we examine the issue of moral relativity, we arrive at door or of truth. The
whole issue of morality stems from the source of what is “True”. What is
truth? If truth is subjective then morality is subjective. If truth is
objective then there are moral absolutes. Based on reality, it is logical to
conclude truth cannot be subjective. Subjective truth would mean there is no
truth and everybody is correct, which is not possible. Objective truth, the
objective correspondence of what is real, means that truth corresponds to
reality. The earth being sphere is reality, regardless, whether the world
believes the earth is flat, the truth is the earth is a sphere. How did the
earth come into existence? What is the cause of the universe? What is the
objective truth for our existence? What is the “First-Cause”? How can such a
question be answered?
To answer these questions, we need to start
from what we know, the first principles, that
which does not need to be proven. We know we exist,
and we are aware of our existence. Because we
can see children being born and ourselves getting older,
it is logical to conclude there is a beginning, “A
Cause”, to our existence. There must have been a first
human. We can also observe the same in the animal
world. Animals are born and die; they too must have a
starting point of existence. The necessity for “Cause”
leads us to another “First Principle” the need for
principle of causality:
Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and
only what exists can cause existence, since the concept
of “Cause” implies an existing thing that has the power
to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes
What was the cause of the car you
What was the cause of your
What was the cause of the company you work
What was the cause of the
What was the cause of the
What was the cause of the
Can you think of anything that was not
Every thing that comes to be must have a
cause. If you take a candle and light it, it will burn
for a limited amount of time until its potential energy
is burned. The heat, the candle emits is similar to the
heat the sun emits. The fact that the candle’s energy
source is finite demonstrates the need for cause. There
was a cause for the candle and their will be an end to
the candle. The heat emitted from the Sun is contingent
(dependent) on the finite (limited) energy contained in
demonstrates the Sun is also finite, there was, a cause,
for the Sun to exist. This principle is the same
throughout the whole universe. The farthest galaxies
emitting finite energy have a point; they were turned
on, “A cause” for their existence.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) the father of
modern science said, “True knowledge is knowledge by
If the Universe is finite and had a beginning, then it
would need to have a cause—if causality is a valid
principle. A flaw in the causality principle would be
equivalent to having a fatal crack in the foundation of
David Hume, (1711-1776) the skeptic admitted, it is
absurd to deny the principle of cause.
never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything
might arise without a cause.”
is the Cause of the Universe?
a finite universe to exist there needs to be a cause.
This question is not a religious question, but a
question about reality and truth. Based on the
observable universe we know there was a time when the
universe as we know it did not exit. What brought the
universe into existence? Did the universe always exit?
Did matter, space and time one day explode into
existence? Did matter always exist? These questions have
pondered scientist, philosophizer and theologian.
those who are seeking evidence for the existence of
God. The creation of the universe is one of the most
powerful arguments. This is the Cosmological argument
for the existence of God.
the cosmological discussion the first question to be
answered is, “Did the universe have a beginning?” What
are the options?
If the universe had a beginning, then it needs a first
Did the universe self-cause itself? In order to
self-cause itself it would have to not exist (to cause
existence) and exist (in order to be caused) at the same
time. Therefore, this option is ruled out because it
violates the “Law of non-contradiction”.
Did the universe always exist? As Carl Sagan believes,
(“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will
be”). Naturalist believe the universe either;
A. Came from nothing by nothing
B. Always existed.
Option A. is impossible, it not possible for nothing to
produce something. So the option left is to accept that
the universe always existed, option b.
that affect the Universe:
The First Law (Law of Energy Conservation) states that
energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that in a
closed system, the amount of usable energy in the
universe is decreasing.” Entropy is the level of
disorder in a system.
highly ordered system is in a low state of entropy. A
disordered system is in a higher state of entropy.
the Cosmos running out of usable energy?
Cosmologists treat the universe as a gigantic heat
engine with no external source of energy input. This
means that the total amount of usable energy in the
universe is fixed and is decreasing as time passes
(nuclear fusion is occurring throughout the universe).
means that at some point the universe was at highly
ordered state. According to the 2nd Law, the
universe is expected to run out of usable energy.
Peacock, an expert in thermodynamics, wrote “A Brief
History of Eternity” to show how discoveries in the
universe along with the laws of thermodynamics show the
universe is finite.
