Uncreated god but not uncreated world

Why can we believe in an uncreated God, but not an uncreated world? If God was not created but has always existed, why is it irrational for someone to believe in a world that has always existed?
A friend of mine is interested in science and was telling me about a theory that the world is expanding and at some point it will explode sort of, and out of the dust or particles, a new world will form, continuing a never ending cycle. I don’t know much about science. What are your thoughts on this?


Good question.

This idea of an ever expanding and contracting universe is still counter to what the scientific evidence shows. For decades and even centuries, atheistic scientists thought the universe was eternal. But in the 20th century, it became understood that that’s not what the evidence shows. The scientific evidence all suggests that time, space, and matter all had a beginning, and it seems to be a shared beginning.

Naturalists–most of whom are Big-Bangers–will admit that the universe had a beginning. What they don’t know and can’t explain is what CAUSED it to begin. And while their continued plea is that, “We don’t know YET,” the trouble is that they all will admit that as you approach the Big Bang, the laws of physics break down. This makes being able to use science to discover the cause impossible! So how will they be able to discover the answer in the future? The simple answer is that they can’t. Science can’t do that.

So they are REALLY forced to make up hypotheses, like the ever-expanding-and-contracting-universe hypothesis or the multiverse theory. But they have zero–ZERO–actual evidence to support those hypotheses.

In contrast, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the existence of God, although it falls short of “proof.” But I’d much rather believe in something/Someone that actually HAS evidence to support that belief rather than ideas that have no support at all. In short, faith in God is faith with evidence. Faith in a Big Bang without God to cause it is faith without evidence.

And since I really missed your first question, you can believe in an uncaused God, because He transcends time, space, and matter. It is “universal” (pardon the pun) that all things that had a beginning couldn’t cause their own beginning. There is nothing within time, space, and matter that is responsible for its own beginning. Since we know that time, space, and matter had a beginning, whatever/Whomever created time, space, and matter could not be MADE of time, space, and/or matter. So if God is beyond time, it’s not a big stretch at all to give Him infinite existence.

Hope that all helps. It’s certainly not a comprehensive answer, but it hits on the important points. One could ponder and discuss stuff like this forever! Unfortunately, we ARE bound by time! :wink:


Hi Sadie :slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks for your question. I will just add a few further thoughts from what @Spikedds has already said. If a world has eternally existed in time (an actual passing of time from the past to the present to the eventual future), then it has existed for an infinite time because it had no beginning. However, though we can have an infinite progression of time, we can’t have an infinite regression of time. If it takes an infinite amount of time to get to ‘today,’ we could then never actually ever reach this current moment in time. There has to be a point where time began from a point of timelessness, and then you had the continued progression of time from that point. Because our world exists in a time dimension, we can make a solid argument that our world had a beginning from a cause outside of time. This Cause, would have to be incredibly powerful, personal in order to choose to create, and itself exist outside of time. We would generally refer to this Cause as God.

A further point that could be useful in talking to your science friend, would be on the second law of thermodynamics. It is a law that shows that without more energy being inputted into a closed system (like the universe), that system will move towards a disordered state known as entropy. All the energy will eventually spread itself out evenly throughout the whole universe and result in the heat death of the universe. For example, without having your freezer plugged in to an outside energy source that keeps it cold inside, the air inside the freezer will eventually become the temperature of the air outside it. It will reach a state of equilibrium with the outside air temperature and pressure. So our universe is moving not towards re-creation, but to this state of equilibrium and heat death. It is also why our world can’t be infinite in time as we would already be in heat death if that was the case.

I hope that is of some help but if you would like further clarity please let me know :slightly_smiling_face:. I am no expert on these subjects but it may help to give further areas of discussion with your friend.



Hi @Sgpage this is a question I spent a lot of time researching over the past few years. I took the RZIM Academy Science Elective, which was a big help. I definately recommend it.

The primary reason I believe in an eternal uncreated God and a created universise is because that is what the bible teaches and it has not led me astray yet :smile:

I believe that the universe has been expanding ever since God created it. Scientists slowly came around to the truth of a created universe around the middle of the last century. When The Big Bang was first suggested, athiest scientists were very much against it as they felt it would only further the creationist view. My understanding is that due to Hubble telescope images and Penzais and Wilson’s nobel prize winning work the majority of the scientific community, both secular and Christian hold to an expanding universe.

I have documented my learning on this subject in this post. This information came from the pride of Ireland :green_heart: John Lennox and other teachers from the Science Elective. I hope it helps.


My first thought is that even when compelling evidence is possessed (in any discipline), but someone is determined to believe something contrary to that evidence, then it is unlikely that the person will adopt new beliefs. That is true with compelling evidence, much less insufficient evidence.

The unanswered question that remains with the theory of a continually recycled universe is the origin of the matter in the first place. Even if there is a mechanism for continually re-using it once it is there, it does not solve how it got there. The options I see, apart from God, are for the matter to have been created from nothing or to be eternal. With that in mind, I do not think it is irrational for someone to believe in matter that is eternal. However, neither is it irrational for someone to believe in an eternal God.

And the only thing I would add to that is that all pertinent scientific evidence suggests that time, space, and matter all had a beginning. That is what the evidence shows.

So those who believe matter is eternal, are DISagreeing with the scientific evidence which clearly suggests universally that matter had a beginning. There is ZERO evidence to show eternality of matter.

So, if one wants to believe in eternal matter, they must do so denying all scientific evidence while also having ZERO evidence to support that belief. Even belief in Santa Claus has more evidence to support it than that! :wink:

Hi @Sgpage,I’ve been watching this conversation between an atheist and William Lane Craig over the last couple of days and might help you consider this discussion from a philosophical rather than scientific perspective.

I found it fascinating because of the philosophical reasoning used both for and against an uncreated God, or how we justify that the universe had a cause at all. It might be a slight step sideways from your initial question, however I feel it’s relevant to thinking this through, in that we need to be aware of how different worldviews might approach this whole question of whether anything can come into existence without a cause. Dr Craig leads the reasoning that if there is a cause to the universe, this cause must be personal to have made a universe that can’t just create new things from nothing. The other thing that comes out from this conversation is the cost that the atheist must be willing to pay if they want to ensure that God is not allowed as the cause for creation which is what @Spikedds also suggested in people being forced to create new unreasonable theories.

Just to add to the argument that it is reasonable to believe in an uncaused God, I’d say that there already exists uncaused things such as logical laws, moral laws and virtues. None of these began to exist, they are eternal, reflecting God’s very nature. It might helps us see there is an uncaused being who caused the universe.

These thoughts may contribute to your thinking as you work out how to address your friend’s scientific and philosophical questions.

1 Like