Summary of the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that look at the universe and ask: Why does it exist? What caused it? When we trace causes backward, we eventually need a first cause that wasn’t caused by anything else — and many philosophers identify this first cause as God. This argument has been refined over centuries by thinkers from all three great monotheistic religions and connects with scientific discoveries about how our universe began.

What Is the Cosmological Argument?

The cosmological argument is a family of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God’s existence. One version of the argument looks at the existence of the universe and asks, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer, according to this argument, points to a necessary Being — one that exists by its own nature and couldn’t fail to exist — which this argument identifies as God.

The word “cosmological” comes from the Greek word kosmos, which means “world” or “universe.” So the cosmological argument is an argument about the origin and existence of the universe. This version is sometimes called the “first cause argument” or the “argument from contingency.”

Here’s the basic flow of the cosmological argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
4. This explanation can’t be the universe itself or anything within the universe.
5. Therefore, the explanation must be something beyond the universe — an uncaused cause, which many identify as God.

Who Constructed the Cosmological Argument?

The family of cosmological arguments has a rich history stretching back thousands of years. They weren’t invented by a single person but developed through the contributions of many minds across different cultures and time periods.

The earliest forms of the argument appear in the works of Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece (around the fourth century BC). Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover — a being that causes movement while itself remaining unmoved — laid groundwork for later versions of the cosmological argument.

The argument took a more familiar shape in the medieval period, particularly in the Islamic world. Muslim philosophers and theologians like Al-Kindi (ninth century) and Al-Ghazali (eleventh century) developed sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument that influenced later Western thinkers.

Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) presented five “ways” to prove God’s existence in his masterwork Summa Theologica. Three of these ways are versions of the cosmological argument:

• The argument from motion
• The argument from causation
• The argument from contingency

Later, the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (seventeenth to eighteenth century) developed another version focused on the “principle of sufficient reason” — the idea that everything must have an explanation.

In the twentieth century, philosopher William Lane Craig revived and reformulated the Kalam cosmological argument, drawing on both medieval Islamic philosophy and modern scientific discoveries about the beginning of the universe.

So, the cosmological argument has matured over millennia, with each subsequent person refining and adapting it based on the philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. The core idea has proved remarkably durable — spanning cultures, religions, and centuries while remaining recognizable.

What Are the Key Components of Cosmological Arguments?

The cosmological arguments have several common elements that form their foundation. Let’s break down these key components to better understand how the arguments work.

Cause & Effect (aka Causation)

At the heart of many cosmological arguments is the principle of causation — the idea that things don’t just happen or come into being without a cause. If you hear a noise in your kitchen, you assume something caused it.

The causation version of the cosmological argument applies this principle to the universe itself:

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

This cause-and-effect relationship is essential to how we understand the world around us. Science itself depends on the reliability of cause and effect. When cosmological arguments apply this principle to the universe as a whole, they lead us to consider what might have caused everything we see.

Dependence (aka Contingency)

Another key component of cosmological arguments focuses on contingency — the idea that things in our universe don’t have to exist; they depend on other things for their existence.

Think about yourself. You exist because your parents existed, who existed because their parents existed, and so on. You’re contingent — your existence depends on many factors outside yourself. The same applies to everything in the universe — trees, planets, stars, galaxies.

The contingency version of the cosmological argument reasons:

1. Everything in the universe is contingent (dependent on something else).
2. A chain of contingent things cannot explain itself.
3. Therefore, there must be a necessary being (not contingent) that explains everything else.

This necessary being would exist by its own nature rather than depending on anything else — a concept that aligns with traditional notions of God.

Infinite Regression

Some cosmological arguments — particularly the Kalam version — deal with the problem of infinite regression: the idea of an endless chain of causes stretching back forever with no beginning.

Is it possible to have an infinite chain of physical causes with no first cause? Many philosophers argue this is problematic. Here’s why:

1. If the past were actually infinite, an infinite number of events would have to have occurred before reaching the present moment.
2. But you can’t complete an infinite series by adding one event after another — you’d never reach the end.
3. Since we have arrived at the present, the past cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore, there must be a beginning — a first cause that isn’t itself caused by anything else.

Sufficient Reason

Some versions of the cosmological argument (particularly Leibniz’s) employ the principle of sufficient reason — the idea that everything must have an adequate explanation or sufficient reason for why it exists and why it is the way it is.

According to this principle:

1. Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The sufficient reason for the universe’s existence cannot be found within the universe itself (because the universe and everything in it is contingent — it could have not existed).
4. Therefore, the sufficient reason must be outside the universe.

This component asks us to consider what would constitute a sufficient explanation for the existence of everything.

Necessity and Contingency

The distinction between necessary and contingent beings is central to the cosmological argument:

• A necessary being exists by its own nature and cannot not exist.
• A contingent being could have not existed and depends on something else for its existence (like you or the physical universe).

Cosmological arguments often conclude that a necessary being must exist to explain the existence of all contingent beings — providing the ultimate foundation for everything else.

These components work together in various combinations to form different versions of the cosmological argument, each emphasizing different aspects of the relationship between God and the universe. What they share is the conviction that the existence of the universe points beyond itself to a transcendent cause — one that exists beyond and independent of the physical universe.

Cosmological Arguments

Now that we understand the key components, let’s explore some of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument throughout history. These different approaches all aim to demonstrate God’s existence based on the reality of the universe, but they take different routes to get there.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam cosmological argument is one of the most discussed versions in contemporary philosophy. The word Kalam comes from Islamic philosophy and refers to a tradition of defending theological positions through structured argument and counterargument that flourished in the medieval Islamic world. This argument was developed by Muslim philosophers like Al-Ghazali and has been revived in recent decades by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The Kalam cosmological argument is simple:

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

What makes this version distinctive is its focus on the universe having a beginning. The argument draws on two lines of support for the premise that the universe began to exist.

The first is historical and philosophical. Some philosophers have argued that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. If the universe never began, an infinite number of events would have already elapsed before today — and many thinkers argue that’s not possible in a world where events happen one after another in sequence. This line of reasoning goes back centuries, but it remains debated. (We’ll return to this in the objections section below.)

The second line of support — and the one we at Reasons to Believe find decisive — is scientific. Modern cosmology converges on a clear conclusion: our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Evidence from cosmic expansion, background radiation (the faint afterglow of the Big Bang still detectable today), and the laws of thermodynamics all point to a definite beginning. Because things that begin to exist require a cause, this scientific evidence gives the Kalam argument its most compelling support — grounded in what we can observe and measure.

Aristotle: Cosmological Argument

Aristotle’s version of the cosmological argument is one of the earliest and focuses on motion or change. He observed that everything in the universe is in motion or undergoing change, and he reasoned that all motion must be caused by something else.

His argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Everything in motion is moved by something else.
2. This chain of movers cannot go back infinitely.
3. Therefore, there must be a first mover (what he called the unmoved mover) that causes motion without itself being moved.

Aristotle’s unmoved mover isn’t exactly the personal God of Christianity — it’s more like a perfect, unchanging being that other things are drawn toward. Still, his reasoning laid groundwork for later arguments for God’s existence.

Aristotle wasn’t trying to prove God in a religious sense. He was simply following the logic of causation to its ultimate conclusion — that there must be something that initiates change without itself changing.

Thomas Aquinas: Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas developed five “ways” to demonstrate God’s existence. Three of these are versions of the cosmological argument:

Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, showing how reason could support faith. Unlike modern versions that often rely on scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning, Aquinas’s arguments work even if the universe were eternal — they focus on the dependent and contingent nature of everything in the universe rather than its origin in time.

Leibniz: Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who co-invented calculus, developed a version of the cosmological argument based on what he called the principle of sufficient reason.

This principle states that everything must have a sufficient or adequate reason or explanation for why it exists and why it is the way it is. Leibniz’s argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.

Like Aquinas, Leibniz distinguished between contingent beings (like us), which depend on something else and could have not existed, and necessary beings, which exist by their own nature and couldn’t possibly not exist.

For Leibniz, the entire universe — even if it were eternal — requires an explanation. Since nothing within the universe can explain the universe itself (that would be an inadequate reason, since it too would need explaining), he reasoned that a sufficient explanation must be a necessary being outside the universe.

What distinguishes Leibniz’s version is its scope. It doesn’t just ask why things began but why they exist at all. Even if the universe had always existed, Leibniz would still ask: Why does anything exist rather than nothing? The answer, he concluded, must be found in a necessary being — one that doesn’t just happen to exist but that could not fail to exist.

Each of these versions of the cosmological argument — Kalam, Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Leibnizian — approaches the question of God’s existence from a slightly different angle. And when their insights are taken together, a striking picture emerges: the universe points compellingly to a transcendent source, the one Christianity identifies as God.

Arguments Against the Cosmological Argument & Responses

No philosophical argument is without its critics, and the cosmological argument has faced many thoughtful objections over the centuries. Let’s explore some of the strongest challenges to the argument and how proponents respond to them.

Argument: “There’s no evidence of an ‘uncaused cause’ or God.”

Some critics argue that we’ve never observed anything that’s truly “uncaused,” so proposing God as an uncaused cause amounts to special pleading — granting God an exemption that nothing else gets.

Response: There actually is evidence for an uncaused cause when we look at the universe itself. By the weight of the evidence, modern cosmology converges on a universe with a beginning. That means something had to cause it. But that cause couldn’t be part of space, time, energy, or matter — it had to exist beyond them. The best explanation is a Creator who is powerful, transcendent, eternal, and personal to bring the universe into existence without needing a cause himself.

The cosmological argument doesn’t arbitrarily exempt God from needing a cause. The key principle is this: whatever begins to exist needs a cause. God, by definition, is eternal — he never began to exist. So he doesn’t need a cause, not because we’re making an exception, but because he doesn’t fall into the category of things that require causes in the first place.

Argument: “If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?”

This is perhaps the most common objection to the cosmological argument. If everything needs a cause, and God exists, then God must need a cause too — leading to an infinite regress of causes.

Response: This objection misunderstands the premise of the argument. The cosmological argument doesn’t claim that “everything needs a cause;” it claims that “everything that begins to exist needs a cause” or “everything contingent needs a cause why it exists.”

God, as conceived in historic Christian theology, doesn’t begin to exist — he is eternal. He isn’t contingent but necessary — his existence depends on nothing else.

Argument: “The universe could be self-caused or eternal.”

Some critics suggest that the universe might not need an external cause — perhaps it’s eternal or somehow caused itself.

Response: The scientific evidence is clear that our universe isn’t eternal but began about 13.8 billion years ago. The expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics — which says that usable energy in a closed system always decreases over time — all point to a definite beginning.

As for the universe causing itself in the ordinary sense, this leads to a logical contradiction — something would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.

While some propose models like quantum fluctuations to explain how the universe might emerge from “nothing,” these models don’t start with nothing in the way we’d normally mean the word. They start with quantum fields, physical laws, and spacetime structures already in place. That’s not nothing — that’s a rich physical environment that itself needs explaining.

The real question isn’t how the universe emerged from some pre-existing physical state. It’s why that physical state exists in the first place. Quantum fluctuation models don’t answer that.

Argument: “The mathematical basis of the original Kalam argument (no infinities) was removed by Cantor.”

In the late nineteenth century, mathematician Georg Cantor developed set theory, which demonstrates that infinite sets are mathematically coherent. Some argue this undermines the Kalam argument’s claim that an infinite past is impossible.

Response: This is a genuine area of ongoing debate. Cantor showed that infinities work in mathematics — no serious philosopher disputes that. The question is whether a physically real infinite series of past events is possible, and here opinions differ.

Some philosophers maintain that an actual infinite in the physical world leads to conclusions that don’t make sense — like completing a task that by definition can never be completed — even if the math is sound. Others find these objections unpersuasive. Anyone advancing the infinity form of the Kalam argument should be aware that this remains contested ground.

That said, the modern Kalam argument does not depend on the infinity question alone. At Reasons to Believe, we emphasize the scientific evidence — the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, background radiation, and thermodynamic constraints — all of which point to a universe with a definite beginning. This scientific case for the universe’s origin stands on its own, independent of whether actual infinities are possible.

Argument: “The first cause might not be God as traditionally understood.”

Some critics grant that there might be a first cause but argue that it needn’t have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God (intelligence, consciousness, goodness, etc.).

Response: While the basic cosmological argument establishes a first cause, further analysis of what properties this cause must possess points strongly toward the God described in Scripture.

Since the cause created space and time, it must transcend the physical universe — existing independently of the dimensions it brought into being. Since it created matter and energy, it must be immaterial and possess tremendous power. And since it produced a universe governed by rational laws and capable of supporting conscious life, intelligence is a reasonable inference.

Furthermore, the cause must be personal — a free agent capable of choice. Here’s why: an impersonal force can’t decide to do something. If an impersonal cause had existed forever, its effect — the universe — would also have existed forever. But the universe hasn’t existed forever; it had a beginning. That beginning implies a choice, a decision to create. And decisions require a personal being — someone with a will, not merely a force.

Argument: “Quantum physics shows that things can happen without causes.”

Some critics point to phenomena in quantum physics — like virtual particles appearing to pop into existence from nothing or the apparent randomness in quantum events — as evidence against the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Response: Quantum events aren’t truly uncaused. They happen within an environment that already exists — quantum fields, physical laws, and energy. That environment isn’t “nothing.” It’s a rich physical structure, and the events couldn’t happen without it.

As philosopher William Lane Craig has pointed out, the fact that quantum outcomes are unpredictable doesn’t mean they’re uncaused. Think of it this way: a coin flip is unpredictable, but it still has causes — someone flips the coin, gravity pulls it down, it bounces off a surface. In the same way, quantum events have real conditions that must be in place for them to occur, even if we can’t predict the exact outcome. Unpredictable isn’t the same as uncaused.

God Is the Uncaused Cause

Now that we’ve explored various versions of the cosmological argument and addressed key objections, let’s consider why many philosophers and theologians identify the uncaused cause with God.

The cosmological argument leads us to a being with remarkable attributes that align with the God described in Scripture.

