It's hard to imagine anything more absurd than the naturalist's formula for the origin of the universe: Nobody times nothing equals everything. There is no Creator; there was no design or purpose. Everything we see simply emerged and evolved by pure chance from a total void.

Not long ago, when you asked the typical naturalist what he believed about the beginning of all things, you were likely to hear about the Big Bang theory—the notion that the universe is the product of an immense explosion. As if an utterly violent and chaotic beginning could result in all the synergy and order we observe in the cosmos around us. Today the theories have changed, but the common root of speculation remains the same.

I used to ask those who subscribed to the Big Bang theory, what was the catalyst that touched off that Big Bang in the first place? (And what, in turn, was the catalyst for that?) Something incredibly large had to fuel the original explosion. Where did that "something" originate? A Big Bang out of nowhere quite simply could not have been the beginning of all things. Apart from the eternal God of the Scripture, answers about ultimate origins are short in coming.

Is the material universe itself eternal, as some claim? And if it is, why hasn't it wound down? For that matter, what set it in motion to begin with? What is the source of the energy that keeps it going? Why hasn't entropy caused it to devolve into a state of inertia and chaos, rather than (as the evolutionist must hypothesize) apparently developing into a more orderly and increasingly sophisticated system as the Big Bang expands?

The vast array of insurmountable problems for the naturalist begins at the most basic level. What was the First Cause that caused everything else? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? What holds everything together and what keeps everything going? How could life, self-consciousness, and rationality evolve from inanimate, inorganic matter? Who designed the many complex and interdependent organisms and sophisticated ecosystems we observe? Where did intelligence originate? Are we to think of the universe as a massive perpetual-motion apparatus with some sort of impersonal "intelligence" of its own? Or is there, after all, a personal, intelligent Designer who created everything and set it all in motion?

Those are vital metaphysical questions that must be answered if we are to understand the meaning and value of life itself. Philosophical naturalism, because of its materialistic and anti-supernatural presuppositions, is utterly incapable of offering any answers to those questions. In fact, the most basic dogma of naturalism is that everything happens by natural processes; nothing is supernatural; and therefore there can be no personal Creator. That means there can be no design and no purpose for anything. Naturalism therefore can provide no philosophical basis for believing that human life is particularly valuable or in any way significant.

Here's the topic of discussion for the comment thread: Philosophical naturalism has invalidated itself from metaphysical inquiry by denying super-natural explanations a priori. Naturalism has no credibility in the field of metaphysics, and yet scientists and philosophers who hold materialistic and anti-supernatural presuppositions biases continue to transgress the limitations of their discipline. What would a research biologist, geneticist, or geologist think about being paired up with an antimaterialist? Wouldn't the antimaterialist's presuppositions lead to frustration in scientific inquiry?

In what way are many of today's scientists guilty of applying an anti-supernatural bias to the question of origins? What validity is there in trying to conform the Bible, the revelation of a super-natural God, to an anti-supernatural/materialist worldview?