Second Law of thermodynamics is probably the most
powerful piece of legislation in the physical world. It
ultimately describes every process we have ever
discovered: it is the final Court of Appeal in any
dispute relating to action and procedures, whether they
are naturally generated or man inspired. It draws the
conclusion that in our universe there is an overall
reduction in order, a loss of available energy that is
measured as an increase in entropy. So the available
stock of order is being exhausted. Akin to the dying
battery of a flashlight, useful energy is being
dissipated into entropy after which none remains for
use…For us to live in a universe in which the Second Law
of thermodynamics holds, then, it must be a universe
that has a starting point, a creation.
there Evidence of a Finite Universe?
are the implications of a finite universe? The logic
works this way,
Everything that had a beginning had a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the Universe had a cause
Penzias and Robert Wilson, two physicists at Bell
Laboratories discovered the earth is bathed in a faint
glow of radiation. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in
1978. Their data found this radiation was left over
from the initial explosion of the beginning of the
universe, commonly referred to as the Big Bang.
November of 1989, a satellite named COBE, (Cosmic
Background Explorer) was successfully launched into
space with instruments aboard capable of measuring the
radiation echo left behind from the Big Bang. In April
1992, the final summation of COBE’s data was made public
and hailed as unprecedented. Stephen Hawking, author of
“A Brief History of Time”, called the discovery, “The
most important discovery of the century, if not all
This affirms the universe had a beginning.
Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity predicted
that the universe had a beginning and is expanding in
all directions. If we reversed the theory, there would
be a starting point to the universe. This disturbed
Einstein; his own theory demanded a starting point for
Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies and served for twenty years
as its director wrote about Einstein’s reaction in his
realization of a finite universe:
Around this time, signs of irritation began to appear
among the scientists. Einstein was the first to
complain. He was disturbed by the idea of a Universe
that blows up, because it implied that the world had a
beginning. In a letter to de Sitter—discovered in a box
of old records in Leiden some years ago—Einstein wrote,
“This circumstance (of the expanding Universe irritates
me,” and in another letter about he expanding Universe,
he said: To admit such possibilities seems
senseless.”….I suppose that beginning in time annoyed
Einstein because of its theological implications.
on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the universe
is finite and expanding in all directions. Since 1919
this theory has been verified numerous experiments.
Therefore, we can conclude the universe had a beginning.
It is finite.
Caused the Universe?
the universe had beginning then it must have a cause.
The Big Bang does not only involve the start of matter
but also space and time. Matter, space and time are
interdependent. The explosion of the universe was a
highly orchestrated cosmic explosion with just the right
mixture of gravity and explosive energy. John
Polkinhorne, a theoretical physicist, and a colleague of
Stephen Hawking, writes:
the early expansion of the universe, there has to been a
close balance between the expansive energy (driving
things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things
together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly
apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and
stars to take place…(The possibility of our existence)
requires a balance between the effects of expansion and
contraction which at a very early epoch in the
universe’s history (The Planck time) has to differ from
equality by not more than 1 in 1060 . The
numerate (mathematical) will marvel at such a degree of
accuracy. For the non-numerate, I will borrow an
illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy
means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a
target an inch wide on the other side of the observable
universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and
hitting the mark.
the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be
explained, and if it cannot be explained by natural
causes, Then we must look to the existence and action of
a supernatural cause for its explanation”
it is impossible for nothing to produce something,
something must have always exited as the “First Cause”
of the universe. Furthermore, this First Cause must be
eternal (outside of time, since time is part of the
finite universe) and powerful enough to account for the
origin and existence of the universe. This Cause must
be knowledgeable, powerful and eternal.
does Science respond to these finds?
agnostic scientist Robert Jastrow founder of the Goddard
Institute of Space Studies writes about the
implications of these discoveries in science.
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that
the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are
curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting
demonstration of the response of the scientific
mind---supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence
uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the
articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that
the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our
beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become
irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we
paper it over with meaningless phrases.
Design Argument (Teleological)
The beginning of the universe requires a
“First Cause”, because the universe has a starting point
and is finite, the cause must be greater then the
effect. In the same light, we know the existence of
life also has a starting point. Matter is the building
block of life, without matter, we cannot have life in
this physical universe, as we know it. Therefore, the
next question to be addressed is, “What is the origin to
Is the same “First Cause” that caused the
universe to explode into existence the “First Cause” of
life as well? There are two competing origin of life
models; the macroevolutionary model and the design
states that life was self-generated from nonliving
(inorganic) matter. Once the gap from non-life to life
was bridged, the first living cell began to evolve by
random changes (mutations) in its genetic information
system, creating new characteristics that were not in
the original organism.
states that non-life never produces life and that the
first life forms were the direct result of
complex is a cell?
When Darwin wrote his theories of evolution in the
mid-1800’s the cell was a mystery. It was not until
after WW II and the discovery electron microscopy, that
new sub-cellular structures were discovered. Michele J.
Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, writes;
level of discovery (of sub-cellular structures) began to
allow biologist to approach the greatest black box of
all. The question of how life works was not one Darwin
or his contemporaries could answer. They knew that eyes
were for seeing—but how, exactly do they see? How does
the blood clot? How does the body fight disease? The
complex structures revealed by the electron microscope
were themselves made of smaller components. What were
those components? What did they look like? How did they
understand the complexity of a cell, Michael Denton,
illustrates if a cell magnified a 1000 million times
until its 20 kilometers in diameter what would we see.
we would then see would be an object of unparalleled
complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the
cell, we would see millions of openings, like the
portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to
allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and
out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we
would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology
and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly
organized corridors and conduits branching in every
direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some
leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and
others to assembly plants and processing units. The
nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more
then a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome
inside of which we could see, all neatly stacked
together in ordered arrays, and raw materials would
shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly
ordered fashion to and from various assembly plants in
the outer regions of the cell… Is it really credible
that random processes could have constructed a reality,
the smallest element of which…a functional protein or
gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a
reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which
excels in every sense anything produced by the
intelligence of man
could the first cell come into existence? Was it time,
chance and matter? On the other hand, was it the result
of an intelligent designer, a “First Cause” of life?
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down.
According to Darwin’s criteria, his whole model of life
falls apart. The cell is the smallest unit of matter
considered alive…less than a 1/1000th of an
inch in diameter.
the center of the cell is the nucleolus composed of
deoxyribo-nucleic acid (DNA), protein and ribonucleic
acid (RNA). DNA combined with proteins is organized into
structural units called chromosomes, which
usually occur in identical pairs. The DNA molecule
form the infrastructure in each chromosome and is a
single, very long, highly coiled molecule subdivided
into functional units called genes. A gene
occupies a certain place on the chromosome and contains
the coded instructions that determine the inheritance of
a particular characteristic or group passed from one
generation to the next. The Chromosomes contain the
information needed to build an identical working cell.
serve two functions to provide a framework to support
life and to make copies of themselves. They do this by
having a communication system between the nucleolus and
the rest of the cell. Inside the nucleolus is located
all the information need to function, replicate and
repair the cell. Only now is this incredibly complex
system of cell communication becoming known.
In the same way a software program uses
binary code, combining 0 and 1 to communicate programs
throughout a computer system the cells uses the
combination of four nitrogen-containing bases to
communicate inside the cell. (Adenine (A), Thymine (T),
Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G).
Molecular biologists classify it as equivalent to a
written language but not by analogy.
statistical structure of any printed language ranges
through letter and frequencies, diagrams, trigrams word
frequencies, etc., spelling rules, grammar and so forth
and therefore can be represented by a Markov process
given the states of the system…..It is important to
understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The
sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and
the genetic text as well as to written language and
therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
cell has a language of its own, fully equipped with
rules that govern how it communicates. This cellular
communication system has been shown to have a one-to-one
correspondence with our own communication systems.
genetic code is composed of four letters (Nucleotides),
which are arranged into sixty-four words of three
letters each (triplets or codons). These words are
organized in sequence to produce sentences (Genes).
Several related sentences are strung together and
perform as paragraphs (Operons). Tens of thousands of
paragraphs comprise chapters (Chromosomes), and a full
set of chapters contain all the necessary information
for a readable book (Organism).
possibility of life coming into existence on its own
requires two elements time and probability.
David Foster illustrates the problem with a deck of 52
Specificity is the measure of the improbability of a
pattern which actually occurs against a background of
alternatives…Let us imagine that there is a pack of 52
cards well shuffled and lying face-downwards on a
table. What are the chances of picking all the cards up
in a correct suit, sequence starting with the Ace of
Spades and working downwards and then through the other
suits and finishing with the Two of Clubs?
the chance of picking up the first card correctly is 1
in 52, the second 1 in 51, the third card 1 in 50, the
fourth card 1 in 49 and so forth. So the chance of
picking up the whole pack correctly is Factorial 52.
one chance in… (About) 1068 this number is
approaching that of all the atoms in the universe.
Number of seconds back from now to the estimated date of
the Big Bang is 4 x 1017 (1018)
Number of atoms in the universe: 1080
Number of photons in the universe: 1088
Number of stars in the universe: 1022
Number of wavelengths of light to traverse the universe
2 x 1033.16
astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe placed
the probability that life would originate from non-life
one 10-40,000 and the probability of added
complexity arising by mutations and natural selection
very near this figure.
believe that life could have come from non-life would
require an incredible amount of faith.
information content of the brain expressed in bits is
probably comparable to the total number of connections
among the neurons—about a hundred trillion, 1014,
bits. If written out in English, say, that information
would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in
the world largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty
million books is inside the heads of every one of us.
The brain is a very big place in a small space
we examine the complexity of life and the improbability
of life developing from non-life, we are forced to come
to the conclusion that a Super-Intelligent Designer is
the source for life.