Beyond Space and Time

The cause of the universe must transcend physical space and time since it brought space and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, there was no “before” in the way we normally think of time — time itself began with the universe. The cause must therefore exist outside the space and time dimensions of this universe, either timelessly or in a divine time independent of cosmic time.

This aligns with the biblical description of God as eternal: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).

Immensely Powerful

Creating an entire universe from nothing would require power beyond our comprehension. The cause must possess sufficient power to bring all matter, energy, space, and time into existence.

The cosmological argument thus points to an all-powerful or omnipotent being, consistent with God’s description in Scripture. “Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17).

Immaterial

Since the cause created all matter, it cannot itself be material — it must be immaterial or spiritual in nature. This aligns with the understanding of God as spirit. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Necessary Rather Than Contingent

The uncaused cause must exist by necessity of its own nature rather than contingently depending on anything else. If it were contingent, it would require its own originating and sustaining cause, leading back to the problem of infinite regress.

This necessity aligns with the God revealed in Scripture, who identifies himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14) — a statement of God’s self-existence and independence from anything else.

Personal Rather Than Impersonal

For an eternal cause existing independently of cosmic time to produce an effect in time (the beginning of the universe), this cause must involve a personal choice. The cause freely chose to create, implying will and agency — characteristics of a personal being, not an impersonal force.

Intelligence and Rationality

The universe displays a remarkable degree of order and mathematical structure. This points to a cause possessing not only creative power but intelligence — one capable of producing a cosmos governed by precise physical laws.

The book of Proverbs reflects this understanding: “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place” (Proverbs 3:19).

The Cosmological Argument Points to a Creator

When we put these attributes together — transcendence, power, immateriality, necessity, personality, and intelligence — we find attributes that match the God of Scripture, and that thinkers across Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have recognized for centuries.

The cosmological argument doesn’t just lead us to some abstract force or principle but to a being with the core attributes traditionally ascribed to God. While it alone doesn’t establish all aspects of Christian theology (like the Trinity), it is a powerful case for the Christian understanding of God as Creator.

As the apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). The cosmological argument is one way these invisible qualities become “clearly seen” — through careful reasoning about why the universe exists at all.

Cosmological Argument — Summary

We’ve covered a lot of ground exploring the cosmological argument, so let’s take a step back and summarize the key points.

The cosmological argument is a family of philosophical arguments that reason from the existence of the universe to the existence of God as its cause or explanation. At its core, it recognizes that the universe requires an explanation beyond itself.

While there are several versions of the argument, they all share a common structure:

1. The universe exists and has certain features (it began to exist, is contingent, undergoes change, etc.).
2. These features require an explanation outside the universe itself.
3. This explanation has attributes that align with the traditional concept of God.

The major versions we explored include:

• The Kalam cosmological argument, which focuses on the universe’s beginning
• Aristotle’s argument from motion to an unmoved mover
• Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, three of which are versions of the cosmological argument
• Leibniz’s argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason

Each approach takes a slightly different angle, but they all point to a transcendent cause with attributes like necessity, eternal existence, immateriality, power, intelligence, and personal agency — attributes traditionally associated with God.

Critics have raised thoughtful objections to the cosmological argument, such as whether everything really needs an explanation, whether causal reasoning applies to the universe as a whole, whether it’s fair to stop with a necessary being instead of a “brute fact,” and whether the argument stretches causation beyond its proper bounds. Still, many philosophers have offered careful replies that keep the argument compelling.

What makes the cosmological argument compelling is its basis in principles that seem fundamental to human reasoning — that things don’t come from nothing, that contingent things require explanation, and that chains of dependence can’t go on forever. These principles aren’t philosophical abstractions but reflect how we naturally understand reality.

While the cosmological argument doesn’t prove every aspect of the Christian conception of God, it provides a rational foundation for belief in a Creator who transcends the universe — a foundation that complements other philosophical arguments, divine revelation in Scripture, and the decisive scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

As we reflect on the vast, intricate universe around us, the cosmological argument invites us to see it not as a brute fact without explanation but as the creation of a necessary, personal, and powerful being — the God whom Christians worship and Scripture reveals as Creator.

FAQ: Quick Answers

What’s the difference between the Thomistic and Kalam cosmological arguments for the existence of God?

The main difference between the Thomistic and the Kalam cosmological arguments lies in their focus on a particular feature or aspect of the universe (contingent vs. finite and has a beginning).

Aquinas’s versions (like his Five Ways) focus on the current existence and contingency of the universe, not necessarily its beginning in time. His arguments would work even if the universe were eternal — he’s concerned with what sustains existence here and now.

The Kalam cosmological argument, on the other hand, specifically argues that the universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause for that beginning. It relies heavily on the impossibility of an infinite physical past and/or scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

In simple terms, Aquinas’s argument asks “Why does the universe exist right now?”, while the Kalam asks “What caused the universe to start existing?”

What Is an Argument from Cause?

An argument from cause is a type of cosmological argument that focuses specifically on causal relationships — the idea that effects require causes. It reasons that:

1. Every effect must have a cause.
2. The universe is an effect (it began to exist).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside itself.

The argument from cause emphasizes that causes precede their effects and must be sufficient to produce their effects. Since the universe is the largest effect imaginable (including all space, time, matter, and energy), its cause must be unimaginably powerful and transcendent.

This approach is most prominently featured in the Kalam cosmological argument and in Thomas Aquinas’s Second Way.

What Is an Argument from Contingency?

The argument from contingency is another type of cosmological argument that focuses on the dependent nature of everything in the universe. It argues:

1. Everything we observe in the universe is contingent — it exists but doesn’t have to exist.
2. Contingent things require an explanation for why they exist rather than not exist.
3. The universe as a whole is contingent (it could have not existed).
4. The explanation for contingent existence cannot itself be contingent, or we’d need another explanation.
5. Therefore, there must be a necessary being — something that exists by its own nature and explains all contingent existence. This being is God.

This approach is featured in Aquinas’s Third Way and more thoroughly developed in Leibniz’s version of the cosmological argument. It deals not with how things began but with why they continue to exist at all, given that their existence isn’t necessary.

Imagine a book on a table. The book depends on the table, which depends on the floor, which depends on the foundation, and so on. The argument from contingency suggests that this chain of dependency can’t go on forever or in a circle — it must terminate in something that exists necessarily, by its own nature.

Does the Universe Need a Cause?

This question gets to the heart of the cosmological argument. Proponents argue that yes, the universe does need a cause, for several compelling reasons.

1. The universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Things that begin to exist require causes.
2. The universe is contingent — it doesn’t exist by necessity. Its physical parameters could have been different, or it might not have existed at all. This contingency suggests it depends on something beyond itself.
3. The principle of causality — that effects require causes — is foundational to both science and everyday reasoning. To claim the universe is an exception to this principle without sufficient reason would be applying a double standard — requiring causes for everything within the universe but not for the universe itself.

Conclusion

The cosmological argument invites us to see the universe not as a brute fact but as the work of a necessary, personal, and powerful Creator — the God whom Scripture reveals and whom Christians worship. As we consider the vastness and order of all that exists, we find reason and faith pointing in the same direction: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The post Cosmological Argument in Simple Terms appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The Bible tells us God is the creator of all things, and something even more amazing: He has always existed. Psalm 90:2 says “from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Unlike everything we see around us, which has a starting point, God has no beginning and no end.

Everything in our universe had to start somewhere. Scientists even tell us the universe itself had a beginning. But God isn’t like created things. He exists outside of time and doesn’t depend on anything else to exist.

Just as 2+2 will always equal 4, God has always been real. He’s what scholars call “self-existent,” meaning he doesn’t need a creator. The universe itself points to God as its eternal Creator.

God Is Eternal

When people ask, “Who created God?” or wonder, “Where did God come from?” we need to understand something amazing about our world. Everything around us runs on clocks and calendars. Seasons change, people grow older, and mountains wear down over time.

But God exists in a way that’s entirely different from his creation. He exists outside the rules of time, watching over every moment all at once: past, present, and future. Romans 11:34–35 reminds us that God is unique in this way of existing.

God Is Uncreated

Many ask, “Where does God come from?” and “Who is God’s creator?” Genesis 1:1 gives us our first glimpse into the answer: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Notice how God already exists when everything else starts.

Looking at our universe, scientists tell us everything began roughly 14 billion years ago with the big bang. Every galaxy, star, and planet points back to that moment. These findings show us how our universe needs something beyond itself to exist.

But God stands distinct and different from everything he made. No higher power created him. Unlike the stars and planets that came from something else, God never needed a maker. He lives completely on his own, without depending on anything or anyone. The Bible shows us God gives life to everything else, but his own life comes from within himself (uncaused, not self-caused).

God Is Uncaused

“What created God?” The answer involves understanding two important types of reality that philosophers have identified:

Created things (like us and everything around us):

• Have causes
• Depend on other things
• Can’t explain themselves
• Could exist or not exist
• Can’t bring themselves into being from nothing

But God stands apart from creation because he:

• Has no cause
• Stays independent
• Explains itself
• Must exist
• Cannot not exist

In our world, everything happens because something else made it happen, like dominoes falling one after another. But God stands separate from this chain of events. He never resulted from any action or reaction. Much like how math rules stay true without needing something to make them true, God simply exists without needing a cause.

God Is the Creator

The Bible reveals God as completely self-sufficient. As Paul boldly proclaimed to Greek philosophers: “He is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else” (Acts 17:25). When asking “Who made God?” remember that nobody did, because nobody could.

Think about this: A contingent reality, something that begins, cannot create itself. When people ask, “If God made everything, who made God?” they’re assuming God is like other created things. But since our universe had a beginning, something else had to create it from nothing.

You cannot explain one contingent thing by pointing to another contingent thing. What is needed is something necessary, an eternal and uncaused Creator.

God Has No Beginning

Our minds naturally ask, “Who created the God we worship?” But people often misunderstand the nature of God, the creator of all things. The universe points to a beginning, requiring a transcendent cause beyond space and time. God fills this role as the eternal, self-existent Creator who, as theologian J. I. Packer explains,

Scripture repeatedly reveals this truth about God’s self-existence (Isaiah 40:13–14; John 5:26; Romans 11:34–35). Unlike everything in creation that depends on other things, God contains the source of his existence within himself.

God Has No End

When considering who created the universe, we must understand something profound. Unlike everything in creation that wears down and changes, God remains constant. His attribute of aseity means he doesn’t need or depend on anything outside himself for his continued existence. Scripture confirms this unique independence—no one has ever given God advice or offered him anything he needs (Romans 11:34–35).

Thus, God is in an entirely different category than created beings. He exists necessarily; he must exist and cannot not exist. Everything else in creation depends on his creative and sustaining power.

God Has Always Existed

When someone asks, “Who made God?” or “Who created the God we worship?” remember this: Some things in our universe, like the rules of logic or the concepts of truth and love, don’t have a starting point—they simply are. God exists even more fundamentally than these.

He embodies all truth, wisdom, and power as a personal, loving being who chooses to know us. The Bible reveals him as complete in himself yet wanting a relationship with us. He exists perfectly without beginning or end, yet invites us into his endless story.

“Who Made God” FAQ

Many children, students, and even leaders of atheist groups ask these questions about God’s origins. You might have faced these challenges, too. Let’s explore clear answers that connect both faith and reason.

So, Who Created God?

Nobody created God, and understanding why helps us grasp something amazing about his nature. God exists differently than everything else in our universe. King David marveled at this truth when he wrote, “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” (Psalm 8:3–4).

Remember when you learned about cause and effect? While everything in our universe needs a cause, God stands outside this rule. He’s like the author of a book, the author exists independently of the story they create.

What Created God?

Some people argue that if the universe needs a cause (God), then God must need a cause, too. Or they suggest that maybe some things, like the universe, don’t need causes at all. But here’s where we need to make an important distinction.

Our universe shows signs of being what scholars call “contingent”—meaning it depends on something else for its existence. Scientists point to the big bang as evidence that our universe had a clear beginning about 14 billion years ago. Something that begins must have a cause.

God, however, fits into a different category called a “necessary reality.” He’s uncaused, independent, and self-explanatory. As J. I. Packer explains, God exists in an eternal, self-sustaining way, while we exist in a dependent, derived way.

Does God Have a Beginning?

If God created everything, where did he come from? God doesn’t have a beginning. The Bible reveals God as an eternal being without start or end. When Paul spoke to Greek philosophers, he emphasized this truth: “[God] is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else” (Acts 17:25).

Looking at the universe helps us understand why God must be eternal. An infinite chain of causes (like God being created by a bigger God, who an even bigger God created) makes no sense—the process could never start. As Aristotle argued centuries ago, we need an uncaused cause to explain everything else.

Where Did God Come From?

God didn’t “come from” anywhere because he always existed. Unlike us and everything in creation, God doesn’t depend on anything outside himself. John’s Gospel tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:1–3). God stands alone as the source of all existence.

Scientists agree our universe had a beginning. Something beyond space, time, matter, and energy must first exist to make our universe possible. God fills the role as the necessary foundation for everything else.

Did God Create Himself?

If you’ve ever wondered how God was created, you’re not alone. The answer might surprise you. God didn’t create himself because that would mean he existed before he existed, which makes no sense. Instead, God exists as what scholars call a “necessary being.” He must exist and cannot not exist.

God remains unique among everything that exists. As the Bible shows, he gives life and breath to everything else while needing nothing himself (Isaiah 40:13–14; John 5:26; Romans 11:34–35).

Looking at these questions together shows us something profound. God’s nature sets him apart from everything in creation. He is the eternal, self-sufficient Creator who explains why anything exists.

Our Response to the Uncreated Creator

When we grasp how powerful and majestic God really is, existing without beginning or end and needing nothing yet giving everything, we see him and ourselves differently.

God’s self-existence puts everything in perspective. If God made the universe, who made God? Simply put, he made space, time, and matter from nothing. He keeps every galaxy spinning yet cares about your daily life.

Paul reminded those Greek thinkers that God “gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” Every heartbeat you have comes from him. Each sunrise speaks of his faithfulness. When we realize this, worship and surrender becomes our natural response.

