What Did the Creator Create?

Before even we attempt to answer that question, we need to be clear about what it is that we’re asking. What do we mean by ‘create’?

By ‘create’ I mean 'to produce something which did not exist before'. So, for instance, an architect creates the design of a building; an artist creates a picture or a sculpture; a poet creates a poem.

Can we say that a bird creates a nest or that a beaver creates a dam? We wouldn’t normally say that a builder creates a house, but we do say that typhoons, terrorists, and certain politicians, create havoc.

In light of all that, let’s use the word ‘create’ in its broadest sense and credit the builder, the bird, and the beaver with being creators.

The only limitation is that, as we’ve already observed, you cannot create something out of nothing, so whatever is being created must be a reconstitution of something which already exists, but must be distinct enough from that ‘raw material’ to be recognisable as something which did not exist before.

Having clarified that point, we can now return to the question: “What did the creator create?”

One thing that we can all agree on, I’m assuming, is that the physical universe in which we all live was created, in that there was a time when it did not exist, but at some point (since you cannot create ‘something’ out of ‘nothing’) something which did already exist was reconstituted by some means to become the present physical universe.

What are the main characteristics of this universe? I would suggest the following:

The universe is ORDERED. By this I mean that it and its constituent parts can be described, measured, examined, and that they can be found to behave in ways that are predictable and consistent with a set of laws, which we normally refer to as the laws of physics.

The universe is COMPLEX. By this I mean that it is not a single mass of something, but it is composed of multiple parts which interact with each other in order to form larger entities, which are greater than the sum of their constituents. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine together to form a water molecule, and a mass of water looks, feels, and behaves quite differently to either hydrogen or oxygen, having attributes that are unique to water, and totally alien to either of its constituents.

The universe is ACTIVE. By this I mean that is it not simply an inert glob of matter, but it is continually in motion, as are its constituent parts, and continually creating complex entities. For example, by means of nuclear fusion stars are continually generating helium atoms and super-novae are continually generating more complex elements.

The physical universe is not alive, but it contains LIVING BEINGS. We recognise living entities as those which are born or otherwise generated in some way by other living entities of the same kind, have a number of what we might call ‘working parts’, develop from infancy to maturity, have the capacity to reproduce themselves (although reproduction may or may not occur), decline and eventually cease to function, whereupon they disintegrate into their constituent molecules and atoms.

Within the super-set of all living beings, there is a set which has the attribute of CONSCIOUSNESS, by which I mean the ability to have an awareness of their own existence and the existence of their environment and other objects and entities within that environment. They experience events with which they are physically involved by such subjective responses as pleasure and pain.

Within that set there is a sub-set of beings who, along with consciousness, have the attributes of:

IDENTITY: The sense of ‘self’. The awareness of being distinct, having personal boundaries that have to be protected, and a uniqueness that needs to be recognised and respected.

EMOTION: the ability to experience pleasure, pain, and all points in between, that are not physical but have to do with social phenomena, such as acceptance or rejection.

REASON: they are able to employ logic to analyse and come to an understanding of facts and figures with which they are presented.

IMAGINATION and FORESIGHT: They are not bound by what they already know or have experienced, but are able to work out what might, or should, happen next, and plan appropriately so that they can make best use of potential opportunities, or avert or escape potential dangers.

FREE WILL: The ability to make choices and act in accordance with them, rather than having all activity, internal and external, pre-determined or enforced by someone or something that is ‘not me’.

MORAL AGENCY: The ability to recognise and distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, and accordingly to choose the most appropriate course of action to be followed.

PURPOSE and MEANING: They are not satisfied simply to exist, or survive, or reproduce, but see themselves as having a purpose beyond themselves, as serving someone or something greater than themselves, which gives them a sense that life is meaningful, and they become greatly dissatisfied when this is taken away from them.

SPIRITUAL AWARENESS. By which I mean that some have an awareness and/or experiences which cannot be satisfactorily explained as being ‘physical’ or ‘emotional’, but indicate the possible existence of another dimension – a spiritual dimension.

