The universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy exists; and appears to be expanding.  Scientists interpret the evidence according to their particular worldview.

How did the universe come into existence, and why does it appear to be expanding?

Scientists, regardless of their worldview, are pretty much in agreement that before the universe came into existence, there was a state of nothingness.  They agree that the universe had a beginning.  For the naturalist, this is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  For a scientist who is also a theist; it is also supported by God's Word.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Everything tends toward disorder and decay.  Because of this Law, most scientists no longer believe the universe is eternal.  Almost everyone is in agreement that the universe had a beginning.  Scientists are not in total agreement as to why the universe exists, or how it began.

It is generally accepted that there are only two possible answers as to how the universe came into existence.  Although, only one is usually considered for scientific purposes.  But should that be the case?

Hypothesis # 1
The universe came into existence through an explosion from nothingness, that was an undirected process.

Hypothesis # 2
The universe came into existence out of a state of nothingness for a directed purpose; through the actions of an external force or agent.  God spoke it into existence out of nothing.

The Naturalistic "Big Bang" Hypothesis:

Here are some statements regarding the "Big Bang" theory:

NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and energy in all directions."

“However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.  …the Big Bang”  HBJ Science 1989 pg. 362

Vacuum Fluctuation
One of the naturalistic theories given for the beginning of the universe is a “vacuum fluctuation.”  The idea is that in a moment of time, in a space no bigger than a dime, the universe began with a gigantic explosion when a vacuum (the absence of matter) fluctuated.

The cover of DISCOVER magazine in April of 2002 stated: “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing – zero, nada.  And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.  Ask Alan Guth, His theory of inflation helps Explain Everything!”  According to Guth’s theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. 

The Theistic Hypothesis:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Genesis 1:1
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, ..." Exodus 20:11

Spoken into existence out of nothing:
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3

If the universe came into existence through an undirected natural process, what would we expect to find?  If the universe came into existence for a directed purpose, what would we expect to find? 

The problem becomes, just about everyone has an opinion on how it happened. Unbiased predictions in this case are almost impossible.

If someone believes in an undirected process, they will make predictions based on what they already know about our universe that they believe is supporting evidence.

If someone believes in a directed purpose, they will make predictions based on what they already know about our universe that they believe is supporting possible design and purpose.  From a scientific perspective, which hypothesis best fits the evidence?

How did the universe begin?  Is that a question that can be answered scientifically?  We can't go back in time to view what happened.  It can't be reproduced in the laboratory, because we don't know how it began.  Can we just look at what we observe to be happening now and extrapolate backwards in time?  We can't go backwards in time to observe a Supreme Being creating it either.

How could we test these two hypotheses? 
Perhaps the best way to do that is to compare them to the laws of science that describe how our universe works.  Let's apply the laws of science to these two hypotheses and see how they line up.  What laws would apply?

The Law of Inertia

Scientifically the Big Bang Theory violates the Law of Inertia which states:  “Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by an outside force or agent acting upon it.”  Before the “Big Bang” supposedly what existed was a state of nothingness.  According to Newton’s Law of Inertia wouldn’t that state continue unless acted upon by an outside force or agent?

The First Law of Thermodynamics

Dr. Robert Gage in “Origins and Destiny” 1986, p.17 stated: “The First Law has been the object of considerable thought since it was first introduced to the world by William Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius.  It forbids a natural process from bringing something from nothing.”

The Law of Cause and Effect

“Behind every effect is a cause, greater and more complex than the effect itself.”  The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the best documented principles of science and of everyday experience.  The Law of Cause and Effect would seem to indicate the physical universe consisting of time, space, matter, and energy must all have a cause outside of themselves.

Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist, in his book - The Edge of Infinity, describes the big bang this way: “[The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle…”

Testing a "Vacuum Fluctuation".

 Let me see if I have this right.  In a moment of time (when time didn’t exist yet) in a spot no bigger than a dime (when space didn’t exist yet) a vacuum fluctuated.   A vacuum is the absence of matter, but also requires the existence of matter when supposedly none existed.  A fluctuation of any kind also requires energy when supposedly none existed.  Doesn’t that mean a vacuum fluctuation would require the existence of space, time, matter and energy?  I thought it was the explanation of where space, time, matter, and energy all came from?

An explosion from nothingness would seem to be in violation of the Law of Cause and Effect; the First Law of Thermodynamics; and the Law of Inertia. 

The Law of Inertia would seem to require the existence of an external force or agent that acted upon that state of nothingness to bring a universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy into existence.

The First Law of Thermodynamics would seem to require something other than a natural cause to be responsible for the origin of the universe.

As for the Law of Cause and Effect, the effect would be the universe made up of space, time, matter, and energy coming into existence out of a state of nothingness.  What was the cause?

Some have asked: "If an external force or agent brought this universe into existence, what caused the external force or agent to exist?"

That is an unscientific question.  A first Cause never requires the existence of another Cause. 
A Supreme Being speaking the universe into existence out of a state of nothingness is not only Biblical; but it also lines up perfectly with the laws of science.   An explosion from a state of nothingness, bringing a universe full of space, time, matter, and energy into existence violates at least 3 known laws of science.

I have three scientific questions:

1. Scientifically, can you have an explosion without energy?

2. If there was no matter, what exploded?

3. Scientifically, can something come from nothing?