by Tom Parsons

Created on: October 14, 2007

If you start with nothing, there is only one thing you can get. Nothing. Nothing will always produce nothing. Nothing comes nothing.

The so-called Big Bang theory of how the universe came to be has one major black hole in it that dooms it. It really does not answer the question that is being asked here. It does not explain how human beings got here or how the universe got here.

The scientific method we were all taught in high school fails to be a useful tool when examining the origins of the universe in general and of human life in particular. The scientific method involves observation and testing, neither of which can be done with the issues before us here. It is impossible to observe the beginnings of the universe, and it is equally impossible to demonstrate or repeat these origins in the laboratory.

Evolution can only go back so far; at some point it reaches a brick wall beyond which it cannot go. That brick wall forever stands between the processes of evolution and the origins of the universe. Evolution and the Big Bang theory can never explain how the original matter from which the universe is made came into existence. There are only two possibilities, and neither of them fit evolution, and neither of them are compatible with the scientific method.

One possibility is that matter always existed. There never was a time there was not material from which the universe evolved. The problem for the scientist here is that if matter is eternal, than matter is a kind of god. Nothing else in the universe is eternal, so if the elements that make up the universe - oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and so on - if these are eternal than they are more than mere material; they possess the quality of godhood in their eternal nature.

The other possibility is that the original material that formed the universe was created. If that is true, then the whole scientific community is at odds with truth, for science claims nothing was created. The concept of creation requires a Creator, whether that Creator is referred to as the author of intelligent design, or as God.

So, which of these possibilities does the scientist accept? Eternal matter? Or an eternal Creator. The answer is, neither. Nothing that is eternal in its existence is acceptable to the philosophy held by the majority of scientists today. The result is that the proponents of the Big Bang theory simply ignore the logical question concerning where the materials that exploded in the Big Bang came from.

I recently published a book. In one sense, my book evolved. It started ten years ago with an idea that I wrote and rewrote and rewrote and rewrote. The version that was published seven months ago bears little resemblance to the original manuscript in which I sketched out the concept of my book. My book evolved, that is, it changed over time.

But when I go back eleven years ago, nothing about my book existed, not even the concept. The ideas from which my book evolved were created by me, the book's author. The concept for my book did not always exist; it is not eternal. It has a beginning, a definite beginning, a time when I created the idea from which it developed.

The universe is changing, and has changed from its beginning. But if you go back far enough, you will find a beginning, a time when the materials of the universe did not exist, and then they did. And that requires a Creator.

Nothing comes from nothing. It can never be otherwise. It is not logical to attempt to trace the universe back to nothing. It makes much more sense to me to trace the universe, and human existence, for that matter, to God. Do we start with nothing? Or do we start with God?

Learn more about this author, Tom Parsons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.