Now, this may not be all that was created, but I would think that everyone reading this article could agree that what I have listed above is a crude summary of what we find in the universe in which we live, and is therefore a reasonable starting point for the question, “What did the creator create?”.

This means that the first thing we can say about this creator is that, whatever it was, it must have had the ability to create at least all that I have listed here, and probably more.

So, what contenders do we have for our First Cause, our Creator?

I have to admit that I’m not on the cutting edge of scientific research or theory, but my understanding is that two of the main theories for what probably existed before the Big Bang are (a) what’s known as a ‘singularity’, which means that all of the energy and matter of which the universe is composed was concentrated into a single tiny point, and (b) there was nothing but an expanse of raw energy.

For the purpose of this argument, it doesn’t really matter, as all we need to know is that it was purely physical. So, let’s put these forward as possibilities for a PHYSICAL First Cause.

But the First Cause might not be physical. It could well be METAPHYSICAL. Two contenders on the metaphysical front are mathematics, as proposed by Albert Einstein, and the laws of physics, as proposed by Stephen Hawking.

A third option is that there may be something that is neither physical nor metaphysical. For the sake of convenience, I’ll use the term SPIRITUAL. The two main contenders on this level are (a) a living ‘environment’, so to speak, which has neither identity nor personality, but which manifests itself through the physical universe (for example, in Buddhism), or (b) a living being who has both identity and personality and who deliberately planned and executed the creation of the universe (for example, in Judaeo-Christianity or Islam).

In summary, our three options for the First Cause are (1) physical, (2) metaphysical, and (3) spiritual.

We must remember that the existence of the First Cause, whatever it may be or have been, is inexplicable by either science or philosophy, because the First Cause ‘just is’. It did not have a beginning. It has, or had, existed from eternity. So none of these options is any more or less possible than the others. All are equally impossible, but at least one of them is absolutely necessary, for without it there would be no universe, no-one to write this article, and no-one to read it.

Which of these three options, then, is the most reasonable, given the evidence of what has been created?

Let's begin with the easiest one – the physical option.

In this option we’re dealing with a situation where anything which does not belong to the physical universe does not exist. The physical universe is it. It’s all there is. It is a closed system. Nothing comes in and nothing goes out.

There are theories around at the moment about what’s called a ‘multiverse’, which means that there are a multitude of universes, of which ours is but one; but they’re all physical universes, so the parameters are not changed by their hypothetical existence. Physics is still king. The overall system is still closed.

Before we say anything more, let’s remind ourselves of the most fundamental principle that applies throughout the universe. I am referring, of course, to the principle of CAUSE and EFFECT.

In short, this principle is that nothing ‘just happens’. Everything that happens, happens ‘because’. If this were not so, there would be no science, because science is the art of examining effects in order to identify causes. Technology, on the other hand, is the art of harnessing causes in order to produce effects.

Whatever it was that existed before the Big Bang, the Big Bang reconstituted it to form the current physical universe, within which everything is physical, meaning that it consists of either one or both of ENERGY and MATTER. (in fact, matter is nothing more than informed energy, as has been discovered by those who have entered the brave new world of quantum physics, of which, I must admit, that I understand nothing except what I’ve just written.)

In the following, for brevity and clarity, I will be using the term Big Bang Universe to indicate the universe that I have just described, and in which, I assume, most atheistic scientists believe.

The fundamental problem that we have with the Big Bang Universe is this: everything, from the activity of the most minute sub-atomic particle to the mental activity of the greatest human genius, is pre-determined because of the principle of cause and effect.

From the moment of the Big Bang’s inception, a chain, or probably multiple chains, of cause and effect were initiated. These cause and effect chains brought about the generation of stars, black holes, gas clouds, quasars, asteroids, planets, and everything else that exists within the universe.

Hypothetically, it should be possible to trace the chain of cause and effect from any current activity back through one or more of these chains to the moment the Big Bang was triggered. It should also be possible, having acquired all of that data, to trace forward and precisely predict everything that is going to happen subsequently. There should be no surprises, because nothing ‘just happens’ – it happens ‘because’.