Let’s marvel at what we’ve learned:

• God never had a beginning
• He depends on nothing outside himself
• All creation rests on his power
• He chooses to share his life with us

Here’s something wonderful: God didn’t create you because he was lonely or needed anything. He made you because he wanted to share his love. Unlike everything else in creation, you can know your Creator personally.

Remember what makes God different from us? While we depend on many things to live—air, water, food, other people—God depends on nothing. Yet this all-sufficient God invites you into a relationship with him.

You serve a God who:

• Exists beyond time but steps into your daily moments
• Needs nothing but gives you everything
• Holds infinite power yet listens to your prayers
• Stands outside creation but draws close to you

When life feels overwhelming, remember who your God is. He’s not struggling to figure things out or wondering what happens next. He’s the unchanging Creator who chose to love you.

The post Who Created God? (An Easy Overview) appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Questions like Does God exist? and How can we know if God is real? are fundamental to how we view life, ourselves, others, and the universe around us. And yet, too often, these are given only surface treatments or explanations.

We at RTB believe this question has a clear and confident answer: God is real.

He’s not a distant force or a forgotten name. He is a living, just, and loving presence—active in our world and eager to be known.

Moreover, he has given us observable evidence in the physical universe, in human life, in Scripture, in history, and even in our personal experience that allows us to live with great confidence and proof that God exists (even without certainty).

Let’s explore God‘s creation and what it is that leads us to believe he exists and why it matters more than we think.

God Is Real

God Exists

There are plenty of strong reasons to believe God exists—scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments all point to him. But at the end of the day, no single argument can 100% prove that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Why not? Because God exists beyond space and time, so we can’t put him under a microscope or run an experiment to “prove” he’s real.

But that doesn’t mean we’re left guessing. Just like astronomers study distant galaxies by analyzing the light they give off, we can look at the clues God has left us in nature—the fine-tuning of the universe, the mind-blowing precision of physical laws, and the perfect conditions that make life possible. Science gives us hints, but to truly know who God is, he needs to tell us.

That’s where the Bible comes in.

Scripture is God’s way of making himself known. It gives us a foundation to understand the evidence we see in creation and how it all points back to him. And we don’t have to take it at face value. God invites us to test his Word, examine the evidence, and seek truth for ourselves. As 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV) says, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.”

Thus, we can say with confidence that God exists, even if people overlook the evidence and how he’s revealed himself to us. He is not silent, far, or hidden.

He’s been speaking all along, tenderly and persistently, through what could be considered two great “books.”

The first is the book of nature.

Waves roll in with steady grace, mountains stand with quiet authority, and every petal of every flower tells a story of design, not disorder.

The chirp of a bird. The laughter of a child. The thunder of a summer storm. They all say the same thing: We are not here by accident.

As Romans 1 explains, “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20, ESV).

It’s as if creation is a canvas, and every brushstroke points to the Artist.

And yet, many turn away.

Not because the evidence is lacking, but because foolish hearts resist what the soul knows is true. The truth gets suppressed. The signs get ignored.

Fortunately, God doesn’t give up.

He also speaks through the second book—the book of Scripture.

This one tells a love story. And make no mistake, this is no fairy tale.

Scripture reveals a gritty, grace-soaked, blood-written narrative of how a holy God pursues a wayward people. Through the covenant with Israel, the words of the prophets, and the life of Jesus.

We see his patience in the wilderness, his mercy with kings and judges, and his face in the person of Jesus Christ.

He came to meet us. He walked among us. And even then, we turned away.

As John 1 tells us, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11, ESV).

But still, the invitation remains. Come and see. Come and believe.

And for those who do? He gives them the right to be called children of God.

This God, the Author of creation and Scripture, is not distant or indifferent. He is not a clockmaker who wound up the universe and walked away. He is near. He is involved. And the more we come to know him, the more we discover the richness of who he is.

He is not solitary, but relational. Not fragmented, but whole.

God is triune—three persons, one God—perfectly unified and perfectly loving and just.

Let’s examine what that means. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each truly God, working together in perfect harmony and inviting us into a relationship with him.

God Is Triune

1. God the Father

The Father is the Maker of heaven and Earth. He painted the galaxies with his words and formed us with his hands.

He knows every star by name and every tear you shed. He is just and holy, yes. But he is also tender and full of grace. He is the Father who runs to the prodigal, lifts the broken, and never stops loving.

2. God the Son

The Son is Jesus—God wrapped in skin and laid in a manger. He ate with sinners, healed the outcast, and touched the untouchable. He stepped into our dust to bring us back to the Father.

On the cross, he carried our sin. In the tomb, he bore our death. And in his resurrection, he gave us life. He is the image of the invisible God, full of grace and truth.

3. God the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is not an idea or a force—he is the very presence of God alive in every Christian. He comforts when hearts break. He convicts when paths wander. He empowers when strength fails. He breathes life into Scripture and lights the way back to Christ.

Through him, God is not just near—he is within us.

God Is Active

God is triune, and he’s also wonderfully present.

God is active, not just in history, but in our stories right now.

He’s orchestrating unexpected opportunities, stirring hearts during a quiet drive, and reminding us of a passage from his Word at just the right moment.

He’s in the details. In the waiting. In the wondering.

God Is Personal

God is also personal. He’s not a far-off deity watching from the clouds or an abstract idea tucked away in philosophy books. He’s a Father who listens, a Savior who understands, and a Spirit who renews.

He knows our names. He knows our stories.

Not one sigh, tear, or hope goes unnoticed. He hears the prayers that can’t quite be put into words and understands the questions we’re still afraid to ask.

This is not a God who keeps his distance. This is a God who draws near.

God loves us. Completely. Eternally. Just as we are, and too much to leave us alone in doubt, fear, or pain. His love is not earned. It’s offered. Freely. Fully. Faithfully.

He’s not just real. He’s here. And more than that, he’s inviting us into something deeper.

Not just to believe in him from afar, but to know him. To walk with him, talk with him, and live our lives as people who truly know and are truly loved by the God who made the stars . . . and us.

But sometimes wonder creeps in. Can we really know? Can we be sure?

God has not left us without answers.

He offers many ways for us to know he exists—not to force belief but to invite trust. He doesn’t silence every question but gives us a solid foundation built on reason, revelation, and relationship.

Let’s look closer at the evidence that points us toward the God who is real and longs to be known.

Proof of God’s Existence

Faith is not blind.

That’s worth saying again, maybe even engraving on your heart.

Faith is not pretending in the dark—it’s trusting in the light we’ve been given. And the light is everywhere. In creation. In Scripture. In the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And in the quiet ways God still moves today.

The Bible doesn’t ask for blind acceptance. In fact, it encourages honest investigation: “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, ESV). God welcomes honest questions, thoughtful seeking, and hearts willing to wrestle with truth.

Faith and reason are not the enemies we sometimes think they are; instead, they work together.

How so?

Reason is the mind’s God-given tool for discovery. It asks, What’s true?

It explores, considers arguments and scientific evidence, and weighs probabilities. It can show that belief in God is rational and that the evidence for Christ is sufficient.

Faith responds to what God has revealed—in creation, in Scripture, in Christ. It’s not a leap into the unknown—it’s a step onto solid ground. It trusts not despite evidence, but because the evidence points to Someone trustworthy.

Biblical faith is confident trust in a Person who has proven himself reliable, reasonable, and eternally good. It’s not wishful thinking. It’s taking God at his Word.

Put simply: reason clears the path and faith walks it. Or better yet, reason shows us the bridge is real; faith trusts the One who built it.

And when the two walk together—heart and mind, will and intellect—we come to know with full conviction that God is real.

The powerful ways of knowing can take shape in several key ways:

Biblical Evidence—Creation Reflects the Creator

The Bible invites us to use our minds—to think deeply, to seek truth, and to recognize God’s fingerprints in the world around us. Psalm 19:1 (ESV) says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

From the vastness of the galaxies to the intricate design of a single cell, Scripture affirms what we see with our eyes and sense with our hearts: This world is no accident.

The precision of Earth’s orbit, the language of DNA, the logic behind natural laws—it all reveals the mind of a Creator. Philosophers may call this the argument from design, but even a child can sense it. There is order, purpose, and beauty that points beyond themselves.

Our minds were created by God to recognize his glory. The more we understand about the world rightly, the more we’re drawn toward the One who made it. When God opens our eyes, the mind doesn’t stumble in the dark—it recognizes the Light that’s always been there.

Physical Evidence—Creation Speaks of Its Creator

Then we have matter. The physical world. It speaks. The psalmist says the heavens declare the glory of God, and day after day they pour forth speech (Psalm 19:1).

Have you ever stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon or walked through a redwood forest and felt something rise in your chest—wonder, awe, a sense that Someone is behind all of this?

That’s creation preaching a sermon.

As Romans 1 reminds us, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, understood from what has been made. The created world doesn’t just suggest a Creator. It reveals him.

Logical Evidence—God’s Hand in History

For all the majesty of the created world, God didn’t stop with stars and seasons. He stepped into history.

Miracles aren’t just tales for Sunday school—they’re recorded events witnessed and passed down. Jesus of Nazareth walked dusty roads, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and raised the dead. His resurrection isn’t symbolic—it’s the central event of Christianity, affirmed by over 500 eyewitnesses. The Bible, written over centuries by prophets, kings, fishermen, and scholars, tells one seamless story: creation, fall, and redemption.

Even now, the Holy Spirit continues to work—transforming hearts, renewing minds, answering prayers. He leads, speaks, comforts, and makes Christ known. In quiet hospital rooms and bustling homes, he brings dead hearts to life.

God’s power isn’t locked in the past. It’s present, personal, and still at work.

Miracles are not just ancient stories. They are present realities.

Personal Evidence—The Change Within

And finally, there’s us.

The longing in the heart. The way the soul leans toward something more. The moment when you felt peace that made no sense. The time you prayed and knew Someone was listening. When God moves in your life, it’s not abstract—it’s personal.

Our lives may not be perfect. But the fingerprints of God are all over them. When he forgives us, there’s relief. When he calls us his own, there’s belonging. When he changes us from the inside out, there’s joy. These things are real—and they’re proof.

The change in us is a testimony only God could write.

These signs—mind, matter, miracles, and ourselves—are like stained-glass windows.

They’re beautiful on their own. But together, with the light of God shining through, they reveal a breathtaking picture: God exists.

He is not distant.
He is not silent.
He is not absent.

God is real. And he is revealing himself to anyone willing to look and listen.

We’ve seen the signs. We’ve heard the whispers in creation, felt the stirrings in our hearts, and traced his fingerprints through history and Scripture.

Reason has walked the path. Faith has opened the door. And all the evidence points in one clear direction: There is Someone behind it all.

Which leads us to the question that echoes through every generation, every searching soul, every long night of wondering . . .

Is there a God?

We can answer that—simply, honestly, and with the confidence of those who’ve seen his light break through the clouds.

Is There a God?

Yes, there is a God who exists and who has always existed—even before the universe began—and will always exist. Absolutely, undeniably—yes.

There is a God who formed the stars and knows your name. A God who speaks through the roar of oceans and the quiet of Scripture. A God who stepped into history through Jesus Christ and still steps into hearts today. This is not a guess. It’s not wishful thinking. It’s not a blind leap into the dark.

It’s a step toward the light.

We know God exists because he’s revealed himself through the two great books—creation and Scripture. The world around us proclaims his power and precision. The Bible tells the story of his love, justice, mercy, and relentless pursuit of us. And in Jesus, we see that story fulfilled—God with us, God for us, God victorious over death.

We know God exists because he’s not only real in history, he’s real in us. In the transformation we’ve experienced, in the peace that surpasses understanding, and in the quiet conviction of the Holy Spirit, who lives within every Christian. He is active and he is personal. God is real and he’s closer than we think.

So, if we’re still wondering, questioning, and hoping for a reason to believe let’s consider this our invitation.

Look at creation.
Open his Word.
Remember the cross.
Listen to our hearts. And hear him say, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me” (Revelation 3:20).

And if there is a God—and there is—then that truth changes everything.

It means we were created on purpose, that our lives matter, and we’re not alone, forgotten, or left to figure things out ourselves.

But even more than that, it means God is not just real—he is involved. He sees us. He knows us and has something to say about our lives, purpose, and future.

So, what does the existence of God really mean for us?

What the Existence of God Means for Your Life

The truth of God’s existence means we are not random sparks in a vast, indifferent universe. We are not the sum of our failures, pain, or unanswered questions. We are the handiwork of a Creator who formed us with care, knit us together with purpose, and calls us by name.

We were made by him, for him, and with him in mind.

And because God exists, he is not only the foundation of truth, but the source of grace. He is the giver of hope, and the One who gives meaning to the beauty and the brokenness in our lives.

This is more than abstract theology. This is personal. Because God is real, his promises are real. And so are the life-changing gifts he offers to those who trust him.

We Are Forgiven

The cross of Christ wasn’t a symbolic gesture—it was a real moment in history where sin met mercy and lost.

Because God exists, so does forgiveness—real, complete, offered freely to all who turn to Christ. No past is too heavy. No failure is too great. In Christ, we’re not defined by what we’ve done—we’re redeemed by what he did.

We Are Made New

Through God’s gift of regeneration, he doesn’t just clean up our old selves—he gives us a new heart. A new spirit. A new beginning. This is not merely behavior modification. It’s a soul transformation that leads to good works. As 2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV) attests, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

We Are Adopted

We don’t just get salvation—we get a Father. Through adoption, God brings us into his family, not as a guest, but as his children, with full access to his presence, promises, and love. We are no longer orphans of the world—we are sons and daughters of the King.

We Are Being Changed

God doesn’t stop at forgiveness. Through the ongoing work of sanctification, the Holy Spirit shapes us into the likeness of Jesus—bit by bit, day by day, sometimes through joy, often through struggle, and always through love. We may not be where we want to be yet, but praise God, we’re not where we used to be.

Maybe you’ve felt it already—that quiet shift.

That stirring in your spirit when you read Scripture or when grace felt more real than guilt. Maybe, like Larry Crabb wrote in The Safest Place on Earth, you’ve glimpsed the community that reflects heaven’s love on Earth.

Where the presence of God isn’t just talked about—it’s felt. Lived. Shared.

