Why the Universe’s Origin Still Points to God

“In the beginning was the Logos…”
— John 1:1

Introduction – Why the Emergent Universe Matters

What if the universe didn’t begin with a bang, but slowly emerged from a deeper, eternal state? What if space, time, and even the laws of physics are not ultimate—but emergent?

This is not theological speculation—it’s serious physics. The emergent universe model, explored by physicists like Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, and Laura Mersini-Houghton, proposes that our universe arose from a pre-existing reality—whether an eternal inflationary field, a quantum vacuum, or a timeless mathematical landscape.

Now, to be clear: I don’t personally subscribe to the emergent universe model. I believe the universe had a beginning, as both Genesis and much of the scientific evidence suggest. However, many atheists today do appeal to emergent models as a way to avoid a Creator. And for that reason, it deserves a response. Ironically, the very structure and assumptions of emergent cosmology lead us back to deep metaphysical questions—and ultimately, to God.

What Is the Emergent Universe Model?

The emergent universe theory proposes that our universe emerged from a pre-Big Bang state that was stable or quasi-static. It differs from the classical singularity model in important ways:

• It assumes no initial singularity, but rather a timeless or slowly evolving state.
• It allows for a past-eternal universe—at least in some quantum-cosmological interpretations.
• It suggests that space and time themselves emerged from something deeper, possibly governed by quantum gravity, string theory, or other models.

Physicist George Ellis, a key proponent of the model, describes it this way:

“In the Emergent Universe scenario, the universe originates from a static or quasi-static state which eventually evolves into an inflationary phase and then into the standard hot Big Bang cosmology.”¹

In other words, the universe didn’t explode into being—it grew into being. But this raises profound questions: What was there before? Why did it emerge at all? And what governs this emergence?

Brian Greene and the Idea of Emergence

Brian Greene, in The Fabric of the Cosmos, explains that space and time might not be fundamental features of reality. Instead, they may emerge from something deeper—an invisible, timeless realm governed by abstract mathematical principles or quantum entanglement.

He writes:

“Space and time may not be the most fundamental ingredients of the universe. Instead, they may be emergent phenomena, like waves on the surface of the ocean.”²

In The Elegant Universe, Greene suggests that the deepest layer of reality may consist of vibrating strings of information, not material particles. And in later discussions, he’s become open to the idea that the universe might be one of many—a multiverse embedded in a timeless mathematical framework.

But here’s the key: if time, space, and matter are not fundamental, then what is?

Emergence and the Question of Contingency

Many skeptics use the emergent universe to argue that there’s no need for a beginning—and therefore, no need for a cause. But that’s a category mistake. Even if the universe doesn’t have a temporal beginning, it still demands a metaphysical explanation.

Emergent models require:

• A pre-existing inflationary field, quantum vacuum, or wavefunction.
• Laws of physics to govern the emergence.
• Some principle or structure that allows emergence to occur at all.

These are all contingent realities. They don’t have to exist. They’re not logically necessary. So we can still ask: Why are these structures here? Why do they have the properties they do?

As Richard Swinburne argues:

“If there is a universe at all, then there is a reason why there is one rather than none. That reason is not found in physics—it lies in metaphysics.”³

Emergence Implies Rational Structure

Emergence implies order. And order implies intelligibility. And intelligibility—laws, patterns, information—is what points to mind.

Paul Davies makes this point forcefully:

“The universe is governed by dependable, immutable, mathematical laws. This is a deep mystery that even the most atheistic scientist has to face.”⁴

If the laws of nature are not fundamental but emerge, then what they emerge from is not random. It’s something even more deeply rational. You don’t get higher-order structure from sheer chaos. You get it from something that already contains or expresses information.

In apologetics, this echoes the Logos of John 1. Not blind chaos—but rational, generative order at the root of everything.

The Ground of Emergence: Why Not Nothing?

Emergent models only push the question back. They avoid the “Big Bang = beginning” problem but leave us with a deeper mystery: Why is there a field to begin with? Why is there anything at all to do the emerging?

Physicist Sean Carroll, though a naturalist, admits this problem:

“A universe without a beginning is not the same as a universe without a cause.”⁵

Apologist William Lane Craig pushes this further. Even if the universe is emergent from something timeless, that still demands a cause—an eternal, necessary, immaterial mind that explains why anything exists at all.

Mathematics, Mind, and the Mystery of Laws

Many scientists today—Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose, Eugene Wigner—believe that mathematics is not invented but discovered. Some suggest that the universe is a mathematical structure.

But mathematical structures don’t have causal power unless embedded in a mind.

Wigner famously called this the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”:

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift.”⁶

Mathematics doesn’t just describe reality—it structures it. But that only makes sense if there’s a mind in which those truths exist eternally.

This is where Christian theism fits the evidence better than atheism. As Augustine argued, mathematical truths are eternal ideas in the mind of God.

Apologetic Syllogism Based on Emergent Cosmology

Let’s formalize this argument:

P1: If the universe is emergent, it must arise from something more fundamental.
P2: What is more fundamental than time, space, and laws must be necessary, eternal, and immaterial.
P3: The only entity fitting that description is an intelligent, eternal Mind (i.e., God).
Conclusion: Therefore, the emergent nature of the universe points to the existence of God.

The Wisdom Behind the World: Proverbs and Job

Long before quantum physicists suggested that space and time are emergent, the Hebrew Scriptures pictured wisdom as the force underlying creation.

“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His work… When He established the heavens, I was there… then I was beside Him, like a master workman.”
— Proverbs 8:22, 27, 30 (ESV)

In Job 38, God answers Job with a cosmic question:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding… Who determined its measurements—surely you know!”
— Job 38:4–5

These passages aren’t primitive poetry. They express profound truths: Creation has a structure, a foundation, and a logic. The Bible calls that logic Wisdom—or in Greek, Logos.

And now science itself tells us the same.

The Logos Behind the Cosmos

The deeper science digs, the more it finds that the universe is not brute, not chaotic, not self-explanatory. It is emergent, ordered, rational—and shockingly fine-tuned to support life.

It looks not like a cosmic accident but a mathematical symphony, grounded not in matter, but in Mind.

For Christians, this is no surprise. Long before physicists spoke of emergence, John wrote of the Logos—the rational, eternal Word through whom all things came to be.

If the universe is emergent, then God is not one more thing in the cosmos—He is the reason the cosmos exists at all.

---

References

1. George Ellis, “The Emergent Universe: Inflationary Cosmology with No Singularity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, no. 1 (2004): 223–232.
2. Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Vintage, 2004), 469.
3. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), 19.
4. Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 169.
5. Sean Carroll, “Does the Universe Need God?” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, eds. J.B. Stump and Alan Padgett (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 183–193.
6. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14.
7. Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), Proverbs 8 and Job 38.

---