In fact, we already see this happening. Every day, on our TVs, radios, and other devices, we have meteorologists telling us what the weather is going to be like over the next few days. How do they know? They know because they understand how cause and effect works in the atmosphere.

Astronomers are able to predict cosmic events, such as eclipses of the sun, and even tell you what percentage of the eclipse you’ll see in the part of the world in which you live.

Everything happens ‘because’. Nothing is left to chance.

A few years ago, I watched a TV series on the planets, which was hosted by professor Brian Cox of the University of Manchester. In the final episode, in his summing up, he asked a rhetorical question about how the planets, in all of their uniqueness and stark beauty, came to be. Was it fate, he wondered, or was it chance?

(I’m not sure why he used the word ‘fate’. I would have thought, for a scientist, the word ‘necessity’ might have been more appropriate; but it was a popular TV programme, after all, so maybe fate is something that his audience might have related to more easily, since fate hints at an intelligent decision, however capricious that decision might be.)

Professor Cox proposed two options, but in reality, in the Big Bang Universe, there is only one – NECESSITY.

Once the Big Bang was triggered, the universe’s fate (if I may use that word) was sealed. From that moment on, nothing could change, because everything that happened from that moment forward was caused, directly or indirectly by the Big Bang, and once a chain of cause and effect is set in motion in a closed system, it cannot be changed, because there is nothing to change it. Everything is predetermined to the most minute detail.

Now, let’s think about evolution for a moment. The driver behind evolution is what is commonly known as ‘random mutation’, by which we mean that when the DNA molecule in a cell is replicating, the copy is not a perfect match for the original, but there is a minute variation. These random mutations, or random variations, bring about a change in the organism, which may provide a survival advantage, and so the variation is passed on to the next generation, and over time it is built upon in the succeeding generations.

The issue here is that these mutations or variations, even though they are random, are also the product of necessity. Every one of them is predetermined, because everything in the Big Bang Universe is predetermined to the finest degree.

Why is this important?

It’s important because it means that whatever it was that triggered the Big Bang – that is to say, whatever it was that created the Big Bang Universe, was the architect not only of life, but of evolving life.

Why is that a problem?

It’s a problem because what is being postulated here is that something which is not alive – because, being purely physical, it was devoid of life in any way – is capable of producing life and living beings that can evolve from single-cellular organisms to complex human beings who are able to understand the universe.

Neither energy nor matter contain life. Physical life is possible only because matter is formulated in such a way, and to such a degree of complexity, that DNA molecules can exist in the hearts of cells, and reproduce themselves by a process which is also at a high degree of complexity.

How is it possible for a purely physical process – i.e. the Big Bang – to occur in such a way that the resulting universe eventually, after billions of years, begins to produce living cells, which are then organised into living organisms, which then develop brains which can reason, imagine, create, decide, and plan?

Is it reasonable to propose that the lesser is capable of creating the greater?

Where we know what has been created and what the creator is, we find that without exception the lesser is created by the greater.

Beavers create dams, but dams do not create beavers. Birds create nests, but nests do not create birds. Men create machines, but machines do not create men.

Is it reasonable then to propose, when it comes to the creation of the universe as a whole, that the opposite is the case - that that which is devoid of life created life? that that which is devoid of reason created reason? that that in which consciousness does not exist created consciousness?

I would say that the answer is ‘no’, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume for the moment that the answer is ‘yes’.

This brings us to the scary bit.

Your brain is a constituent part of the Big Bang Universe, as are all of the neurons and synapses of which your brain is composed. This means that everything that goes on inside your brain has been predetermined from the moment the Big Bang was triggered.

In your experience, you decided to read this article, as, in my experience, I decided to write it. In my experience, I have an open mind and used it to come to a conclusion on the matters that I believe. You also have the experience of thinking matters through and coming to a reasoned conclusion.

In the Big Bang Universe, this is all a delusion.

Everything that is going on in your body and your mind right now has been predetermined from the start. You live in a closed system. Your brain is a part of the system, a cog in the machine, wound up and set loose by the blind watch-maker, who has fixed every thought, every hope, every longing, every fear, every disappointment.