That’s what happens when we stop suppressing the truth and start trusting the God who’s been reaching out all along.

So, what does the existence of God mean for your life?

It means you’re seen.

It means you’re loved.

It means you have a future—and a Father—who will never leave you.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Maybe hearts are saying yes, but the mind still has questions. That’s okay. God welcomes every one of them. He thought of them long before we did.

We don’t have to have all the answers. But we can keep walking. Keep seeking. Keep asking.

Whether you’re just starting to seek him or you’ve walked with him for years, there’s more to discover.

And we’re here to help.

Check out our other resources to explore faith, ask the hard questions, and grow your relationship with God.

FAQs

Does God Exist?

Yes, God exists—without a doubt. God has made himself known through the beauty of creation and the truth of Scripture, through history and personal experience. He is not an idea. He is real, and he is present.

How Do We Know God Is Real?

We know God is real because he shows us. Not only through the “two books”—nature and the Bible—but also through the real, ongoing work he does in our lives. When God forgives, restores, adopts, and transforms, the evidence isn’t just theological—it’s deeply personal. And it changes us.

Who Created God?

No one. God was not created; he has always existed. He is eternal—outside of time, above all things. Our minds struggle with that mystery, but it’s part of what makes him God. (We unpack this more in a full post—click here to read.)

Is It a Sin to Question God’s Existence?

No. Asking questions isn’t a sin—it’s part of being human. God welcomes your questions. Your wonder or your doubt does not threaten him. In fact, he gave us minds and hearts made to seek him. “He rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

Scripture cautions against something different—not honest seeking, but hardening our hearts against what God has already shown us. Ask your questions. Just don’t turn away when he answers.

The Real Question

So, is God real?

Yes.

Not because we say so, but because he’s shown himself. In the sweep of the galaxies and the cells that form our bodies. In the pages of Scripture and the person of Jesus. In the transformation that happens when a hard heart softens and a wandering soul comes home.

God is real—and suddenly the pieces fit.

It means the universe has meaning. It means your life has purpose. It means the loneliness ends, the searching finds its answer, and the longing in your heart finally makes sense.

Because you were made for this. For him. For relationship with the God who stepped out of eternity to meet you right where you are.

He’s not waiting for you to have all the answers or clean up every mess first. He’s simply waiting. Standing at the door. Knocking.

The question was never really “Is God real?”

The question is: Will you respond to his call?

The post Is God Real? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

If you’ve ever wondered why God’s existence seems hidden, you’re not alone—both Christians and skeptics alike have asked this question throughout history.

As we look into this topic together, let’s think about why God’s silence might be more complicated than it seems. We’ll explore the different layers that contribute to this theological discussion.

What Is Divine Hiddenness?

There are two types of so-called divine hiddenness:

1. The alleged hiddenness raised by skeptics who question whether God exists. 
2. The sense or feeling of distance from God that some Christians experience at times.

Let’s first explore the skeptical challenge that divine hiddenness may best be explained as evidence against God’s existence.

The argument from divine hiddenness raises an interesting and difficult question:

If God is perfectly loving and wants a relationship with us, why isn’t it more obvious that he’s here?

The argument is based on the idea that a truly perfectly loving God would make sure everyone knows he exists, which would naturally lead to belief. Yet, many people—even those who genuinely desire to connect with God—still struggle to perceive him and end up not believing.

The Parent-Child Analogy

Consider the analogy of a loving parent who deeply desires to be known and loved by their child. However, if the parent remains hidden, the child might assume the parent doesn’t exist or doesn’t care—despite the parent’s provision for their child behind the scenes.

In a similar way, the divine hiddenness argument affirms that God’s apparent hiddenness means either:

1. he’s not perfectly loving, or
2. he doesn’t exist at all.

Could there be reasons, beyond our understanding, for God’s hiddenness—reasons that might help us grow or shift our perspective in ways we don’t expect?

Could there be more than meets the eye?

We believe so. But first, let’s examine a formal argument made in support of skepticism regarding this issue.

The Schellenberg Hiddenness Argument

The Schellenberg Hiddenness Argument was created by philosopher J. L. Schellenberg. It raises an intriguing question: If a perfectly loving God exists, there shouldn’t be any “reasonable nonbelievers”—people who are reasonably open to having a relationship with God but don’t see or experience God.

Schellenberg argued that if God truly wanted to connect with us, he would reveal himself to everyone, making it impossible not to believe in him. The presence of non-Christians who are open to God but still do not believe suggests to Schellenberg that such a God may not exist.

A Brief Biblical Response to Schellenberg

Of course, this skeptical argument contradicts Scripture in several ways regarding the cause of unbelief.

Consider these three biblical points:

1. Scripture teaches that God has taken the initiative and has sufficiently unveiled himself in:
   
   • the order of the cosmos,
   • the human conscience,
   • the history of Israel,
   • the historic life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and 
   • in Scripture itself.
2. The Bible teaches that no one is neutral about God. It also explains that unbelief is tied to the person’s sinful condition of wanting to avoid moral responsibility before God (see Romans 1).
   
3. The hiddenness claim doesn’t rule out the many clear and logical arguments that rationally support God’s existence (cosmological, teleological, moral, ontological, etc.).
   

The Bible also emphasizes that God—being a perfectly loving God—values our free will. He gives us the ability to choose or reject a personal relationship with him.

This special gift allows us to connect with God authentically, rather than being compelled by overwhelming evidence—just as a child or spouse flourishes under a genuine love from free will rather than obligation.

Similarly, it’s like a parent who lets their child grow up and make their own choices, even if the child sometimes decides differently than the parent wishes. To reflect on the hide and seek analogy of the parent and child, if the parent were to intercede every time the child had doubts, then the child wouldn’t be allowed to grow in confidence and maturity.

Faith also plays an important role. In Hebrews 11:1, faith is described as being sure about what we hope for and believing in what we can’t see. Faith asks us to trust beyond what is right in front of us — a trust that can grow stronger even when we feel God is hidden from us.

Could it be that divine hiddenness invites us into a deeper, more personal journey of faith in life that ultimately strengthens our relationship with God?

Absolutely.

Human Reason and the Argument from Nonbelief

Next, let’s look at a similar argument about divine hiddenness: the argument from nonbelief.

This argument asks that if a loving and all-powerful God exists, why is there so much nonbelief in the world? According to the argument, the presence of widespread nonbelief argues against the idea of a God who is both loving and intent on forming relationships with his human creatures.

At its core, this argument is built on Schellenberg’s ideas and assumes that a good, perfectly loving God would make sure everyone has been presented with enough information to believe in him. (Don’t forget, from a biblical standpoint, God has sufficiently revealed himself.)

But if God’s presence were as obvious as the physical world around us, then not believing would be entirely unreasonable.

The reality that many smart, thoughtful, and rational people remain unsure about God’s existence raises questions about whether such evidence is available or if God is hiding for a reason. Why would he hide from people who are open to discovering his existence?

As an answer to this question, perhaps people are not as open and neutral as they think they are when it comes to questions relating to God.

When we consider the argument from nonbelief, we must grapple with the idea that “human understanding and belief” might require more than just agreeing with facts and intellectualism. Part of our understanding might require that we place our faith (or trust) in what conclusions our human reason leads to.

The Nonbelief Argument and the Limits of Reason

With the argument from nonbelief, it’s important to note how the idea is strictly and directly tied to human reason. While our ability to reason is strong, it has limits, especially when it comes to things that extend beyond what we can see or touch. The divine, by definition, goes beyond what we can fully understand through human logic and challenges us to press beyond reason alone.

While human reason is a profound tool that helps us understand the complex world around us, make sense of our experiences, and create meaningful narratives, when it comes to divine matters, our reasoning can encounter its own set of challenges.

We want to be especially careful when it comes to discussing human reason and God. Topics of faith and theology can extend beyond reason but matters of faith cannot contradict reason. For example, the historic Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation can’t be fully comprehended by the finite human mind but these doctrines are not actual formal logical contradictions. So faith extends beyond reason, but faith doesn’t damage or oppose reason. In historic Christianity, faith and reason are seen as compatible and complementary.

The argument from nonbelief suggests that if God were evident, rational individuals would naturally believe in him. The fact that many people don’t believe suggests that either God isn’t as evident as he could be, or that our human reasoning alone is somehow not enough to “see” him. Or maybe human beings are biased against God because of sin (see Romans 8:7–8).

God often exceeds what can be observed or understood through logic alone. This thought creates a challenge: How can we reconcile the limits of human reason with the profound nature of an infinite and eternal divine being? Could it be that God is understood not only through our thoughts but also through our hearts or internal workings, like life experiences and spiritual searching?

The capacity for faith—which often complements reason—plays a critical role. While reason looks for answers based on evidence, facts, and logic, faith encourages us to believe in things that we can’t fully understand or see but still have a reasonable basis to believe to be true. This is reflected in the Christian perspective of “faith seeking understanding.”

This relationship between reason and faith suggests that belief in God and God’s existence may require more than just rational support. Hebrews 11:6 says that “anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” The faith component offers a point against the divine hiddenness argument.

Ultimately, the relationship between the argument from nonbelief and the factual limits of human reason prompts us to expand our understanding of how we come to know and believe in God. While reason is critically important, it’s only one piece of a bigger picture.

Biblical Response for a Perfectly Loving God

The Bible gives us many insights into the nature of God and his relationship with us. This relationship is fundamentally personal and goes beyond mere intellectual engagement. It extends beyond the confines of logic and reason. It’s where something inside us knows that “God’s invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20).

The Bible shows God as a divine being who wants to engage with us on a heart level. We see this in his interactions and words throughout the Bible—from walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to his covenant with Abraham, and throughout the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jeremiah‬ ‭29‬:‭13‬).

Finding and “seeing” God is rooted not just in formal reason but also in love and relationship. God invites the non-Christian into such a trusting relationship.

But what about Christians who struggle with a hidden God?

Reconciling A Personal God and Distance

Let’s now shift to the challenge that Christians encounter when God seems distant.

Understanding God—a “hidden” God—involves more than acknowledging he exists. It requires trust, love, and spiritual growth—all of which come from the human heart. Trust grows through experiences and a willingness to rely on God’s wisdom and promises, even when we can’t see clear and undisputed evidence for his existence.

Love, as described in the Bible, is the foundation of our relationship with God. Love encourages us to respond to his love with our own: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

A Growing Personal Relationship

Spiritual growth is another essential part of this relationship.

As we journey in faith, we face various trials and challenges that test our beliefs and ultimately help us mature. James 1:3 reminds us that “the testing of your faith produces perseverance . . . that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”

Spiritual growth emerges from difficult experiences. In other words, at the point where many Christians encounter “divine hiddenness,” that’s where God sustains them on their journey of faith.

In short, the biblical answer to the argument from nonbelief asks us to focus on reason and matters of the heart. Scripture tells us that “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). When we realize that God wants a personal relationship with us, we take a step toward opening ourselves to experiencing the divine in ways that go beyond mere evidence and into the depths of maturing faith.

If God Exists, Why Doesn’t He Show Himself More Clearly?

Many of us, whether we are Christians or skeptics, have wondered: Why doesn’t God show himself more clearly, especially to those who are genuinely trying to find him?

This query revisits the central point of divine hiddenness, which asserts that people would expect a loving God to make his existence obvious. However, the truth of God’s presence is more subtle and complex.

As we unpack Christian responses as to why God doesn’t more overtly show himself, let’s again recognize the many ways he has revealed himself to us.

First, there’s his Word—Scripture.

Revelation Through Scripture

The Bible is a powerful testament to God’s character, his promises, and how he interacts with people. Through its stories, lessons, and prophecies, we can learn about who he is and what he wants for us. The written words of Scripture effectively allow us to “see” him.

Revealed Through Creation

Then there’s God’s world—his creation—which entails all of existence, from Earth to the ends of the cosmos. The natural world around us is a testament to God’s creativity and power. From the intricate details built into the smallest cells to the incomprehensible vastness of the starry sky, creation speaks of the Creator’s grand, purposeful universe.

As Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

Jesus Was Not Hidden

Perhaps most importantly, God has revealed himself through his Son. In Jesus, we see what God’s love and grace look like, giving us a clear path to understand and connect with him. Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are at the heart of the Christian faith and show us the intense depth of God’s loving commitment to humanity.

Freedom to Choose

If God showed himself clearly and directly, like the sun in the sky, believing in him might start to feel more like an obligation instead of something we want and get to do. Having the freedom to choose is important for any true relationship, as it lets us seek intimacy because of love, not because we feel forced to.

Encouraging Spiritual Growth

The challenges and uncertainties we face can expand our faith, trust, and love outward like an ever-widening circle. Just like a seed has to push through the soil to reach the sunlight, our life’s journeys can push us out of darkness and ignorance into God’s light.

A parent who has taught a child to be responsible watches a situation from afar to see if they’ve matured—not because they don’t love the child, but because they do. When the parent sees the child succeed and when the child realizes the parent trusted them on their own, faith in each other grows.

Could it be that God calls us, his children, into a more meaningful relationship of faith? Do the “growing pains” encourage personal growth and trust far beyond mere surface level? As we consider these questions, let’s stay open to the idea that there may be wisdom in how God’s hiddenness unfolds.

Divine Hiddenness and Human Faith

As we look further into the Schellenberg Divine Hiddenness Argument, it’s important to consider what the Bible says about why God seems hidden. From a biblical standpoint, God’s hiddenness doesn’t indicate his absence or lack of love. Instead, apparent hiddenness is a key part of his relationship with humanity that’s designed to build genuine faith and trust.

The hiddenness of God should be seen as a means to help us grow and mature. Just as a parent lets a child explore and learn on their own, God’s quiet presence encourages us to develop and to seek him earnestly.

The Bible stresses the vital role of faith and emphasizes that God desires a personal and voluntary relationship with us. As Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”

The Purpose of Divine Hiddenness

From a Christian perspective, God does not hide himself for no reason. His hiddenness serves to prompt genuine seeking. In our busy lives, many people say they’ve looked for God but didn’t find him. They use this apparent hiddenness as an argument to dismiss his existence and live their lives however they want. 

