From the Big Bang to fine-tuning, from biology to the birth of science itself—the evidence shatters the myth of a godless universe.
This post will be the introduction post for my next 7-part series where I’m going to focus on apologetics, that is the defense of Christianity as the truth. Scientifically, Archaeologically, Spiritually, Philosophically and more. I want to dispel the myth that we must have some kind of blind faith. Where we believe in God just because it’s what people have always done and that’s what was taught to us by our culture so we just go with it. Our parents made us go to church once so we must be Christians. We don’t really know why we believe it but something kind of maybe inside us tells us we should believe. We must not think of our faith in this way. We have solid ground to stand on in all the above areas and it is my goal to strengthen your faith and let you know that we have good reason to first believe that an actual God exists as a foundational truth. That is what this post and the upcoming series will focus on. Then we will get back into reasons why that God is the God of the Bible and none other that other world religions have claimed.
The story that is told sounds confident: Everything came from nothing. Time, space, matter, life, consciousness—it all came into existence and somehow got itself organized without any guidance. That’s the pitch. But if you stop nodding along and actually look at the evidence, the whole thing starts to break down.
I’m going to hit three pressure points: the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe and the absurd mathematical odds of life happening by chance or random mutation. We’ll round it out by discussing the founding fathers of science and what they thought. Together, they show the atheist or materialistic worldview isn’t built on bedrock—it’s built on quicksand.
🌌 1. The Big Bang — The Beginning They Can’t Explain Away
The universe hasn’t been here forever. The Big Bang says it had a starting point. Science and the Bible would agree here. The universe did indeed have a beginning. Wind the clock back far enough and you slam into a singularity: no time, no space, no matter. When you look up into the sky at night you see a countless number of stars and planets nesting in the black void of space. That wasn’t always there. Scientists and mathematical calculations have concluded repeatedly, that every star, planet, asteroid and rock you see all originally exploded and expanded out from a speck smaller than the tip of a pen. Cosmology says that before that expansion, space, time, and matter did not exist in any physical sense.
Stephen Hawking himself said: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” And in another place: “Time began at the Big Bang.” Even the most famous physicist of our era admitted that science hits a wall at the beginning.
And here’s where things get interesting: to avoid saying “nothing existed,” some scientists try to push back the problem with theories about “quantum fields,” “eternal inflation,” or a “multiverse.” But those are not testable, observable science. A quantum vacuum isn’t nothing—it’s already something with laws and energy. So where did that come from? These are escape hatches, not answers.
As philosopher Anthony Kenny (an agnostic) once admitted: “A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.”
If time, space, and matter all began, there is no “before” in any physical sense. That means the cause, or whatever provided the necessary elements and conditions of the universe, is outside the universe. Materialism has no room for that, so it just shrugs and calls it a mystery. Translation: We’re starting with a miracle (everything coming from nothing), but we’re not going to call it that.
If everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the beginning of everything screams for one. That cause is what we know as God. An Eternal power that operates outside of time since time itself began at the start of the universe. A power with a mind to institute laws into nature to follow to bring life. A power with a personality to create beings with emotion and consciousness (which science can also not explain). A being with immense power in order to provide the energy and material in the first place for all of creation, the entire universe, to come from.
Something had to make the universe come from absolutely nothing. An honest atheist would say nothing made everything come from nothing because there was nothing else to them. I’d say God instituted the creation and formation that they now study. Which is why the dead end at a blank canvas of creation.
🎯 2. A Universe Built on a Razor’s Edge
Let’s ignore the creation and start of the universe for now. We know there is no materialist or scientific explanation. We’ll move on to what happened after the moment everything came to be. After God said let there be light. After science says there was a sudden explosion of energy.
The laws and constants of the universe aren’t just “good enough” for life—they’re surgically precise, perfect. Change the measurement or weight of gravity slightly and you either get a starless void or a death-trap universe where stars burn out before life gets started. Shift the strong nuclear force a little, and you erase all hydrogen or never make anything heavier than it. Understand that these are forces that did not evolve over time. At the moment of the Big Bang, within a fraction of a second, all of gravity, physics, etc. had to be precisely in place and at the exact measurements they were—or the universe never would have grown into anything.
The cosmological constant—the “energy of empty space”—is tuned to about 1 part in 10^120. Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg called this “extraordinarily small,” because if it were only slightly larger, galaxies would never form. Roger Penrose estimated the odds of the universe beginning in such an ordered state at 1 in 10^(10^123)—a number so vast it’s essentially impossible. That’s not trial-and-error. That’s engineering.
The way an atheist, materialist or secularist dodges this? “Maybe there are infinite other universes, and we just won the cosmic lottery.” A multiverse like you see in Marvel movies. Except that there is no scientific reason to believe that. No test, no observation and no calculation has ever pointed to alternate universes.
That’s not science; that’s wishful thinking with a sci-fi coat of paint. You either believe this universe just “happened” to grow to be perfect for life… or you believe it was designed. One of those options actually makes sense.
Another one of my favorite excuses that they’ll give is that we’re living in a simulation created by a higher intelligence. I don’t think I have to point out the irony in that.
🎲 3. Chance Can’t Carry This Story
Fine-tuning sets the stage, but the improbabilities stack higher. The universe had to start in an unbelievably ordered state—low entropy—to allow stars, planets, and life. The odds of that happening by chance aren’t just small—they’re so microscopic they might as well be zero.
As Roger Penrose put it, the precision is so unlikely it’s “utterly incalculable.”