You are no more a free agent than the moon or an asteroid or a comet

How likely is it that our experience is so at odds with reality? How are we to believe that what we experience every day is as false as a mad-man’s hallucinations: that we are but slaves of necessity, helpless spectators in a world in which we believe ourselves to be participants, free agents who can genuinely make a difference?

In the Big Bang Universe, the reality is that we are androids, robots, programmed to believe that we are free while blindly fulfilling the dictates of a physical process which has neither meaning nor purpose.

For me, this option is not only horrendous, but is entirely unreasonable.

Even if I were not a believer in God, I would have to reject the physical-only proposition, because it is diametrically at odds with my lived experience, and to me that is unacceptable as a serious answer to the question.

Does the metaphysical option hold out any more hope?

In this option, the First Cause is either MATHEMATICS or THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, or probably a combination of both.

My first concern here is that these metaphysical entities probably don’t have the ability, within themselves, to ‘do’ anything; and, if they did, would they be able to create either energy or matter?

A more likely scenario is that the physical pre-cursor of the Big Bang exists as well as the metaphysical, and the metaphysical has somehow acted upon the physical to trigger the Big Bang.

For example, the singularity exists, as does the law of physics which dictates that the singularity will become a universe if a certain condition also exists.

What is the outcome of this scenario?

It seems to me that it’s exactly the same as the physical-only scenario – the Big Bang Universe, wherein everything is predetermined from ground zero upwards. Everything that happens does so in accordance with an immutable law of physics and/or an inflexible mathematical formula.

Are we confident that the plays and poetry of Shakespeare, which have entertained and inspired worldwide audiences for five centuries, can be reduced to the outworking of the laws of physics?

Michaelangelo employed mathematics in his artistic creativity, but are we to believe that his outstanding frescoes that adorn the Sistine Chapel can be summed up in a mathematical formula?

Are the works of Beethoven, Dali, Heaney, the skill of Segovia, Maria Callas, or even Cecil B. DeMille, nothing but the outworking of the blind, deaf, and purposeless odysseys of molecules, atoms, and quarks within a universe that was born from an event that came about through necessity and produced a universe whose every minutia has been predetermined from that distant beginning?

For me, once again, this is not a satisfactory solution, for exactly the same reason as I’ve already given for option 1.

What about the SPIRTUAL option then? What might have happened in this case?

(I suggested two different spiritual scenarios earlier on, but I am only going to consider one of them, because the other one is unfamiliar to me, except as a vague idea, so I cannot reasonably comment upon it.)

In this scenario, the First Cause is neither physical nor metaphysical, but spiritual, which means that it is alive, because everything in the spiritual dimension is alive to some degree. Not only is it alive, but it is conscious, has intelligence, creativity, moral agency, and power. It is a person, with a unique and distinct personality, and so we refer not to ‘it’ but to ‘him’, because that is how he reveals himself to us.

I am, of course, referring to the God of the Bible, out of respect for whom I will continue by using capital letters for His pronouns.

Remember that we have already established that whatever, or whoever, the First Cause might be, it was not created, had no beginning, but has always existed, and so the answer to the question about its, or His, origin is that He always has been; He is eternal. And just as the pre-existence of either a physical or a metaphysical First Cause is impossible, so His existence is both logically and scientifically impossible, but at the same time a practical necessity.

Before we proceed, let me say that we should bear in mind that the Bible was not written primarily or exclusively for 21st century students of cosmology, but for farmers, shepherds, traders, soldiers, housewives, politicians, those who are educated and those who are not, children as well as adults, the illiterate as well as the literate, most of whom throughout the ages have seen the earth as being the centre of the universe with sun, moon, and stars circling around it.

If you have any desire to see in the Biblical creation narrative a reflection of modern scientific understanding, I must tell you that you’ll probably be disappointed. That is not the reason that the Bible was written.

The subject matter of the Bible is salvation, not science.

However, the Bible does reveal to us the broad brush-strokes of God’s creativity and gives us some insights into how He went about producing our universe.