God’s hiddenness isn’t meant to be a game of hide-and-seek, but a call to sincere pursuit. When we seek sincerely, “with all our heart,” it often means diving into deeper questions like “Why am I here?” or “What’s the purpose of life?”

Faith Beyond Certainty

The Bible reveals time and again that God values faith and belief that doesn’t rely purely on evidence.

• In John 20:29 Jesus tells Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 
• In Matthew 12:39 Jesus warns, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
• In 2 Corinthians 5:7 we read, “For we live by faith, not by sight.”
• In Romans 1:17 the apostle writes that “The righteous will live by faith.”

These verses emphasize that faith serves as the driving force behind deeper belief in God’s existence. Faith also fosters a more trusting relationship with him—where we learn to rely on God’s promises and character. People who trust in God’s character no longer need constant signs or miracles as proof for something that stretches beyond our ability to fully comprehend.

This biblical approach helps us build a strong and lasting faith that can handle life’s uncertainties and challenges. By trusting in God’s presence and goodness, even when he feels hidden or distant, we develop a deeper, more authentic spirituality that isn’t shaken by the absence of signs.

Ultimately, divine hiddenness is not a void but a potential space for those willing to seek him sincerely. It challenges us to engage with God on a level that passes mere mental acknowledgment into a transformative relationship.

The Limits of Human Reason

As a further consideration of the argument from nonbelief, we observe that the theory is rooted purely in human reason, which is limited. When we think about human reason and understanding, we affirm that reason is necessary for knowing, but we must acknowledge that it falls short when it comes to fully grasping the concept of an infinite God.

The human mind is great at figuring out mysteries in the natural world, but there are instances where our reason is stretched thin, as in the two examples that follow. Similarly, many aspects of the divine remain mysterious and beyond our full comprehension. 

Consider the complexity of the universe for a modern example that demonstrates the limitations of human reasoning. The vastness of space, the strange rules of quantum mechanics, and the enigma of dark matter and dark energy all push the boundaries of our understanding.

These phenomena inspire a sense of wonder and remind us that there’s so much more to the universe than we can currently or fully grasp. These wonders hint at a Creator’s existence.

The human brain is another marvel that challenges our comprehension. Even with all the progress in studying the brain (neuroscience), scientists are still working to understand consciousness and the intricacies of thought and emotion.

These complexities suggest that while reason can guide us, it may not always provide complete or crystal-clear answers.

When it comes to trying to understand God and the “why” of divine hiddenness, we must realize that we as mortal human beings have our limits.

As Isaiah 55:8–9 says,

This verse reminds us that some aspects of God’s character, including what he does and why, are too big for us to fully understand. His higher ways and thoughts should encourage us, as creatures made in his image, to be humble and to trust him.

By accepting the limits of our humanity, we’re invited to see the divine with wonder and awe. When we recognize that some mysteries might never be solved, we allow ourselves to experience God in ways that go beyond our mental grasp. Such awe strengthens our faith through the reality of divine hiddenness.

The Hiddenness of God Explained

Man’s Hiding—Humanity’s Role in Resisting God

As we continue to unpack the hiddenness of God, it’s essential to recognize humanity’s role. Our separation from God began at the beginning in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 3:8 paints a vivid picture of this moment: Adam and Eve, having chosen to sin, hid themselves—or at least tried to—from God. This act of hiding marked the start of humanity’s separation from the divine.

God’s original design was for an intimate, unbroken relationship with us. He walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, showing the closeness and fellowship he intended for his creation.

Yet, they chose to disobey. They ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—an event known as original sin—and fractured their relationship with God. Adam and Eve made a barrier that was not meant to be there.

This separation wasn’t just physical. It was a spiritual divide that has continued throughout history and all generations.

On a personal and individual level, when thinking about why God seems hidden or distant, it’s important to understand that this doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. Apparent hiddenness doesn’t equate to divine indifference.

On the contrary, God’s distance can often be linked to our own actions and choices. Our sin has created a veil that obscures our view of him. It’s not that God wants to stay hidden; it’s that our hearts have turned away from him.

Throughout Scripture, God consistently reaches out to humanity to mend this fractured relationship and sometimes to execute judgment. His judgment can seem like he’s “turning away his face” or “hiding” due to people’s sin.

God’s hiddenness is a reminder of the chasm between human sin and divine holiness. But it also serves as a call to reconcile and points to Jesus Christ who bridged this divide for us. God’s love is steadfast, and his desire for closeness remains unwavering. He always invites separated sinners to turn back toward him.

On this journey of divine hiddenness and the existence of God, we should feel called to examine our hearts and how we might be contributing to this separation. Remember, God wants us to return to him and seek him. When we do, he comes running to meet us as in Jesus’s parable of the lost son in Luke 15:11.

By acknowledging the choices we’ve made and what’s in our hearts, we open ourselves to the possibility of healing and restoration. Knowing that we’ve been forgiven of all our sins allows us to feel God’s presence as a loving father rather than a judge.

God’s Hiddenness

While the idea of God’s hiddenness can sometimes be overwhelming, it’s important to remember that God is much closer to us than we might think or feel. Even when it doesn’t seem like it, God is always a part of our lives. He works quietly in all the details of our lives and invites us to know him more and see his unfailing provision.

Romans 8:28 reminds us, even through the hardships and the silence:

One of the most comforting truths for any of us is that God continually seeks to restore his relationship with humanity. Through Christ’s sacrificial death, this restoration took on a physical, visible, and tangible form. Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are profound demonstrations of God’s desire to bridge the gap that sin has created. Jesus’s atoning death forever changed history. By believing in and receiving Christ, we are given the way back to a close relationship with God.

Scripture, too, serves as a vital conduit for experiencing God’s presence. The Bible is more than a historical book; it’s a living text through which God speaks to us. In its pages, we find guidance, comfort, and the reassurance that God plays an active role in our lives. As we read Scripture, we start to see his fingerprints in our experiences, our hearts, and the world around us.

Adding to this comfort, creation itself has a way of showing how close God is to us. The beauty and complexity of the natural world remind us of a Creator who is powerful and caring. From the details of a snowflake to the miracle of photosynthesis to the mystery of animal instincts, the creation we see every day reflects the presence of God. This revelation peels back another layer against the argument of divine hiddenness.

Even when we can’t feel it, God’s hiddenness is not a sign of his absence. Instead, it serves as an invitation to seek him with expectant faith and trust. By knowing how he shows himself—through Christ, the Bible, and creation—we can understand why he seems hidden when in fact his presence is strong and always pulling us closer to him.

A God Who Exists and Reveals

As we think about the case for God’s divine hiddenness, it’s important to recognize and acknowledge that God does exist and has shown himself in many meaningful ways.

Christian thinkers affirm that Scripture is backed by historical accounts and archaeological evidence. Its reliability is a roadmap to the divine and one of the primary ways God reveals himself today. Through the Bible, we learn about his attributes, plans, and promises. Scripture serves as a guide to help us understand God’s heart and how to grow our faith. As we read and think about the Bible, we become part of a story that connects us with God.

Nature, too, is a testament to God’s handiwork. The beauty of the world around us—from the majesty of mountains to the delicate complexity of a single flower and the animals that interact with them—reflects the creativity and intent of a Creator who delights in his creation. But we must be willing to see it. When we pause to appreciate the natural world, we can “see” a part of God.

Our conscience serves as another way through which God communicates and reveals himself. The inner sense of right and wrong and the gentle nudges that guide our choices are a God-given moral compass. This inner voice helps us follow his will and encourages us to live according to his principles.

Personal experiences are perhaps the most intimate way God shows himself to us. In times of happiness, sorrow, challenges, or triumphs, we encounter his presence in ways that are hard to explain. These moments require faith, as they may not always present themselves in dramatic or obvious ways. Instead, they might appear as a quiet assurance, a comforting peace, or a helpful word that hits home at just the right time.

God’s hiddenness doesn’t mean he’s not there. Instead, it encourages us to seek him with faith and an open heart. By paying attention to how he quietly shows himself—through the Bible, nature, our conscience, and personal experiences—we can build a relationship that goes beyond the need for evidence of his existence.

Christian Response to Divine Hiddenness

In our exploration of divine hiddenness, it’s essential to consider how we, as Christians, are called to respond. Faith, hope, and love lie at the heart of this response. They form key parts of a relationship with God that’s built not on obligation or force, but on genuine connection. God’s hiddenness is not a wall that keeps us away but is a call to seek him with a sincere heart.

As Proverbs 3:5 reminds us:

Faith That Grows Relationship with God

Faith plays a crucial role. By faith we believe in God’s presence and goodness even when he seems far away. This kind of faith goes beyond seeing to having confidence in the unseen. It encourages us to embrace the mystery and find comfort in knowing that God is working all things for good, even when we don’t have all the answers.

Trusting in God’s Existence & God’s Love

Trust, too, is vital. It means having confidence in God’s character and promises. It’s believing that he wants what’s best for us and that his plans, though sometimes hidden, are good for us in the end. This hopeful trust helps us build a stronger relationship, knowing that God is always faithful and ever-present.

Pursuing Personal Relationship with Our Perfectly Loving God

By seeking God out of the sincerity of the heart rather than out of obligation that would come from overwhelming evidence (divine obviousness), our relationship becomes dynamic and transformative. His hiddenness is not a test but an opportunity to deepen our faith. It allows and inspires us to pursue God with an open heart. This pursuit pushes us to grow and prompts us to rely on what we’ve been given and not strictly on external proof.

As we finish our exploration of divine hiddenness, let’s think about how this idea can help us grow spiritually and build a closer relationship with God. The mysterious nature of God’s presence invites us into a journey of discovery, where our faith is stretched and our trust solidified. This journey isn’t just about finding answers but about enjoying the process and the route life takes us.

Trust acts as an anchor in situations of uncertainty, as in the idea of God’s hiddenness. Although God’s presence may not always be obvious, Christians believe that he shows himself in his perfect timing. This trust encourages Christians and those who want to believe to remain patient and hopeful, confident that God’s wisdom guides his interactions with us to shape our paths in ways we might not understand right away.

Personal experiences with God, whether during times of deep thought, peaceful moments, or tragedy, help strengthen our connection with him. These experiences may be subtle or overwhelming, but they all help us grow closer to God. By being open to learning from these moments, we can develop a heart that recognizes his presence.

In conclusion, divine hiddenness isn’t a barrier. It’s an invitation to grow. It encourages us to trust God’s wisdom and timing, to seek him sincerely, and to accept the mystery of life’s journey of faith as part of the human experience.

When we change how we think about the idea of why God seems hidden or doesn’t clearly show himself, we deepen our relationship with God. We then find comfort in his hidden but always present support.

Be encouraged! May God strengthen your faith, and may he draw you closer to himself, especially when he seems hidden. Take comfort in the fact that God always reveals himself to those who truly seek him.

The post Divine Hiddenness and the Existence of God appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Love Is in the Air and It Smells Like Intelligent Design appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Rhett and Link grew up as evangelicals and served with the campus ministry Cru. As a comedy team, they’ve achieved notable success, largely through their YouTube program and channel, both named Good Mythical Morning. The channel has over 18.4 million subscribers and over 8.9 billion video downloads. So, when they walked away from the faith, the reverberations were felt by untold numbers of young people in the church.

According to Christian apologist Alisa Childers, the reason for their deconversion started with concerns about science. Childers writes: 

The stories themselves weren’t so different from others that have lit up social media over the past few years. For Rhett, it started with questions relating to science, the age of the earth, and evolution. It morphed into doubts surrounding biblical reliability, the historicity of the resurrection, and the general idea of hell and judgment. But as both Rhett and Link recounted, something was brewing underneath the intellectual questions. They both felt a deep discomfort with biblical sexual ethics, which they perceived to oppress women and their LGBTQ+ friends.¹

Surveys Say Our Young People Are in Crisis
So, for Rhett and Link, perceptions they had about science and its relationship to Christianity initiated a journey of doubt that came to an end when they walked out the door of the church for the final time. Sadly, their story is typical. A well-known survey published by the Barna Group reports that 29% of young church attendees see churches as out of step with advances in science. Another 25% see Christianity as antiscience. And 23% are turned off by the creation-evolution debate.² In other words, the perception of conflict between science and Christianity is one of the reasons young people leave the church. 

My own experience aligns with this data. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met at speaking engagements who convey to me that one of their college-age children has walked away from the faith because of science. They often explain their heartache with a sense of desperation.

The Barna Group survey isn’t that shocking. A common narrative in our culture today is that science and religion are incompatible with one another. A Pew Research Foundation study discovered that nearly 60% of all Americans see conflict between science and faith. For those who rarely attend church services that number rises to about 72%. Shockingly, for those who attend church weekly, the number hovers around 50%.³

This number is discouraging because it means that half of people in churches embrace a conflict model for science and Christianity. No wonder young people have the perception that Christianity is antiscientific. They’re immersed in that mindset when they’re at church.

How a Creation View Contributes to the Disconnect
In my experience, this aversion to science in the church arises largely out of the influence of young-earth creationism (YEC), the view that God created the earth and humanity about 6,000 years ago. YEC is at odds with much of science. And the only way to maintain this form of creationism is to regard science—at least that which is interpreted from a secular worldview—as hostile to Christianity and, therefore, to dismiss many of its findings. Hence, conflict exists between science and the faith, and Christians must reject the “lies” of science and uphold the “truth” of God’s Word.

Young-earth creationism is pervasive among evangelical churches. A poll conducted by BioLogos determined that 54% of pastors support YEC.⁴ Thus, it’s not surprising that some of the most committed churchgoers see a lack of concord between science and their Christian faith. Their pastor may be proclaiming this message from the pulpit.

The results of the Barna and Pew surveys become more worrisome when we consider another Barna Group survey. Over 50% of young people in churches desire careers in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine) fields. According to the survey results: 23% are interested in medicine and health care, 13% want a career in engineering, 8% will pursue work in the sciences, 5% express interest in veterinary medicine, and 5% see themselves working in technology.⁵

These results make sense. STEMM careers are among the most exciting and lucrative ways to earn a living. In fact, these numbers align with the career aspirations of nonchurched youth. 