Then we zoom in to life itself. Evolution. Sure, mutations happen, but beneficial ones are extremely rare. Most of the time they are useless, harmful, or even fatal. Evolutionary change requires mountains of “good” mutations piled up over millions of years, but even that doesn’t explain where the first living cell came from. Molecular biologist Douglas Axe estimated the odds of a functional protein of just 150 amino acids forming by chance at 1 in 10^164. That’s worse odds than rolling dice for the rest of eternity and expecting to hit the same number every time. Think of how improbable that is. Mathematically, you’d have to roll the same number every time and you cannot fail, for the rest of eternity. That’s just for 150 amino acids, now think of every other element needed for life and the odds are ridiculous to even think it happened by chance.
Not only does evolution require billions of events to line up perfectly, they must line up at just the right time in just the right location over and over again to be able to go from the start of everything in existence to what we have in our lives today. There could not have been any mistakes or errors or the universe itself would have collapsed. Scientists like to point out that life is adaptable and organisms can survive in the most extreme climates and evolve through them… but no life is possible if not even a single star in the universe is able to form.
And for the record—no one has ever made life from non-life in a lab under realistic conditions. Scientists can’t replicate or even understand how it is possible to be able to mix chemicals together and then suddenly have a living life form that results from that. But somehow, we are to believe that is what happened. More theories fed to us as empirical science and absolute truth.
Even in these experiments scientists prove themselves wrong. The wise become fools. Because while they attempt to guide chemicals and experiments, mix in more of this, add a dash of that to produce what they want, they are proving that it takes an intelligent mind behind the science for them to work. Pour a bunch of chemicals into a tube and walk away and you won’t come back to find a vaccine has been made because the chemicals just happened to have been lucky enough to bump into each other in the perfect way to bring about that outcome.
Without God, you’re left with a fairy tale: countless “lucky breaks” strung together over billions of years with no guiding hand. That’s not science—it’s storytelling. It’s what the god of this world (Satan) and his people would want you to believe. Anything but God.
Richard Dawkins himself once admitted:
“Even if there were a God, it wouldn’t alter the facts of science. If I were to wake up and find a great glowing figure at the end of my bed, I would probably conclude that I was hallucinating.”
Even confronted with evidence, the hardened materialist refuses to believe. That’s not open inquiry—that’s blind faith in atheism.
Here are five more analogies to drive home just how astronomically small these probabilities really are with out God:
- The blindfolded Rubik’s Cube – Astronomer Fred Hoyle once asked how long it would take a blindfolded person, twisting a Rubik’s Cube once per second, to solve it by luck alone. He estimated it would take about 67.5 times the age of the universe for a single cube to be solved icr.org. That’s roughly the same difficulty he calculated for forming just one chain of amino acids by random chance. icr.org.
- The junkyard tornado – In another Hoyle analogy, the chance that life emerged solely by accident is like a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. en.wikipedia.org. Even if hurricanes blasted through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe, the probability is “so small as to be negligible” icr.org.
- Rolling double‑sixes 50,000 times – To convey the mind‑boggling improbability of assembling the proteins needed for life, Hoyle compared it to rolling a pair of dice and getting double‑sixes 50,000 times in a row. icr.org. With fair dice, the odds of that happening are 1 in 6^(100 000) – a number with tens of thousands of zeroes.
- An unabridged dictionary from an explosion – Biologist Edward Conklin remarked that the chance of life originating by accident is comparable to an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shopdoesgodexist.org. Throw random letters into the air and expect a perfectly bound volume of Webster’s to fall into your hands—that’s the level of accident we’d need.
- Finding one particle in the entire universe – Astrophysicists estimate the universe contains no more than about 10^80 subatomic particles. doesgodexist.org. Picking out one predetermined atom at random from all those particles is far more likely than the universe’s constants and conditions ending up exactly as they are by unguided processes.
📜 4. The Faith the Secular Story Forgot
Here’s the kicker: the scientific revolution wasn’t launched by people trying to erase God. It was launched by people trying to understand Him better.
Copernicus was a church canon. Kepler was a devout Lutheran who thought studying the heavens was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Galileo was a faithful Catholic. Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying nature and wrote: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle—all unapologetic Christians. Even the man who proposed the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest.
Einstein wasn’t a Christian, but he wasn’t an atheist either. He said: “The universe reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all systematic thinking of human beings is utterly insignificant.”
For these men, science was an act of worship, not rebellion. They didn’t see a conflict between faith and reason—they saw faith as the reason the universe was reasonable.
Today though, scientists that have piggybacked off the discoveries of these faithful men have turned their back on God. Through faulty reasoning and prideful arrogance they have become fools. They will scream that science has “killed God” while citing incomplete, erroneous, or unfounded theories. They put their faith in explanations that collapse under their own weight.
🧱 Conclusion — Don’t Build on Sand
The Big Bang points to a beginning that demands a cause. The constants of the universe are so fine-tuned that even the most famous atheist scientists will admit it looks like intelligence is behind it—then still deny God.
The odds of life and order arising by pure chance and random mutation are laughable. And the very roots of science are soaked in faith, not atheism.
The secular worldview promises answers but delivers hand-waving. It’s not that science is the problem—it’s that materialism is pretending to be science. True science, when you let it speak for itself without ideological spin, points to God.
So ask yourself: Do you want to build your life on a story full of unexplained miracles that refuse to admit they’re miracles? Or do you want a foundation that actually fits the evidence, the logic, and the reality you see all around you?
Which foundation will you build your life on? Because if the foundation is cracked, the whole house is coming down.
✨ If this post challenged your thinking, don’t stop here.
Join hundreds of others who want truth that cuts through the noise.
👉 Subscribe today to get future articles, Bible studies, and resources straight to your inbox.
Let’s seek truth together—and build on a foundation that won’t crack.
📩 🔔 ✝️
[Subscribe Now]
Leave a Reply