The Bible begins with these words:

The first thing that this tells us is that the heavens and the earth did not exist before God created them. From this we surmise that before He began His creation, nothing existed except for God Himself.

This possibly presents us with a difficulty, because I have already said: “you cannot create something out of nothing, so whatever is being created must be a reconstitution of something which already exists, but must be distinct enough from that ‘raw material’ to be recognisable as something which did not exist before.”

If nothing existed but God Himself, and it is impossible to create something out of nothing, then how did God go about creating the heavens and the earth?

The answer is actually both simple and obvious. In verse 3 we are told that, “God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light”. God spoke, and the light came into being. But how?

(I am grateful to the late English Bible teacher Derek Prince for the following insight.)

Whenever you speak, what comes out of your mouth?

First of all, ENERGY. Speech, as any action, requires energy, and energy is released through our mouths when we speak.

Secondly, INFORMATION. I can make meaningless noises with my mouth; for instance, I might cough or yawn, but that is not speech. I am not ‘saying’ anything. When God said, “Let there be light” He was not only releasing energy, but also issuing an instruction as to how that energy should behave. Light is not raw energy, but energy that has been ‘informed’, so that it behaves in particular ways, which can be described by the laws of physics.

The third thing that issues from our mouths when we speak is BREATH. Our English word ‘spirit’ comes from the Latin word ‘spiritus’, meaning ‘breath’. In the Hebrew language, the same word is used to mean ‘wind’, ‘breath’, and ‘spirit’, depending on the context.

The significance of this in creation is seen in chapter 2 of Genesis:

In this instance, God does not speak, because He is no longer creating from a blank canvas, as it were, but is working with existing material. However, the point is that God forms the man’s BODY, which is totally lifeless, then breathes life into the ‘sculpture’ – i.e. He imparts SPIRIT to the lifeless body – and the man becomes a living SOUL.

In this we see how mankind has three distinct but interdependent levels of being – spirit, soul, and body.

Going back to chapter 1 verse 1, we are told that God created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. From this we understand that God created both a spiritual universe (the heavens) and a physical universe (the earth, as the local representative of the whole).

(Note that the word ‘heavens’ is used to indicate both the spiritual universe and what we know as the sky above our heads depending, again, upon the context. Birds fly in the physical heavens, but God has His throne in the spiritual heavens.)

That spiritual universe is closer to God and more like God in its essence, because God is spirit (John 4:24). The physical universe is quite different from God, being cold, dark, and lifeless in its very essence, and only by the determined effort of God did light, heat, and life come into it.

A significant statement for us, as human beings, appears in verses 26-28 of chapter 1:

What is the meaning of this expression, ‘made in the image of God’? Does this mean that physically we look like God? I think this is unlikely, as God is not physical and so doesn’t have a physical form. It makes more sense to me to understand this to mean that we are like God in the attributes of our PERSONALITIES and our CHARACTERS.

What do I mean by that?

Perhaps the easiest way to answer that is to go back to the list of attributes that I itemised when asking “what did the creator create?”. Here are the salient entries from that list:

• CONSCIOUSNESS
• IDENTITY
• EMOTION
• REASON
• IMAGINATION and FORESIGHT
• FREE WILL
• MORAL AGENCY
• PURPOSE and MEANING
• SPIRITUAL AWARENESS.

If we consider the Big Bang Universe, it is very difficult to see how any of these attributes could possibly exist within a purely physical, or even a physical and metaphysical environment.

However, within a universe that has been created by an Intelligent Designer, such as the God of the Bible, who is already possessed of all of these attributes and more, any difficulties vanish like smoke on the breeze.

In fact, the opposite is the case, for if the universe was created by God, we would expect Him to create beings who were like Him in some way, so that He could have some sort of relationship with them.

When it comes to evolution, we would also expect Him to build into His creatures the ability to survive and, if necessary, adapt to changing circumstances. In a universe that has been created by God, evolution makes perfect sense.

In light of the foregoing, I would maintain that belief in God is not only reasonable, but it is the most reasonable position to hold in relation to the existence of the universe in general and the earth and its inhabitants in particular.