In the same survey, the Barna Group learned that only 38% of youth leaders and 36% of senior pastors discuss career interests with students in their churches. And only 1% of youth leaders discuss science-related topics with young people in the church. Yet, half of their students are interested in careers in science-based fields. 

The Need to Learn Other Creation Views
Herein lies the problem. If church leaders have an underlying suspicion about science, then young people in these churches are bound to absorb that mindset. Most likely any exposure that the youth have had to science-faith discussions is from the vantage point of YEC. Many of them go on to college, where they might take a course of study designed to prepare them to pursue a career in STEMM. But this pursuit requires that they take classes in science and math. In the process, they will be confronted by compelling scientific evidence that tells them that the universe and earth are old and life is ancient. They’ll also be presented with scientific claims that evolutionary processes can explain the origin, design, history, and diversity of life. All these claims run contrary to what they accepted on faith to be true. And doubts start to rise.  

These students will also interact with professors whom they likely admire and respect, and peers they want to impress who are more than willing to ridicule their belief in creationism. These professors and classmates will reinforce the students’ growing concerns that science makes belief in God unreasonable and renders the biblical creation accounts unbelievable. I know from firsthand experience as someone trained in the life sciences that this hostility to Christianity is most prevalent in the life sciences. Though I wasn’t a Christian when I was an undergraduate, I recall countless times that the professors in my biology classes went out of their way to say something derogatory about young-earth creationism and Christianity.

Since many churches don’t discuss science-faith issues, and if they do, it’s most likely from a young-earth perspective, these students are ill-equipped to handle this assault on their faith. 

This situation is so unfortunate because other science-faith perspectives exist. In fact, there are good biblical and theological reasons to think that YEC isn’t the best reading of Genesis 1–11. Old-earth creationism (OEC) accepts the antiquity of the universe, earth, and life’s history. It views the fossil record as a proxy for a real history of life on Earth. This perspective (also called progressive creationism) recognizes features of biological systems as reflecting bona fide design, the handiwork of the Creator. OEC expresses skepticism about the claim that all of biology can be explained as the outworking of evolutionary processes. Instead, OEC argues that key transitions in life’s history require the Creator’s intervention. According to the BioLogos survey, about 15% of pastors hold this view. If this view were more prominent in churches, I wonder if fewer young people would deconvert.

Another 18% of pastors embrace theistic evolution (also called evolutionary creationism). This view maintains that God created through evolutionary processes. Like OEC, theistic evolution accepts the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe and Earth. It also views the fossil record as a reflection of life’s history that spans 3.8 billion years. The difference between the two views relates to the mode of divine action. Does God intervene occasionally when he creates or does he create through process alone?

Both old-earth and evolutionary creationism find compatibility—even harmony—between science and Christianity, but in different ways. OEC embraces an overlap model, with the biblical creation accounts finding support from scientific advances. At Reasons to Believe (RTB), we employ an approach we call constructive integration in which we seek to integrate scientific findings with insights from the biblical creation accounts to yield a creation model, replete with scientific predictions. 

As a rule, evolutionary creationists employ a complementary (but not overlapping) model. They see the biblical creation accounts and the scientific models for origins as different expressions of truth. Each approach points to the same truth, yet each approach must be kept separate. The scientific insights tell us the how of creation. The biblical insights tell us the why of creation. Evolutionary creationists don’t see any scientific evidence in support of the creation accounts (such as in Genesis 1), because science belongs in a different domain of knowledge than do theological insights that come from Scripture. In other words, compatibility exists between science and Christianity because they speak to different facets of the truth.

These two approaches have different strengths and weaknesses. Thoughtful Christians hold to each of these views for various biblical, theological, philosophical, and scientific reasons. It seems to me that if church leaders want to equip their young people, then they will include presentations of these two views along with YEC. These types of discussions let young people in the church know that they have options when it comes to questions regarding science and the Christian faith. At minimum, by learning other views the students will be equipped to think for themselves and they’ll gain the tools they need to engage scientific challenges to their faith when in college.

Embracing Controversy and Avoiding Deconversion
Sadly, one reason why churches don’t equip students to engage with science is because these topics are controversial and they evoke a lot of passion in some people. This passion is understandable because of the importance of the science-faith discussion and the far-ranging implications that arise out of the various science-faith models. Unfortunately, discussing science-faith topics in churches can become divisive, and pastors and church leaders seek to avoid divisions in their congregations at all costs. They want to maintain peace and unity, which is understandable, but the youth pay the price for this feigned peace. They aren’t equipped to deal with scientific challenges to their faith in college and, worse, they develop the perception that discussions about science and Christianity are dangerous. And when they’re confronted with scientific evidence that seems to run counter to the ideas that they’ve been taught about Genesis 1–11—usually YEC—they conclude that their pastors and church leaders avoided these topics because there really aren’t good answers to scientific challenges. They’re vulnerable to the message of a popular YouTube duo that tantalizes them with the “freedom” of deconversion. 

Even though I have my convictions as an old-earth creationist, I recognize that others have differing convictions. It’s important to debate our differences with vigor but we must also engage with one another in a way that treats others who hold differing views in a gentle and respectful way. Our debates should help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of the positions we hold and the positions that others hold. While we all should advocate for our position, we need to move beyond defending our territory at all costs and consider how we can best serve young people in the church.

It’s been our conviction at RTB to model this irenic, educational approach as we engage young-earth and evolutionary creationists. It has also shaped our discourses with BioLogos and Peaceful Science and will continue to do so in the future.

Though I am an old-earth creationist, I would much rather that a young person embraces a science-faith perspective that differs from my own than walks away from the faith. 

Resources

• Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and Biologos (book)

• Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (book)

• “Christianity and Human Origins,” event sponsored by the Gospel Initiative, Denver Seminary, featuring Fazale “Fuz” Rana, S. Joshua Swamidass, Denis Lamoureux, and Jeffrey Schloss 
  

Endnotes

1. Alisa Childers, “Let’s Deconstruct a Deconversion Story: The Case of Rhett and Link,” The Gospel Coalition, February 29, 2020. 
2. Barna Group, “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church,” September 27, 2011. 
3. Pew Research Center, “Perception of Conflict between Science and Religion,” October 22, 2015. 
4. Stoyan Zaimov, “Poll: Many Protestant Pastors Lean toward Young Earth Creation,” Christian Post, May 13, 2013.
5. Barna Group, “What Teens Aspire to Do in Life, How Churches Can Help,” June 14, 2011.

The post Does Science Cause Christians to Deconvert? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Some would say it’s the problem of evil. If God exists and he is good, why is there so much seemingly senseless pain and suffering in the world?

Others might say it’s God’s hiddenness. If God exists and he is good, and wants us to acknowledge and worship him, why doesn’t he make himself and his wishes clearly known to us?

This is the challenge I received from someone on X (formerly Twitter) in response to an article I posted presenting scientific evidence for God’s role in life’s history. He wrote:

I’ve followed Hugh and yourself since around 2008 or so and valued your perspectives. . . . In my mind, if any of this was true, we wouldn’t have to have these discussions. This God of the universe would be present and unambiguous.

Divine hiddenness presents one of the most serious challenges to Christian theism. There are good responses to the problem. However, if truth be told, none of the responses “feel” fully complete, nor fully adequate.

Divine Hiddenness and God’s Transcendence
In response to the problem of divine hiddenness, theologian and philosopher Michael Rea writes:

God’s transcendence should be understood as implying that all of God’s intrinsic attributes—divine love included—elude our grasp in ways that should put us in doubt about any revelation-independent claim about how a perfectly loving deity would likely behave toward human beings.¹

Rea’s point is that if, indeed, God is transcendent, his hiddenness is endemic to his nature. As creatures who are part of his creation, we have no hope of being aware of or experiencing a transcendent God who exists outside and independent of the universe. We can only know God if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

The Islamic concept of God embodies Rea’s understanding. In Islam, God is entirely hidden from us, and, therefore, unknowable to us. Muslims intertwine God’s greatness with his hiddenness. All we can know of Allah is what Allah wills. (And Allah wills what Allah wills.) To say that we can somehow know Allah is considered blasphemy because to know him means that we are in some way his peers. We are elevating ourselves to his level when we say we can know him.

The Doctrine of Revelation
Considering the Islamic concept of God’s hiddenness, the Christian doctrine of revelation becomes quite radical. According to the doctrine of revelation, the transcendent Creator of the universe, who is intrinsically hidden from us, has chosen to make himself known to us. From Scripture, it appears that this Creator wants us to see his attributes in that which he has made, and desire to be in a loving relationship with him.

According to Christian theologians, God has made himself known from:

1. that which he has made (which is the basis for the cosmological and design arguments),
2. our conscience (which is the basis for the moral argument), and 
3. human nature—human beings bear God’s image and, consequently, we image God. 

Theologians refer to this form of revelation as general revelation because it’s generally available to all people at all times. Theologians also describe a second type of revelation: special revelation. Here God has revealed himself to specific people, at specific times, under specific circumstances. These interactions with God have been written down and recorded in the pages of the Old and the New Testaments.

God’s ultimate revelation of himself is in the person of Christ—God incarnate. 

Some Remain Skeptical
As a Christian, it’s clear to me that God has made himself and his desires for all humanity abundantly known. I find the case for the Christian faith to be compelling. But I recognize that others don’t. Many skeptics remain sincerely unconvinced that God exists. They assert that this “revelation” is still unclear and ambiguous, leaving room for a skeptic to sincerely question God’s existence and goodness.

I’m sympathetic to that point. To be fair, the conclusions drawn from cosmological, design, and moral arguments bear an element of uncertainty. The likelihood that the conclusions ring true can be in the “eye of the beholder.” Likewise, while the evidence for Jesus’s life and crucifixion is certain, the case for Christ’s resurrection is probabilistic.

Based on my reading of Scripture, I’m not surprised by ongoing skepticism in the face of divine revelation. Scripture teaches that some people will not see God revealed through his creation (Romans 1:19–25). In fact, there were people who directly experienced Jesus’s ministry firsthand, yet rejected him as the Messiah. So why wouldn’t that be true today?

Space for Sincere Unbelief
God has chosen to make himself known to us, yet it seems like he’s left space for sincere unbelief.

Why wouldn’t God be clearer in his revelation to us? This question brings us back to Michael Rea’s thought. As creatures, we don’t get to dictate the manner and the extent to which a transcendent God makes himself known to us. Yet his revelation to us must be sufficient because there are many people like me who do see God’s fingerprints in creation, who are convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and who have encountered God through religious experiences.

Philosopher Michael Murray has suggested two related possibilities for God’s ambiguity in revealing himself to us. First, he argues that if God made his existence undeniable, it would strip us of moral freedom. As a result, we would be coerced into following his moral mandates. We wouldn’t really have the freedom to choose to obey God.² Second, he argues that God’s hiddenness is essential to “soul-making.” For people to develop and grow and be transformed in their innermost being, they must possess free will. They must be able to choose wrong from right, good from evil.³

Yet, if God is revealed so plainly and his will made unambiguous, then we would be so overwhelmed by God that we would have no choice but to believe in him and follow his commands. Our free will would be stripped from us, and our souls could not be transformed. 

Another point related to Murray’s arguments is the idea that God created humans in his image to be in a relationship with him. He made us with a free will so that we could choose him or reject him. Any relationship becomes meaningless if one person in the relationship compels the other person to be in the relationship with them and to love them. If God made himself unambiguously known to us and his desire for a relationship with us were undeniable, we wouldn’t have any choice whatsoever. We would be compelled to believe in him and serve and worship him. If this scenario were the case, then it would render God a megalomaniac, not a God of love, grace, and mercy.

In short, God has good reasons for not making himself ever-present and his desires for us unambiguous. We can ascertain some of the reasons, but others may remain unknown to us. Still, just because we don’t know (or can’t know) those reasons doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the mind of a transcendent God.

Resources

• Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions by Kenneth Samples (book)

• Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? by Kenneth Samples (book)

Divine Hiddenness

• “Is God’s “Hiddenness” a Rational Objection to Christianity?” by Kenneth Samples (article)

• “Heaven and the Hiddenness of God” by Sean Oesch (article)

• “Is God Hidden from Us?” by Joseph Palmer (article)

Endnotes

1. Michael C. Rea, The Hiddenness of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 8–9.
2. Michael J. Murray, “Coercion and the Hiddenness of God,” American Philosophical Quarterly 30, no. 1 (January 1993): 27–38.
3. Michael J. Murray, “Deus Absconditus,” Divine Hiddenness: New Essays, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder and Paul K. Moser (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 62–82.

The post Why Isn’t God Present and Unambiguous? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

1. The existence of the biblical God offers a rationally plausible explanation for the cosmos’s origin.

Scientific evidence supports the universe’s beginning. According to big bang cosmology, the universe had a singular beginning about 14 billion years ago. The universe came into being in a cataclysmic but controlled explosion of extreme heat and light. The big bang cosmological model, accepted by nearly all research scientists and based on comprehensive astronomical evidence and testing, shows that the cosmos is not eternal but had an origin in the finite past.

Knowing that the cosmos had a singular beginning, consider the Kalam cosmological argument:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. 

2. The existence of the biblical God provides a rationally plausible explanation for the complex order and design in the world. 

The scientific community’s broad acceptance of the anthropic principle—the view that nature’s laws appear to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of human life—supports the view that the cosmos is the product of a designer. Even a committed atheist would have to acknowledge that the universe exhibits extraordinary order and design. Moreover, scientists have proposed that the cosmos didn’t have to take its present form and the statistical probability of producing a life-permitting world is virtually incalculable.²

In reflecting upon our life-friendly, orderly universe, consider this fine-tuning argument:

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe must result from physical necessity, chance, or design. 
Premise 2: It does not result from physical necessity or chance. 
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning results from design.

3. The existence of the biblical God provides a rationally plausible explanation for the compatibility between mathematical ideas and their capacity to describe the universe.

Over the last few centuries, scientists have recognized that abstract mathematics can be used as a type of tool or language to explain the physical cosmos. In his paper “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,”³ physicist Eugene Wigner even uses the word “miracle” to describe this extraordinary congruence between mathematical ideas in the minds of human beings and their explanatory power to describe physical reality. 

