to be able to create the universe, it must first not be in the universe it sorts to create. In other words the laws will transcend the universe and be outside the universe. I should bring to our attention that there is no way we could be able to know what existed before the big bang, not even the laws of quantum mechanics. So for those scientist that believe in this law, how is this different from someone who believe there is an intelligent mind before the universe was created? Since atheist and evolutionist liked someone's who believe in an intelligent mind (God) as hallucination, or as a delusion, as Richard Dawkin often potray, trying to convince anyone that the universe might or is created by the laws of quantum mechanics is like curing someone that believed in a creator God from delusion and hallucination just to give him/her a different set of delusional or hallucinogenic pills to continue on the path of delusion.

But for the sake of clarity, Lets just entertain the idea that the universe really created itself. The options at this point is that, the universe will either created itself from something thats already in existence or it created itself out of something that is not in existence (does that sound weird to your ears). It can only be one of the above, anyone that has a third option should please let me know. But before we consider any of the two possibilities, I will like to make something clear. The words "created itself" presupposes a kind of consciousness of the universe. If the universe created itself, did it do it knowing what it was doing? Scientist have made it clear that the universe was not self aware so if it created itself it must be through a freak accident. For all intent and purpose, the universe might not even know it is existing.

Lets consider the first option. If the universe really created itself from something thats already in existence, it will make logical sense to abandon the question of how the universe was created, to the question of how the thing that created the universe was created. Suppose still that this thing that created our universe was yet created by another thing, it will make logical sense to abandon the question of how the thing that created our universe was created to the question of how the thing that created the thing that created our universe was created. While we will keep going in this direction, someone mighty actually go mad, another mighty suggest that we skip to the first cause in these line of causes. If we can establish this first cause, thats all that matters. Then it will make sense to abandon the series of causes for the scientists to study and understand. If you read to this point you might have notice that I left out that the first cause must in itself be uncaused or esle we will keep going on for infinite. I left this out deliberately so I won't be accused of assuming purpose, or knowing an answer before asking a question. And that the first cause is God.

The second option in the universe creating itself, was that it created itself from something that is not in existence (in other words "created itself from nothing". As for me, honestly, I wouldn't give this a second thought before discarding it. But I will demonstrate with logic and reason that some desperate alternatives looking atheists and evolutionists in the likes of physicist Lawrences Krauss and the famous British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins are actually entertaining this idea. That the universe created itself from "nothing". The question that comes to mind according to a famous philosopher Gottfried Leibniz is that "Why would there want to be something out of nothing" For we know out of nothing, nothing comes. Unless it is not "nothing" in the sense of how we use the word.

After reading Lawrence Krauss book "a universe from nothing" even an slowpoke would be able to tell that what lawrence is referring as "nothing" is not "nothing, but a deliberate equivocation with intent to misslead gullible individuals. At one point, he would say that it is likely given what we know, that the universe is created by (or from) nothing through the laws of nature. At this point, understanding english language to the letters becomes very imperative. The word "by" and "from", assumes there be something through which the universe is created and this something is called "nothing". This is very clear in lawrence's description of the nothing that created the universe when he said this nothing is "unstable", and is the absence of something. I think we should be reminded that the word "nothing" in english is a universal negation, meaning "not anything" and should not be used to mean "somthing". Not to mention, Lawrence krauss is an america, his first language or mother tongue is english. One might begin to wander why he has decided to use English language in this manner. I have come to realise that there are two reasons why he might want to use English Language in this manner.

The first is that he may be attempting to solve the unsolvable problem regarding question of the first cause without the need for a transcendent being, through bait and switch. For example, if you are told the universe was created by ( or from) something, the next question would be how or what created that something? We can keep regressing the prior causes for infinite which does not make any sense. But If you are told that the universe was created by (or from) nothing, and knowing what nothing generally mean in english language you would not go ahead to asked how this "nothing" is created, that would now be a stupid question. The second reason is that he is trying to be the charles dawin of cosmology, of the origin of the universe.

Therefore to summarise the above points; for the issues of the universe creating itself. We know nothing existed before the universe was created. So therefore, technically there should be nothing for the universe to created itself with . Scientists understand this. Thats one of the reasons why Lawrence Krauss twisted the meaning of "nothing" to mean the absence of something in order to show that the universe was created from nothing. This is because the universe logically should be created from "nothing" if truly nothing existed prior to its creation. This is one area that gave credit to creationists (people that believe in a creator God who created the universe from nothing). For a beginner all these might sound really confusing and senseless. And I wound say it sounds senseless because it is really senseless.

According to creationists and the bible, the universe was created ex nihilo (from absolutely nothing) by divine command from creator God. In the book of genesis which is contained in the Torah( the first five books of the old testament written over two thousand years ago) we are meant to understand that God created the universe from absolutely nothing. At first, evolutionist and Atheist never believed the universe was created from nothing, they believed in a static and uncreated universe. According to them the universe was eternal and therefore no need for a creator God. But with the advancement of science since its inception over five hundred years ago, we now know that the universe was created at a particular time in the past through the big bang. As a result all scientific effort was geared towards finding what caused this big bang. At the end, it was believed that whatever caused the big bang is unnatural as already explained above. Because prior to the big bang, nothing existed. So therefore, the universe has to be created from nothing. This is exactly what the bible ( written over two thousand years ago) said in the beginning, that a creator God created the universe ex nihilo ( from absolutely nothing). At the moment, given the overwhelming evidence evolutionist and Atheist had to believe that the universe was created ex nihilo, but reject the idea that it was created by a creator God. But rather believe that it was created by nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics. And one of those militant atheist is Lawrence Krauss as portrayed in his book "a universe from nothing, why there is something rather than nothing".

In conclusion, I would say that it is much more rational and logical to believe that there is an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe that existence prior to the universe than to believe in quantum fluctuation that may or may not exist. On the origin of life, I will be addressing that in my next article.