The God Question is a blog committed to respectful but rigorous examination of Christian truth claims. This post is part of an ongoing series analyzing Mark Clark’s bestselling book The Problem of God—a work popular among evangelical apologists for its accessible defense of Christian belief. Each post highlights a specific claim or chapter, testing it through logic, science, history, and reason—all through the lens of The God Question’s core philosophy.
Cosmology & Big Bang
Mark Clark begins Chapter 2 of The Problem of God with the claim that the existence of moral law points to the existence of a divine lawgiver. He then pivots, calling cosmology—the study of the universe’s origin—the “second evidence” for God’s existence. Citing Immanuel Kant’s phrase “the starry hosts above,” Clark introduces this section with an air of reverence and inevitability. And yet, as with much of his apologetic method, the argument quickly reduces to a series of well-worn and misleading claims.
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause”
Clark recycles the familiar Kalam Cosmological Argument—popularized by William Lane Craig—claiming:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause (which he identifies as God).
It’s a tidy syllogism, but it carries massive philosophical and scientific baggage. For one, premise one—“everything that begins to exist has a cause”—is assumed, not demonstrated. In quantum physics, subatomic particles (like virtual particles) appear to come into being without any identifiable cause at all. Some physicists argue this undercuts the first premise entirely.
Second, while Clark confidently asserts that the universe “began to exist” 15 billion years ago, modern cosmology is less certain. The Big Bang represents a beginning of our observable universe—space, time, matter, and energy—but what (if anything) came before remains unknown. Physicists like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss argue that asking “what caused the Big Bang?” may be a category error, akin to asking “what’s north of the North Pole?”
Clark fails to mention the range of cosmological models that don’t require a supernatural cause: vacuum fluctuation models, cyclic universes, multiverse theory, and more. Instead, he cherry-picks the version that supports his belief.
The Universe Had a “Birthday”
Clark writes that the universe “began to exist fifteen billion years ago,” and thus “has a birthday.” But a birthday implies a beginning in time. According to Big Bang cosmology, time itself began with the Big Bang—making the phrase “before the Big Bang” meaningless. Again, Clark applies language shaped by everyday human experience to a context (cosmic origins) where such language breaks down.
He then draws this conclusion:
“The cause must be mind, not matter, because matter itself began to exist at the Big Bang.”
But why must it be “mind”? Why not energy, or some still-unknown quantum field? This is argument by assertion, not evidence.
“That’s exactly what Christianity has been claiming from the beginning”
Here, Clark tries to claim cosmology for Christianity—suggesting that Big Bang cosmology confirms the Bible’s creation story. But Genesis depicts a firmament, a stationary Earth, a six-day creation, and light existing before the sun. None of this aligns with modern cosmology.
What’s more, Clark sidesteps the historical truth: for centuries, the church fought against emerging scientific cosmologies—from Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin. He also fails to mention that Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang, did so while insisting it should not be used to justify theological arguments.
“Nobody times nothing equals everything?”
Clark ends this section with a rhetorical jab, mocking secular explanations of origins as “nobody times nothing equals everything.” But this misrepresents what scientists actually say. Most do not claim the universe came from “nothing” in the philosophical sense; instead, they speak of a quantum vacuum or primordial state that does not equate to “nothing.”
Clark either doesn’t understand—or doesn’t care to accurately represent—those he disagrees with.
🧠 Final Reflection
Clark’s use of cosmology is not an honest inquiry but a clever repackaging of scientific mystery as theological certainty. Rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads, he frames the evidence to serve a preordained conclusion. And he does so without wrestling seriously with opposing views—from quantum cosmology to secular metaphysics.
If you want to explore real cosmological questions—without the theological bait-and-switch—look instead to physicists who admit what they don’t know. There’s more humility, and ironically, more awe, in their uncertainty than in any apologetic proof.
God or Delusion? 