Physics, Not God, Explains the Universe? | The Institute for Creation Research

Physics, Not God, Explains the Universe?

"With the laws of physics, you can get universes," said Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley, during a panel discussion at the June 23 SETICon 2 science and science fiction conference in Santa Clara, California.1 He argued that the universe could have begun as a result of a random "quantum mechanical fluctuation."1

Filippenko implies that we should not trust in God. "Instead, scientists say, we should trust the laws of physics."1 But many scientists suggest that the laws of physics lead to trust in God, not from it. Which is right?

Physicist Jake Hebert recently showed fatal flaws in this increasingly common "universe from nothing" argument, as described by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss in his 2012 book, A Universe from Nothing. In Hebert's Acts & Facts article, he first explained that the "argument hinges on the claim that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero," an extraordinarily unlikely sum.2 And since nobody but God knows the exact energy content of the entire universe, the claim is entirely unscientific.

Second, and more critically, quantum fluctuations are only known to occur within space that already exists. How would the first universe-generating fluctuation occur without space, and how could that space be there without a universe already in place? It appears that in order to make a universe this way, another universe must already exist. In that case, how did the first universe begin—or the one before that?

Hebert also noted logical problems. For example, the assertion that the universe came from nothing assumes pre-existence of the very laws of physics that can supposedly generate universes. Filippenko began to address this by saying, "The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?' And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"1

But instead of accepting his own argument for a "divine creator," Filippenko objected that one would still need to explain where that creator came from, and where the creator of that creator came from, and so on. This is a thin smokescreen, since the ultimate Creator of the laws of physics and/or the finite universe would of necessity not be finite. Only finite entities like universes or people require causes, because only they have beginnings. A "beginningless" or infinite Creator did not come from anything else since He always was and is.3

Filippenko and like-minded scientists ignore the necessity of pre-existing space for quantum fluctuations to occur, ignore logical problems in obtaining laws of physics from nothing, and ignore the nature of God, all in the name of justifying their faith that the universe could come from nothing. In reality, without an infinite Creator, not only would there be no laws of physics that point sinful people to his existence, but there would be no universe at all.4

References

  1. Wall, M. The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say. Space.com. Posted June 24, 2012, accessed June 29, 2012.
  2. Hebert, J. 2012. A Universe from Nothing? Acts & Facts. 41 (7): 11-13.
  3. Such a Creator would be identified as Jesus in Colossians 1; see esp. verses 15-17.
  4. Thomas, B. New Book Says Universe Came from Nothing. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 20, 2012, accessed July 2, 2012.

Image credit: NASA

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 11, 2012.

The Latest
NEWS
Stolen Chloroplasts Steal the Show
Amazing tiny chloroplasts found within equally incredible plant cells continue to reveal the detailed workmanship of the Creator who created plants...

NEWS
May 2026 Wallpaper
"that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God."  (Colossians...

NEWS
Reptile Evolution Ideas Are Challenged—Again
A small fossil reptile with strange and intricate skin outgrowths has been discovered that is forcing evolutionists to once again reexamine their understanding...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Stegosaurus
Hi, kids! We created a special Acts & Facts just for you! Have fun doing the activities while learning about the wonderful world God...

ACTS & FACTS
Adaptive Trait Variation Conferred by Engineered Genetic Diversity
Global environments are highly diverse and dynamic, offering many changes and adaptive challenges to creatures. However, DNA sequence variability engineered...

ACTS & FACTS
Canyonlands National Park: A Bird's-Eye View
Certain overlooks at Canyonlands National Park in eastern Utah make you wish you could soar overhead to see and explore more crannies and canyons. Visitors...

ACTS & FACTS
Criticizing a Perfectly Engineered Eye: Evolutionists Humiliate...
Updated and modified from Guliuzza, R. J. 2016. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Can’t See Eye Design. Acts & Facts. 45 (10): 16–18. Robert...

ACTS & FACTS
Casting Out Doubts: The Fruits of ICR Research
Do you remember the first time that you read about Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6)? I read it as a young person and remember feeling...

ACTS & FACTS
Seeing Eye-to-Eye
Like all biological structures, explaining the vertebrate eye—or any eye for that matter—is a challenge to neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis)....

APOLOGETICS
Essential Training: A New Series
I teamed up with friends from ICR and Eric Hovind of Creation Today for some campus outreach at two Dallas-area universities just a couple months ago....