Does mathematics operate simply because that’s the way the universe happens to be (a fortunate accident as the result of a brute reality)? Or is the cosmos the product of reason because it was created by an infinitely wise divine mind?

Consider this abductive (inference to the best explanation) argument: 

Premise 1: Abstract mathematics accurately describes the universe. 
Premise 2: But if the biblical God exists, then math’s applicability to nature is an expected matter of course resulting from the act of creation. 
Conclusion: Thus, there is plausible reason to conclude that the biblical God exists. 

From a Christian perspective, mathematics and logic flow from the mind of the Creator God who imbued these rational elements into the nature of the universe. 

Takeaway
In terms of explanatory power, the biblical God can account for a broad range of science-related phenomena in the cosmos. In contrast, how does a godless perspective compare? Does a universe that (1) had an origin, (2) reflects order and design, and (3) corresponds to mathematics comport well with a naturalistic point of view? 

Resources

• Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God

• Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas

Endnotes

1. For a dozen such arguments, see Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), chapters 7 and 8.
2. Physicist Paul Davies argues that the cosmos could have followed a vast variety of contingent outcomes. See Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 169. And concerning chance being responsible for the universe’s fine-tuning, physicist Roger Penrose has calculated the chance, or undirected, formation of our cosmos to be one part in 1010(123). See Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 344.
3. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” reprinted from Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1960).

The post 3 Science-Related Arguments for God’s Existence appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

This same fascination is one reason why biochemistry is so attractive to me. Like economies, the cell’s chemical systems are incredibly complex. Yet, despite their bewildering complexity biochemists have gained important insight into their structure and function. At times, we can even predict how biochemical systems will respond to environmental and internal cell stimuli.

The Challenge of Predicting Metabolic Pathways
The set of biochemical systems collectively referred to as intermediary metabolism is the pinnacle of biochemical complexity. (See Intermediary Metabolism.) Even though these systems are complex, it is incumbent on biochemists to understand them and be able to predict their behavior. Disturbances in metabolic processes cause numerous diseases. For this reason, metabolic reactions are often drug targets. For drug development to be efficient and successful, biochemists need to know how to predict the response of metabolic pathways when drugs are administered. 

Additionally, biotechnologists and synthetic biologists are interested in engineering metabolic pathways so that organisms can serve as bioreactors that produce valuable products (drugs, vaccines, biofuels, bioplastics, etc.) from readily available and inexpensive starting materials. Agricultural scientists also work to manipulate metabolic processes to produce crops and livestock that yield more nutritious foods while thriving under Earth’s changing climate and environmental conditions.  

Recently, two biophysicists from Japan made headway toward this end by successfully applying an equation used in microeconomics—the Slutsky equation—to metabolic systems. This equation predicts consumer demand for goods in response to price changes and consumers’ income. It also appears to be able to predict metabolic responses to changes in nutrients or the introduction of metabolic perturbants such as drugs and toxins.¹

The principal investigator of the duo found inspiration for the study when he noticed striking similarities between metabolic diagrams and graphical displays used in economics. This topological similarity led him to wonder if economic models could be used to predict changes to metabolic systems when they are disturbed by drugs or deliberately altered through bioengineering methods.²

Their work has important scientific implications and critical utility in biotechnology. It also has provocative philosophical and theological implications. Before I discuss the biophysicists’ work and explore the implications of their findings, a brief primer on intermediary metabolism will be helpful. Those readers well-versed in biochemistry may choose to skip ahead to Microeconomics Predicts Metabolic Perturbations.

Intermediary Metabolism
It’s not just economies that share commonalities with metabolic pathways, so do interconnected city streets. The chemical reactions that comprise intermediary metabolism are organized like city streets into routes or pathways comprised of a series of chemical reactions. These reactions transform starting compounds into final products via a sequence of small, stepwise chemical changes. Each step in a metabolic route is mediated by a protein (called an enzyme). The pathways can be linear, branched, or circular.

The chemical components that form part of one metabolic sequence sometimes take part in other pathways. These shared compounds cause metabolic pathways to be interconnected and networked together in the same way that streets form intersections when they come together. The collection of metabolic processes represents a complex, reticulated web of chemical reactions, each one catalyzed by an enzyme.

Microeconomics Predicts Metabolic Perturbations 
The two biophysicists demonstrated that operations of economies and metabolism pathways are both described by the Slutsky equation. The equation has two terms: one that reflects the substitution effect and one that reflects the income effect.

The Substitution Effect
The idea behind the substitution effect appears simple at first glance. If the price of a particular good (or service) increases, consumers will buy less of it. If the price decreases, consumers will buy more of it. But it can be more complicated than that. Sometimes when the price of a good drops, consumer demand will remain unchanged. In this case, consumers have more income and decide to use their newfound purchasing power to buy other goods. In some cases, if the price falls, so, too, does the demand for a particular good. In this case, the consumer perceives the item as less valuable or of a lower quality and will purchase more costly items in its place. In the same vein, as the price rises, consumer demand for that good will tend to increase. In this scenario, the consumer perceives the good as more valuable or of a greater quality. 

Economists refer to goods that experience an increased demand when prices drop or a decrease in demand when prices rise as normal or ordinary goods. On the other hand, they define Giffen goods (named after Scottish economist Sir Robert Giffen) as goods that display the opposite behavior. Their demand increases as their price increases and falls as their price drops. 

The Income Effect
The income effect refers to the impact that a change in income has on the demand for goods. As income increases, consumers gain purchasing power. As income decreases, consumers lose purchasing power. As noted, a change in the price of goods also alters the consumer’s purchasing power. For this reason, the substitution and income effects can work in concert or in opposition to one another. 

When a consumer’s income changes, so, too, will the demand they have for particular goods. As with the substitution effect, the change in demand in response to change in income is complex. For example, if a consumer’s income increases, demand for a particular good can increase. In other cases, it may remain unchanged if the consumer redirects his or her increase in purchasing power elsewhere. Or demand may drop if the consumer chooses to use their increased purchasing power to replace the purchase of that particular good with another of better quality. 

Biochemical Analogs to Price and Demand
Using insight from microeconomics, the biophysicists decided to treat nutrient availability as income and metabolic “inhibitions” (such as nutrient restrictions, or drug or toxin exposures) as price. Using the Slutsky equation as a starting point, they modified it to correspond to metabolic systems, in which change in demand for a good becomes a measure of metabolic response.  

It isn’t surprising that they discovered that many metabolic systems behaved as expected, increasing their flux when more nutrients became available and decreasing their throughput when metabolic inhibitions prevailed. They also discovered scenarios when metabolic output behaved counterintuitively. For example, for certain cancer cells, the rate of metabolic respiration increases when exposed to specific anticancer drugs (which are analogous to a price increase). That is to say, the metabolic change (change in demand) of the cancer cell corresponds to a Giffen good.

The researchers also demonstrated that by using their equations, changes in metabolic output can be predicted simply by measuring the flux of a metabolic system under different nutrient conditions, or when exposed to drugs or toxins. These predictions can be made even if nothing is known at all about the metabolic systems. In other words, these researchers have discovered a fundamental relationship that applies to all metabolic systems. Remarkably, it’s the same relationship that is found in microeconomics, making it a universal law.

This insight by the Japanese researchers has practical utility for drug development and the creation of biotechnologies. It also gives us a better understanding of metabolic systems, and hence, life’s chemistry. Even more important are the interesting philosophical—maybe even theological—implications this scientific advance entails.

The Intelligibility of Nature
It is remarkable that a single, conceptually simple equation universally describes the behavior of metabolic systems and consumer response—both of which on the surface appear to be intractably complex. Making sense of metabolic systems with a single universally applicable equation is a principle that does not stand in isolation. It is endemic to the scientific enterprise. Mathematical laws that capably describe phenomena in our world abound, making nature intelligible to us. This feature is one of the most intriguing aspects of our universe. Nature’s intelligibility is astounding.

For most of the history of science, the discovery and exploration of the mathematical nature of the universe has been confined to physics and, to a lesser extent, chemistry. Because of the complexity and diversity of biochemical systems, many people working in the life sciences have wondered if simple mathematical rules exist in biochemistry and could they ever be discovered. This discovery of a simple rule that predicts the behavior of metabolic systems suggests that mathematical relationships do describe and govern biochemical phenomena.

A universe governed by mathematical relationships suggests that a deep, underlying rationale undergirds nature, which is precisely what I would expect if a Mind was behind the universe. To put it differently, if a Creator was responsible for the universe, as a Christian I would expect that mathematical relationships would define the universe’s structure and function. In like manner, if the origin and design of living systems originated from a Creator, it would make sense that biochemical systems would possess an underlying mathematical structure as well—though it might be hard for us to discern these relationships because of the systems’ complexity.

Even more astounding is our capacity as human beings to make sense of the world around us, and then use that understanding to develop technology and exert some control over nature. Our capacity to understand nature with mathematical precision is what we would expect if human beings have been made in God’s image (as Scripture describes), with the capacity to discern God’s handiwork in the world around us.

But what if humans were cobbled together by evolutionary processes? Why would we expect human beings to be capable of making sense of the world around us? For that matter, why would we expect the universe—including the biological realm—to adhere to mathematical relationships?

In other words, the mathematical undergirding of nature fits better in a theistic conception of reality than one rooted in materialism. And toward that end, the discovery by the two investigators points to God’s role in the origin and design of life.

Is There a Biochemical Anthropic Principle?
The Japanese scientists believe their discovery of a universal, mathematical equation that describes the behavior of metabolic pathways may turn out to be the rule rather than the exception. The two researchers are embarking on a project to determine if other universal laws describing living systems can be found.³

Their discovery also implies that metabolic systems did not arise through the haphazard outworking of evolutionary history. Because a universal law governs the operation of metabolic systems, the structure of these systems appears to be fundamentally dictated and constrained by the laws of nature. In other words, the behavior of metabolic systems appears to be inevitable in a universe like ours.

It is eerie to think that the universe appears to be structured in a just-right way so that metabolic systems—central to life—behave predictably. If the universe was any other way, this may not be the case. 

One way to interpret this “coincidence” is to view it as evidence that our universe has been designed for a purpose (the anthropic principle). And purpose must come from a Mind—namely, God.

And you can take that conclusion to the bank.

Resources for Further Exploration

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)
• Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? by Fazale Rana (book)

The Optimal Design of Metabolism

• “Metabolism: A Cascade of Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Optimal Design of Metabolism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Origin of Metabolism and the Anthropic Principle

• “Krebs Cycle Origin Brings Case for Creation Full Circle” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Evidence That the Cell’s Metabolism Is Planned” by Fazale Rana (article)

Biological Laws and the Intelligibility of Nature

• “Simple Biological Rules Affirm Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Jumpei F. Yamagishi and Tetsuhiro S. Hatakeyama, “Linear Response Theory of Evolved Metabolic Systems,” Physical Review Letters 131, no. 2 (July 14, 2023): 028401, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.028401. 
2. University of Tokyo, “The Economic Life of Cells,” ScienceDaily, July 13, 2023.
3. University of Tokyo, “The Economic Life of Cells.”

The post Cell’s Metabolism Economized for Design appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

To be frank, I’m not sure I understand the ins and outs of cryptocurrency well enough to be comfortable investing in it. 

Currency is a standardized form of exchange in an economy. It’s a universal store of value that can be presented or received in exchange for goods or services. The use of currency is so commonplace that it becomes easy to overlook its genius as a human invention and its critical importance to any economy. Without currency, we would all have to barter for goods and services. And bartering is extremely cumbersome and inefficient. 

The Cell’s Energy Currency
Currency not only ensures the efficient operation of economies, but it also ensures the efficient operation of biochemical processes inside the cell. These processes require energy. And that energy is almost always supplied by the biomolecule, ATP (adenosine triphosphate)—a molecule dubbed the energy currency of the cell.

Biochemists have learned that for the cell’s biochemical processes to be suitably efficient, they require an energy currency molecule such as ATP. What’s the best explanation for how this indispensable energy currency emerged? 

Broken Bonds Provide Energy
Let’s start with the structure of the biochemical energy source. ATP consists of an adenine attached to the sugar, ribose. Also bound to the ribose is a triphosphate group (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: The Structure of ATP
Credit: Shutterstock

The triphosphate portion of ATP is the source of energy used to drive biochemical activities. The three phosphoryl groups are labeled as alpha (α), beta (β), and, for the terminal phosphate, gamma (γ). The triphosphate group is joined to ribose via a phosphoester linkage. The three phosphoryl groups are joined by two phosphoanhydride linkages. Biochemists refer to the phosphoanhydride linkages as high-energy bonds. When these bonds are broken, the released chemical energy powers the energy-requiring processes within the cell. 

When the bond between the gamma and beta phosphoryl groups is broken, the compound ADP forms and releases a phosphate molecule. When the linkage between the beta and alpha phosphoryl groups is broken, the compounds AMP and pyrophosphate form (see figure 2). The phosphoanhydride linkage joining the two phosphate moieties of pyrophosphate can be further broken down into two phosphate molecules, releasing additional energy that can also be used to power cellular activities. 

Figure 2: Hydrolysis of ATP
Credit: Shutterstock

ATP forms in the cell through a variety of biochemical pathways. These pathways involve the breakdown of “fuel” molecules (such as sugars and fats) which, in turn, release chemical energy that drives the formation of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate. Ultimately, most of the cell’s ATP is made by the enzyme complex, ATP synthase.  

The Cellular Economy
The use of a single molecular species (for the most part) to store and supply energy for biochemical operations relies on the same logic that undergirds the use of currency to drive an economy. Hence, ATP is called the energy currency of the cell.

To appreciate the ingenuity of using a single molecular species as the energy currency, imagine that you work for a farmer. Without currency, the only way he can pay you for your labor is with goods, say oranges produced in his orchard. If you need a pair of shoes, you must hope that the shoemaker needs oranges. If he doesn’t, you can’t get the shoes. You now need to find someone who will take the oranges and provide you with goods that the shoemaker needs. 

