No, cosmology is not the study of cosmetics; that’s cosmetology. Cosmology is the study of our universe, its origin and meaning. Any view taken of the origin of the universe must be based on faith, since there is no extant method of ‘proving’ how it came into being.

I put my faith in God, accepting what I believe to His account of creation recorded in the Bible. Others take a different perspective, accepting the idea that all things are simply the result of natural causes. For objective inquirers, I offer the following series of questions, primarily for the purpose of showing that the acceptance of a natural cause for the universe must in the final analysis, be based on faith.

1. Can it be explained where the first inorganic matter came from, without making something up? No law of science shows matter to be eternal. Matter, therefore, had to have an origin. Since there is no empirical data showing conclusively how matter came into being, any conclusion concerning the origin of matter must be based on faith. Any conclusion concerning the origin of matter outside of God contradicts known laws of science. The concept of God is not against science, it is simply outside of our ability to detect, take measurements or otherwise apply methods of scientific inquiry. We should expect this, however. If God did in fact create the universe, we would not expect Him to be a part of it.

2. However, if we did suppose for now, just for the sake of argument, and against all known science, that inorganic matter has been eternally existent, could it then be explained without speculation, how lifeless, inorganic matter gave rise to life? After all, even after years of research and experimentation, our best minds cannot duplicate the event. Even if they did, wouldn’t it only prove that it takes intelligence to do it?

3. If we again, continuing for the sake of argument now, supposed not only matter’s self- existence, but also that life arose from this purposeless, accidental, lifeless matter, could it then be explained how that life was able to reproduce a succeeding fertile generation? To have life generated spontaneously is one unbelievable wonder. Spontaneous life that can reproduce itself, is a wholly different wonder indeed. Wouldn’t you agree?

4. Ok now, if we just kept on supposing as we have been all of the previous conditions to this point (and we can only get to this point by supposition) could it be explained, without speculation (making something up), how life defied entropy untold millions of times in order to evolve into higher life forms?

5. On top of all four previous suppositions, is there a plausible explanation for the universal existence of a conscious mind in all humans? How is it that such a consciousness could
be brought into being by millions of years of evolutionary advances and yet have absolutely no real awareness whatsoever of how any of them took place?

6. How can we account for the universal human phenomena of assuming the existence of
deity and the accompanying compulsion to worship, if in fact the human consciousness making this assumption of deity is itself a result of totally natural, random, purposeless,
mindless, organic forces? Anthropology teaches us that atheism itself is not a result of human nature, but a result of teaching. Why is it that no human culture is atheistic by nature?

Marty Kessler