The Bible unhesitatingly declares that this world had a beginning through the Hebrew word ‘Bereshit (בראשית)’, meaning ‘In the beginning.’ It proclaims that there was a beginning of time, that space was formed, and that matter came into existence. Through this, the Bible informs us that God created something out of nothing (Ex nihilo).

A century ago, scientists did not agree with this biblical verse. At that time, the scientific mainstream claimed that the universe was static and eternal, and they ridiculed the Bible for speaking of a beginning to the world. They made such claims without any scientific basis, simply because they felt uncomfortable with the concept of the world having a beginning.

When Albert Einstein released his General Theory of Relativity, he discovered theoretically that the universe must be expanding. However, simply because he did not like that idea, he inserted a “cosmological constant” into his mathematical equations to force a model of a static universe.

Nevertheless, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître used those same equations to argue that the universe is expanding and is not eternal. About a decade later, through the discoveries of the Hubble telescope, evidence was found that stars are moving further away from each other—proving that the universe does indeed have a beginning.

Even then, many scientists refused to acknowledge a beginning for the universe. Fred Hoyle, who eventually turned toward theism later in life, continued to insist on a steady-state universe. In a 1959 survey by Scientific American regarding views on the age of the universe, two-thirds of American scientists still answered that the universe was eternal and had no beginning. [^1]

However, in 1965, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the controversy finally came to an end. Today, the mainstream cosmological view is that the universe had a beginning, and that time and space came into existence at that very moment.

How could the Bible have known this concept of a beginning—specifically the beginning of time as explained by the word ‘In the beginning’—long before it became the common knowledge we take for granted today?

The Universe That Began from Nothing (Ex Nihilo)

Scientists are observing an expanding universe. They believe that if we reverse the flow of time, this vast universe would converge into a single point, eventually leading back to a state of “nothingness.” Consequently, scientists are striving to explain how the universe could have emerged from this “nothing.” One of the most prominent scientists in this field is Lawrence Krauss.

Krauss, who is often cited alongside Richard Dawkins as a leading anti-religious scientist, authored the book A Universe from Nothing and travels extensively giving lectures on the subject. However, he—along with many other scientists—is passionately misleading the public.

Many of these scientists claim that “something” can arise from “nothing.” Yet, they have distorted the very definition of “nothing.” They begin their arguments by defining “nothing” as a state of quantum vacuum within a given space. However, in physics, a quantum vacuum is not “nothing.” [^2]

The “nothing” they speak of is actually a state where matter and antimatter exist in equal amounts. In other words, even though you and I exist, they claim it is a state of “nothing” as long as there is an equal amount of antimatter to counteract the matter that composes us. Thus, some scientists even suggest that the universe we live in today might simply be a very strange form of “nothing.” [^3]

This is an absurd claim. It is no different from someone claiming they possess “nothing” simply because they own a 1-million-dollar apartment but also have 1 million dollars in debt.

What Physicists Call “Nothing” is Not Nothing

Krauss’s claims have faced criticism even from fellow scientists. David Albert, for instance, remarked, “Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” [^4]

Dr. Krauss himself is aware of this fallacy. He admitted the reality of the scientific community’s stance by stating, “Nothing isn’t nothing anymore in physics.” [^5]

Their argument is based on the observation that when energy is converted into particles in a vacuum, they are always created in pairs (pair production) and destroyed in pairs (pair annihilation). Building on this, they claim that virtual particles were created by vacuum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, and then the universe was formed through the quantum tunneling effect.

While Lawrence Krauss and many other scientists argue that a universe could arise from a quantum vacuum through quantum tunneling, they cannot answer the more fundamental question: “How did the quantum vacuum itself come to exist?”

For example, Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV Theorem, claimed in an interview with Robert Kuhn that a universe could arise from “nothing” in a closed universe where the total energy is zero. [^6] He further asserts that this can be proven through mathematical formulas.

If the Laws of Physics Exist, It is Not “Nothing”

However, even the mathematical formulas Dr. Vilenkin speaks of cannot exist in a state of true “nothingness.” When Robert Kuhn asks him a follow-up question, “Do those laws of physics exist if there is no universe?” Vilenkin answers, “Yes.”

This leads us to a crucial realization. If the laws of physics or mathematical principles must exist for the universe to be created, then that state is not truly “nothing.” It means that even before the creation of space, time, and matter, there was an “Intelligent Governing Principle” or “Law” that preceded the universe.

As Dr. Vilenkin himself admits, even if the total energy of the universe is zero, the “laws” that allow the universe to manifest must exist beforehand. This inevitably points to the existence of a Transcendent Being who established those laws.

The Validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

In fact, when William Lane Craig, one of the world’s leading Christian apologists, is asked for the most definitive evidence for the existence of God, he presents the Kalam Cosmological Argument along with the fact that the universe began from nothing. [^8]

The argument is simple:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

First, the logic of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is simple yet perfect. It is a representative example of what we commonly call a syllogism. Therefore, no one objects to the logic itself; rather, we must examine whether the premises are valid.

Let us examine the first premise: Does everything that begins to exist have a cause? To put it another way, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, do you truly believe that the magician created that rabbit out of nothing? Once we reach a certain age, while we may find magic amazing, we wonder about the cause—how the magician managed to deceive us.

Even if someone believed the magician literally “created” the rabbit, there is still a cause for the rabbit’s existence: the magician is the cause. None of us has ever witnessed something appearing before us without any cause. It has never been proven scientifically, nor does it make sense common-sensically. Therefore, the first premise is both rational and valid.

Now, let us look at the second premise: Did the universe have a beginning? As explained earlier, even 100 years ago, mainstream science claimed the universe was eternal. However, based on various observational evidences, scientists now believe the universe had a beginning.

The BGV Theorem, developed by Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, proved that any universe which has been expanding on average throughout its history cannot have existed eternally into the past and must have had a beginning. [^9] Alan Guth, the founder of Inflation Theory, states in his paper through rational evidence that while the universe may be eternal into the future, it could not have been eternal in the past. [^10]

Therefore, the fact that the universe had a beginning is currently the most rational and scientific inference. This remains true even if one argues for a multiverse.

If that is the case, we logically arrive at the conclusion that the universe must have a cause.

In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth

Both the Bible and science agree that time had a beginning and that there was a point when this world began to exist. However, while the Bible asserts that God brought about that beginning “in the beginning,” science merely states that the cause remains a mystery.

Then, why must the cause of that beginning be God?

First, the cause of the universe cannot be contained within the universe itself. Therefore, it must transcend Time (“In the beginning”), Space (“the heavens”), and Matter (“the earth”), all of which began with the universe. In other words, the cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

Furthermore, if that cause had a beginning of its own, it would require yet another cause. Therefore, the ultimate cause must be an uncaused being, possessing the incredible wisdom and power to bring forth this vast and beautiful universe. And we call such a being “God.”

The Kalam Cosmological Argument may not, by itself, serve as definitive proof that the God of the Bible specifically created the world. However, at the very least, it refutes atheism and proves that it is far more rational to believe there is an omnipotent and benevolent Creator, whoever He may be.

If so, is there any scientific evidence that this world was not an accident of nature but was purposefully designed by a Creator?