If no one wants oranges, you are out of luck procuring any goods and services. And you (and anybody else for that matter) are unlikely to work for the farmer unless he agrees to give you some other commodity for your labor that you can easily exchange for the goods and services you desire. If he can’t, then you will lose a job and he will lose labor. 

Currency eliminates all these problems. Because it is a standardized medium of exchange that has value, it can be used to pay laborers who, in turn, can use it to buy whatever products they want. And the shopkeepers can accept currency from them because they have the confidence that they can use it to buy whatever they would like. 

In the same vein as this imaginary scenario, the cell could employ a type of bartering system. Instead of using ATP as an energy store and currency, the energy released when the chemical bonds of “fuel” molecules break apart, in principle, could be directly used to drive biochemical activities. However, if specific biochemical operations were coupled to the breakdown of specific molecules (or the breakdown of specific bonds within specific molecules), it would lead to molecular-scale inefficiencies in the same way that bartering frustrates economic efficiency. Specific biochemical processes in the cell could only take place if the just-right type of “fuel” molecule was present in the cell or if it was at the just-right levels. For example, if a certain biochemical process required the breakdown of a specific chemical bond in the sugar molecule, glucose, and if insufficient levels of glucose existed in the cell, the necessary biochemical process couldn’t take place until other metabolites were converted into glucose. 

This conversion most likely would involve a highly convoluted series of chemical reactions—in the same way that multiple exchanges must take place in a barter economy to satisfy everyone involved. In fact, the inefficiency of a barter-based metabolic economy would be so extreme that it raises questions—at least for me as a biochemist—about the possibility of life without some type of energy currency. 

Additionally, ATP’s use as an energy currency helps maintain balanced biochemical processes in the cell. In the same way that economies can be slowed down or ramped up by controlling the amount of currency, the metabolic operations in the cell can be dialed up or down based on ATP levels. When ATP levels are high, energy-harvesting pathways slow down and energy-consuming pathways speed up. When ATP levels are low, the reverse scenario takes place with energy-generating pathways speeding up their operation and energy-consuming pathways slowing down. 

Biochemical Energy Currency and the Watchmaker Argument
The remarkable similarity between the role ATP plays in the cell’s economy and currency plays in human economies allows us to advance a version of the Watchmaker argument for God’s existence and role in the origin and design of life. 

British natural theologian William Paley (1743–1805) proposed this argument by highlighting the characteristics of a watch, specifically the complex interaction of its precision parts for the purpose of telling time. He maintained that the contrivances integral to the watch’s design implied the work of an intelligent designer—a watchmaker. Paley demonstrated that systems in biology share the same characteristics that cause us to recognize a watch as the product of a designer. Therefore, by analogy, as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, life requires a Creator.

In my book The Cell’s Design, I argue that the latest insights into the structure and function of biomolecules add new vitality to Paley’s Watchmaker argument. For example, there are many kinds of molecular-level biomachines that stand as strict analogs to human-made machines with respect to their architecture, operation, and assembly. As a case in point, some protein complexes, such as ATP synthase (the enzyme complex that makes ATP from ADP and phosphate), bear an astonishing similarity to motors designed by humans. These protein complexes come with rotors, stators, drive shafts, cams, turbines, and universal joints. The one-to-one relationship between the parts of human-made machines and the molecular components of biomachines is startling and further justifies Paley’s conclusion that life stems from the work of a Creator. We can add the discovery of ATP’s role as the cell’s energy currency to the revitalized Watchmaker argument.

The use of currency to generate economic efficiency is a human invention. In fact, I would submit that it might be the greatest, most ingenious human invention of all time—even greater than the wheel. If not for the invention of currency, efficient economies would be impossible—and so would human civilization. And if the use of currency to generate economic efficiency is an ingenious human design, then the use of biochemical energy currency must, too, reflect the ingenuity of an intelligent agent.

Why ATP?
Scientists now recognize the necessary role of a biochemical energy currency. But why was ATP “selected” as the energy currency? Why not some other biomolecule?

ATP serves universally as the biochemical energy currency. Every organism on Earth uses ATP to power its metabolic operations. From an evolutionary perspective, this recognition means ATP must have been employed as the cell’s energy currency in LUCA (the last universal common ancestor) and perhaps in the cells that preceded LUCA. In an evolutionary framework, ATP’s usefulness as the biochemical energy currency must have been an early invention. 

Many evolutionary biologists would argue that ATP’s choice as the cell’s energy currency was happenstance. It resulted from the outworking of an unguided, undirected, evolutionary process that was constrained by history. In other words, there was no rhyme or reason for why ATP was selected as the cell’s energy currency. It’s just the accidental outcome of evolutionary history. Alternatively, other researchers propose that the forces of natural selection led to ATP as the optimal (or near optimal) choice as the cell’s energy currency.

As it turns out, biochemists have identified several reasons why ATP is well-suited for its role as the biochemical currency for the cell’s energy. This fact explains ATP’s ascendency to its status as the universal energy currency.

One reason relates to other roles ATP plays in the cell. Not only does ATP function as the cell’s energy currency, but, along with the ribonucleotides GTP, CTP, and UTP, ATP is one of the building block components for RNA. This class of biomolecules plays a critical role in expressing the information found in DNA. For example, the cell’s machinery produces messenger RNA by copying the information harbored in the DNA molecule in regions (called genes). The RNA copies, in turn, direct the production of specific proteins. These biomolecules then form the structures that comprise the cell’s components and carry out the cell’s operations. By utilizing one of the building blocks of RNA as the biochemical energy currency, gene expression is linked to the energy status of the cell. When the cell’s energy status is low, it’s best to minimize gene expression overall. On the other hand, it makes sense to accelerate the expression of genes that code for proteins that play a role in energy-harvesting processes.  

Second, using ATP as both the cell’s energy currency and a building block component for RNA leads to metabolic simplicity. Instead of having a separate metabolic pool for the cell’s energy currency and, in this case, the building blocks needed for the biosynthesis of RNA, the cell can rely on a single pool of biomolecules that serves both biochemical operations.

A third reason why ATP was chosen instead of GTP, CDP, or UTP concerns how it interacts with proteins. Both CTP and UTP contain a pyrimidine as the nucleobase instead of a purine. Because purines consist of two fused molecular rings, they are more hydrophobic (lacking affinity for water) than pyrimidines, which consist of a single six-membered nucleobase. The increased hydrophobicity of purine nucleobases causes ATP and GTP, as a rule of thumb, to interact more strongly with proteins than CTP or UTP, an important quality for a molecule that functions as the cell’s energy currency. 

For a fourth reason, we might ask why ATP instead of GTP? Guanine (GTP’s nitrogenous base) is made of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms. On the other hand, adenine (ATP’s nitrogenous base) lacks oxygen atoms in its structure. This compositional difference means that it takes fewer biosynthetic steps to make ATP compared to GTP. As a result, using ATP as the cell’s energy currency leads to more efficient utilization of the cell’s energy resources. In other words, it makes more sense to use a molecule that is less expensive to produce than one that is more expensive to produce as the cell’s energy currency.

In sum, there appears to be an exquisite rationale for the selection of ATP as the cell’s energy currency. This insight means that ATP’s designation as the biochemical energy currency wasn’t a frozen accident of a historically contingent evolutionary process. The recognition of a molecular logic in ATP as life’s molecular energy currency is consistent with two radically different views: ATP as the cell’s energy currency came about either by (1) an evolutionary adaptation driven by natural selection, or (2) the intentional design of a Creator. 

Can Evolutionary Processes Generate a Cellular Currency System?
I contend that the intentional choice by a Creator is the best explanation for the selection of ATP as the biochemical energy currency. I question whether gradual, stepwise evolutionary processes could have produced an energy currency system. To understand why, let’s return to the analogy of human economies. For a currency to be accepted as a universal store of economic value, it must be accepted by virtually every actor in the economy—in effect, all at once. Those people who refuse to use the currency can’t fully take part in the economy, other than by bartering. They can’t truly be integrated into the economy and would participate only from the sidelines.

The same requirements would be true for the ATP-based cellular economy. For a cell to use ATP to power its metabolic reactions, all the biochemical processes must use ATP as an energy source all at once. Those biochemical reactions that don’t use ATP can’t fully participate in the cellular economy. These processes may still occur, but they would operate in a haphazard, unpredictable way that prevents them from reliably contributing to cellular metabolism. The failure of these sidelined metabolic activities to consistently contribute to the cell’s economy could be deleterious to the cell, particularly if they’re part of core biochemical operations.

In fact, the use of ATP as the energy currency molecule could not have emerged in a stepwise manner with a few reactions relying on ATP and the rest bartering. The inefficiency of bartering reactions would so overwhelm the cell’s operations that life would be impossible. Despite this problem, evolutionary biologists and origin-of-life researchers still seek an evolutionary explanation for the origin of ATP as the biochemical energy monetary system.

Insight from Prebiotic Chemistry 
A team headed by biochemist Nick Lane from University College London took a different approach to the “why” question about ATP’s selection as the cell’s energy currency. Assuming an evolutionary origin, they wondered if chemical—instead of evolutionary—processes on early Earth could offer insight into the origin of ATP’s role as the cell’s energy currency.¹ 

In an earlier study, this team showed that acetyl phosphate—a phosphorylating agent—could form under mild hydrothermal conditions from the reaction of thioacetate (which would reasonably form at hydrothermal events on early Earth from hydrogen sulfide and acetic acid) and inorganic phosphate. Acetyl phosphate is modestly stable and can survive for several hours, depending on pH and temperature. In other words, this compound has the just-right balance of chemical stability and reactivity. Acetyl phosphate can also transfer a phosphate group to: (1) ribose to make ribose-5-phosphate, (2) adenosine to make AMP, and (3) ADP to make ATP.²

The team reasoned that the transfer of the phosphate from acetyl phosphate to ADP may be a preferred reaction that explains ATP’s emergence as the universal biochemical currency. Their reasoning was justified. They showed that in the presence of ferric iron, acetyl phosphate transferred a phosphate group to ADP. The team discovered that no other phosphorylating agent successfully added a phosphate group to ADP. They also evaluated other ions as catalysts and discovered that none of them promoted the phosphorylation of ADP. Finally, they found that acetyl phosphate and ferric iron would not phosphorylate GTP, CDP, and UDP. The researchers discovered that this remarkable specificity stems from just-right, precise chemical interactions that uniquely exist for acetyl phosphate, ADP, and ferric iron. 

This discovery carries profound implications. It means that the use of ATP as the cell’s energy currency isn’t a frozen accident that arises out of the constraints of a contingent evolutionary history. Nor is it due to natural selection. Instead, it’s due to a highly unusual chemical reaction. In other words, the use of ATP as the cell’s energy currency—from the perspective of prebiotic chemistry—has been prescribed by the laws of nature.

The research team’s responses are compelling:

“The emergence of ATP as the universal energy currency of the cell was not the result of a ‘frozen accident,’ but arose from the unique interactions of ADP and AcP.”³

“This implies that ATP could have become the universal energy currency of life not as the end-point of genetic selection or as a frozen accident, but for fundamental chemical reasons.”⁴

“Our results suggest that ATP became established as the universal energy currency in a prebiotic, monomeric world, on the basis of its unusual chemistry in water.”⁵

“It was very surprising to discover the reaction is so selective—in the metal ion, phosphate donor, and substrate—with molecules that life still uses.”⁶

As interesting as this finding may be, the chemistry the research team discovered lacks geochemical relevance. There are a few reasons to be skeptical that this chemical process could take place on early Earth. 

1. It’s questionable that geochemically relevant prebiotic reactions could generate ADP.
2. It’s questionable that a source of inorganic phosphate would be available.
3. It’s questionable that ferric iron would be abundant on early Earth.

Evidence of Intentional Design
Despite these doubts, let’s assume that this reaction did take place on early Earth as part of the process of chemical evolution.

If we do, the evidence for teleology (design, purpose) is still undeniable. It is eerie that a highly unusual, just-right chemical process uniquely produces ATP—a molecule with a just-right set of properties that’s ideally suited to serve as the cell’s energy currency—under presumed prebiotic conditions. Neither accident nor natural selection is responsible for ATP’s origin. This biomolecule appears to be prescribed by the laws of nature. Its existence appears to be intentional. These coincidences highlight the design and purpose of ATP as the biochemical energy currency.

When we combine these remarkable coincidences, the Watchmaker analogy (described above), and the challenge of imagining how ATP could have emerged as the energy currency for the cell through evolutionary processes, we are left with only one reasonable conclusion: Whether one adopts a creation model or evolutionary approach to life’s genesis, ATP’s origin, properties, and biochemical role point to the necessary action that a Creator must have played in the origin and design of life.

And that conclusion is money in the bank.

Resources

• Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? by Fazale Rana (book)
• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)

Biochemical Anthropic Principle

• “DNA’s Fine-Tuned Structure Minimizes Harmful Tautomers” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Just-Right RNA Structure Points to Intentional Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Logic of DNA Replication Makes a Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “How the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology Points to Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Is the Optimal Set of Protein Amino Acids Purposed by a Mind?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “A Periodic Table for Protein Structures Reveals Biochemical Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Evidence That the Cell’s Metabolism Is Planned” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Krebs Cycle Origin Brings Case for Creation Full Circle” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Molecular Logic of the Electron Transport Chain Supports Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Watchmaker Argument

• “ATP Synthase Ratchets Up the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Addressing the Concerns of a Critic and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Silvana Pinna et al., “A Prebiotic Basis for ATP as the Universal Energy Currency, PLoS Biology 20 (October 4, 2022): e3001437, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001437.
2. Alexandra Whicher et al., “Acetyl Phosphate as a Primordial Energy Currency at the Origin of Life,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 48 (March 3, 2018): 159–79, doi:10.1007/s11084-018-9555-8.
3. PLOS, “Ancient Chemistry May Explain Why Living Things Use ATP as the Universal Energy Currency,” ScienceDaily (October 4, 2022).
4. Pinna et al., “A Prebiotic Basis for ATP.”
5. Pinna et al., “A Prebiotic Basis for ATP.”
6.  PLOS, “Ancient Chemistry May Explain.” 

The post Why ATP? A Creation Model Perspective appeared first on Reasons to Believe.