Skip to main content
ScotlandReligious, Moral & Philosophical StudiesSyllabus dot point

Where did the universe come from, and do its origins point to the existence of God?

The origins of the universe and the existence of God, including the cosmological and design arguments, the Big Bang and evolution, the Genesis accounts, and religious and non-religious responses.

An SQA National 5 RMPS answer on Religious and Philosophical Questions. Covers the origins of the universe and the existence of God: the cosmological and design arguments, the Big Bang and evolution, the Genesis accounts, and religious and non-religious responses, with balanced evaluation.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.810 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The cosmological argument
  3. The design argument
  4. The scientific accounts: the Big Bang and evolution
  5. The Genesis accounts and responses
  6. Examples in context
  7. Try this

What this dot point is asking

In the Religious and Philosophical Questions component you study one big question about religion and existence (a centre chooses from areas such as the origins of the universe and the existence of God, the problem of suffering and evil, and the existence of the soul and life after death). This page covers origins: where the universe came from and whether that points to God.

You need to describe and explain the main arguments for God (the cosmological and design arguments), the scientific accounts (the Big Bang and evolution), the Genesis accounts, and religious and non-religious responses, and be able to evaluate the question.

The cosmological argument

Set out in steps, the argument runs:

  1. Everything in the universe has a cause; nothing causes itself.
  2. The universe began to exist, so it must have had a cause.
  3. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes going back for ever.
  4. So there must be a first, uncaused cause that started everything, and this is God.

A common criticism is to ask "then what caused God?" Supporters reply that God is eternal and uncaused, so the question does not apply; critics say that if God can be uncaused, perhaps the universe can be too.

The design argument

The design argument points to features such as the regular laws of nature, the way living things are suited to their environment, and the fine-tuning of the universe for life. A classic version is William Paley's watch: if you found a watch, its complex design would tell you it had a maker, and supporters argue the universe is far more complex than a watch, so it too must have a designer.

The strongest criticism is evolution: Darwin showed that the appearance of design in living things can be explained by natural selection without a designer. Some also argue that apparent "design" could be down to chance across a vast universe.

The scientific accounts: the Big Bang and evolution

These are scientific theories based on evidence, such as the expansion of the universe and the fossil record. Many non-religious people argue that they give natural explanations of the universe and of life, so no creator is needed.

Importantly, many religious people accept the science. They argue that the Big Bang and evolution describe how the universe and life came to be, while religion answers a different question: who caused it and why. Some Christians even say the Big Bang is how God created.

The Genesis accounts and responses

This gives a range of religious responses to origins:

  • Literal creationists take Genesis as factual and may reject parts of the scientific account.
  • Most mainstream Christians read Genesis symbolically and accept the Big Bang and evolution, seeing them as the means God used.

Non-religious responses reject Genesis as a creation account, treating it as ancient myth, and rely on science and evidence alone. A strong answer presents this whole range accurately and respectfully.

Examples in context

Example 1. Fine-tuning for life. Scientists note that tiny changes in the laws of physics would make life impossible. Believers use this as a design argument; non-religious thinkers reply it could be chance or one of many universes.

Example 2. A scientist who is also religious. Many scientists are religious and accept the Big Bang and evolution. They show how science (how the universe works) and faith (who made it and why) can be held together.

Try this

Q1. State the conclusion of the cosmological argument. [1 mark]

  • Cue. That the universe must have a first, uncaused cause, which is God.

Q2. Name the scientist whose theory of evolution by natural selection challenges the design argument. [1 mark]

  • Cue. Charles Darwin.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

SQA N5 style4 marksDescribe the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
Show worked answer →

A 4-mark describe question wants the argument set out clearly in steps, so build it up logically.

The cosmological argument starts from the observation that everything in the universe has a cause; nothing causes itself.

So the universe itself must have had a cause, because it began to exist and could not have caused itself.

There cannot be an endless chain of causes going back for ever, so there must be a first cause that started everything.

Supporters argue this first, uncaused cause is God, who began the universe.

Markers reward the steps: everything has a cause, the universe began so it has a cause, the chain cannot be endless, so there is a first cause, identified as God.

SQA N5 style6 marksExplain why some people think science removes the need for God to explain the universe.
Show worked answer →

A 6-mark explain answer needs developed reasons with consequences, so make three linked points.

Point one: the Big Bang gives a natural explanation of how the universe began. If the universe started from a natural event around 13.8 billion years ago, the consequence is that some argue no creator is needed to explain its beginning.

Point two: evolution explains the appearance of design. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains how complex living things developed gradually without a designer, so the consequence is that the design argument looks weaker to many people.

Point three: science relies on evidence and testing. Non-religious thinkers argue we should believe what the evidence shows, and since God cannot be tested, the consequence is that they see religious explanations as unnecessary.

Markers reward each reason explained with its consequence. Strong answers note that many religious people disagree, arguing science explains how, while religion explains who and why.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this