No one believes in a God who does nothing,” G. K. Chesterton 

Something rather than nothing

It seems obvious to me that something, rather than nothing, created the universe. Proving it, however, is extremely difficult, if not impossible. It is called the teleological argument, or intelligent design argument, and it has a long history.

In Book VIII of his Physics, Aristotle argues that attempts to define a ‘before’ the universe began and ‘after’ the universe began require a first cause. He says that if this first cause can be found, then it is safe to conclude God exists. If a first cause cannot be found, he concluded that the universe must be eternal. Although many scientists today would argue there is no need to invoke a first cause, we now know the universe had a beginning and will likely end (although this isn’t certain). 

Cicero (c. 106 – c. 43 BC) reported the teleological argument in De Natura Deorum, Thomas Aquinas presented a teleological argument in Summa Theologica, and Isaac Newton, John Locke, and David Hume all argued similarly. Islamic philosophers Al-Farabi and Averroes also proposed that order and continual motion in the world is caused by God’s intellect.

In a bid to demonstrate that all things had been divinely made, 19th-century Anglican clergyman William Paley reasoned that if you found a fully functioning pocket watch on a beach, you wouldn’t assume it had made itself. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, scientist Richard Dawkins begged to differ, by showing us how organisms find their way to evolve without a divine clockmaker.

After he had written his Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin began to doubt Paley’s ideas due to some of the ‘cruelty’ he saw in the natural world, but he was still nevertheless “inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance:”

Political arguments

Fast forward more than a hundred and sixty years and the basic arguments haven’t changed much, even if the science has. Despite an avalanche of research that has revealed so many of the evolutionary mysteries of the natural world, there is still no shortage of belief in the idea that a Biblical, religious God made everything. The intelligent design, creationist movement in the United States is proof of that. They seek to undermine evolutionary theory in favour of an intelligent cause. Pretty much, the argument has centred around whether God created life on Earth or whether it evolved by itself. This is the dichotomy we are presented with: divine intervention or scientific natural selection.

A third way

But what if there was a third way? What if a Higher Being designed the universe in such a way that it grew and evolved to laws it had previously set out? What if evolution is God’s grand plan? After all, on Earth, we can see how closed ecosystems can sustain themselves without outside interference. David Latimer created a closed terrarium inside a 10-gallon bottle jar using compost and a spiderwort plant. It has survived sixty years and counting. With the right conditions and with the right chemistry, life can be left alone to thrive. 

Believing in a higher power does not necessarily require us to believe that creation myths, written without the hindsight of modern science, are literal. 

The knowledge we possess in modern times far exceeds that of ancient peoples, and we must place our trust in what our incredibly talented scientists tell us about the origins and nature of the universe. This does not mean we have to abandon our Bibles, only that we have to separate scientific knowledge from our spiritual beliefs. Beliefs are not facts after all. We must accept that scientists are best placed to advance our knowledge of the universe, and that theologians and philosophers are best placed to provide us with answers to the metaphysical, ontological, or existential questions that perplex us. This is what Stephen Jay Gould called non-overlapping magisteria. In this way, I can enjoy the parables of Jesus while watching Brian Cox’s latest documentary, and their ideologies will not clash. The problems come when religious zealots attempt to tell Brian his science is wrong, or when Brian tells us God does not exist. Stay in your lanes, guys. Stay in your lanes.

There will never be a watertight, teleological argument that a God, or Gods, made the universe, not least of all because I think it is beyond our understanding to know. And, scientists are never going to invoke a supernatural cause because it goes against the scientific method. However, I’ve never read any scientific proposition that makes me believe it made itself either. Universal quantum singularities, making universes pop into existence; multiverses; cyclical universes; they all seem to argue for creatio ex nihilo – getting a universe out of nothing. Well, as Parmenides said: nothing comes from nothing. In any case, most scientific theories just push the argument back one stage further into infinite regress, much like the ‘who made God’ argument does.

Show me the evidence

What do we know about the origins of the universe? Currently, it’s thought that a primordial ‘soup’ existed of super-dense, sub-atomic particles, from which an exponentially large inflation occurred (perhaps in two stages). The early universe materialised within a split second and was an incredibly sophisticated orchestration of forces, matter, and reactions, acting precisely in the right manner, at just the right time. It wasn’t a chaotic explosion. It was purposeful. Also, we know this ‘instant’ universe is almost unimaginably vast, so big we cannot see the edges of it, and we know it is highly organised, rather than random or haphazard. In fact, recently discovered galactic super-structures display signs of agency and function, and the whole thing behaves like a living slime mould. 

Why does the universe have such value?

We also know that, for whatever reason, the universe is built on positive matter rather than negative antimatter, when there’s no reason it should be. We know also that the universe has great value. It is a wonderful place. Here on Earth, positive emotions, feelings, and behaviours make us happy, while negative, aggressive, violent behaviours lead to unhappiness. This is not only true in human beings. While aggression does serve some evolutionary advantages, it is cooperation that seems to be most prevalent. Aggression in animals is largely centred around finding food, gathering resources, and sexual selection. 

Why is the universe such a beautiful place?

For me, we have to look at what we are left with: a universal paradox that can never be properly solved, only alluded to, and this in itself is a profound and beautiful answer. Ancient Chinese philosophers said it: the universal Tao is invisible, intangible, and beyond understanding. Rather than arguing among ourselves and tying ourselves in scientific or philosophical knots, there is one elegant and profound answer: God made it. Believing a God made everything is, for me, the most sensible solution to a problem we will never know the answer to. But believing in this God does not automatically necessitate Biblical belief. That is an optional extra.

To finally answer G.K. Chesterton’s point: “No one believes in a God who does nothing,” I would disagree. Creating a whole universe is hardly nothing. Knowing that everything has purpose, understanding that there is a divine plan, being sure that we are part of a greater creation, has such a powerful, enveloping, comforting, and reassuring feeling. It brings sense and meaning to the world around me. This God who ‘does nothing’ is my focus, my spiritual comfort, and my joy. I might not be able to prove He exists, but the world makes so much more sense when I believe He does. My God has made everything and is in everything. He speaks to me through the natural world; He is timeless, eternal, and benevolent because He has made a universe of wonderful stuff for us all to enjoy. God, rather than doing nothing, brings meaning to everything.