Is The Universe All There Is?

qFor many atheists, a major stumbling block is the belief – the insistence – that this universe is “all there is.”

Considering the likelihood of God’s existence from this starting point will often cause the atheist to engage in circular thinking, as evident in a challenge I received in response to a blog post: “For gods to be gods they have to be supernatural – agreed? For something to be supernatural it has to exist outside of the universe – agree? Since the universe IS everything, there is nothing outside, there is no ‘outside.’ Therefore nothing can be supernatural, which means that any being demonstrating the traits of a god is nothing more than a powerful evolved creature that lives in the same universe as we do, therefore is not a god and not deserving of worship. I’m on solid ground when I say no gods exist. Disagree? Prove they do.”

With just a bit of reflection, it is apparent that the skeptic has built his conclusion right into his premises. By defining the “universe’ to be “everything,” and “supernatural” as being “outside the universe,” the only possible conclusion is that there is no God. Restating the syllogism, the challenger is saying: To exist, a being must be within the universe. By definition, God is that being which is outside the universe. Therefore, God cannot exist.

The problem with the conclusion is not the logic employed but the accuracy of the premises involved. Why should we assume that the universe is everything, that there is nothing outside of it? The challenger presents no evidence to support his claim, nor does he provide an argument. He simply assumes that the universe is all that there is. This is very shaky ground upon which to build a belief system. When a Christian refers to the “universe” – at least an “old earth” believer – he is usually referring to the thing that popped into existence from “nothing” some 14 billion years ago. “Nothing” does not mean some prior void consisting of a vacuum, or consisting of some type of precursor particles; such things would be somethings. No, “nothing” means the absence of anything and, while difficult to comprehend, is what makes this universe so extraordinary.

The universe, as we know it, consists of length, width, depth and time. Physicists tells us that in the first fraction of a second, it also consisted of additional dimensions. There was a before to the universe – a point at which the universe did not yet exist – and there will be an after; otherwise the universe itself would be infinite and eternal, which science tells us it is not. But if time as we know it began with the Big Bang, then this “before” and “after” exist in a way in which our temporally based minds cannot fully comprehend. Since a “something” cannot come from “nothing,” this universe needs a source adequate to explain its presence. Intuitively we know that the source must be immensely powerful, given the size and grandeur of what we see, and immensely intelligent, given the precise mathematical order built into the laws of nature. This source must be artistic, for the universe contains incredible and exquisite beauty. But the source, while capable of entering this universe, must exist outside and apart from it; otherwise it would be part of the universe and itself in need of explanation.

The skeptic’s challenge is not unlike a person who examines a house he comes across. He sees that it is built to precise specifications, that it is functional and that its appearance demonstrates a symmetric elegance. Because he was not present when it was built, and because the present owners acknowledge that they did not build it, he concludes that it must always have existed, that there were no architects, no carpenters, no plumbers. No rational person would draw such a conclusion, because the existence of precisely built things requires a builder adequate to the task.

But, in holding his view, the atheist has abandoned rationality in order to arrive at the place he began.

Posted by Al Serrato  

Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Email

Tags: , ,

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


  1. John Moore says:

    It’s true the challenger simply assumes the universe is all that exists, but you also simply assume that “a ‘something’ cannot come from ‘nothing.'”

    The challenger would need to support his assumption, and you need to support yours.

    • Al says:

      I did. Nothing is the absence of anything. Common sense and reason lead to the same conclusion – the absence of anything cannot result in the spontaneous appearance of something. You may ask for “proof” but you don’t really need it, unless you wish to abandon rationality.

      • John Moore says:

        You meant “cannot result,” right? This is precisely what I’m questioning, because I think we can’t apply our common sense to the origin of the universe.

        It’s true our common sense suggests that everything that happens has a cause, but we just developed our common sense from living on Earth and dealing with non-microscopic things. The Big Bang and the quantum scale defy our common sense.

        The universe happened for no reason, from nothing! Why not?

        • Al says:

          Thanks for the correction – I did mean “cannot result.” I guess I disagree with you that common sense developed from living on Earth. I think reason is a tool that we use without ever being able to prove its reliability. It is simply part of the operating software of a normal human mind. Consequently, while I would concede the possibility that the universe created itself from nothing, I would find such a conclusion to be irrational and therefore unworthy of belief.

Leave a Reply