Did God Create the Cosmos?


Discuss Whether Science can Provide Evidence for the Claim
that God Created the Universe



“…[W]e live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far… but some day the piecing together of disassociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and… we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age” (Lovecraft, H. P. 1925)

This statement is quoted from The Call of Cthulhu, as written by the 1920s horror writer HP Lovecraft.  Today’s movements of secular religion can still not explain as to where Lovecraft gained his insight into contemporary religion, although most of his work can be read on these religious terms.  This statement is one just quotation from Lovecraft that puts the idea of the Earth into religious context, and makes a statement as to the reasonable impossibility of mankind’s conquest of the stars.  If we were to discuss the claim that a religious God did or did not create the Universe, then we must first make an assumption about the massive scale of the Universe on the greater terms that it has been proven to exist.

This quotation also makes a statement as to Lovecraft’s insight into the movements of current scientific technology, as I will intend to discuss on religious terms with this essay assignment.

The main part of the World’s Abrahamic religions uphold similar views towards Creation and the creation of humanity on our Planet, and I would argue that specific statements can be established on this basis.  For the sake of narrative I will intend to focus on The Old Testament of The Bible as a representative example as to how the Creation story stands in this context with the claim that a religious God did or did not create the Cosmos.

As an example of a statement of religious thought that is upheld by most of these World’s religions, the Old Testament of The Bible opens with its first opening statement standing to define creation in saying that “(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth” (Bible, KJV. Genesis 1:1).  To open this discussion the situation is already defined that this statement defines specific terms to creation on the Planet Earth.  The concept of the Cosmos on the greater scale is not the issue in question.

This early part of The Bible continues to state “(24) God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind” (Bible, KJV. Genesis 1:24-25).  So far Gods creation of specific and defined statements have been established as The Bible defines on specific terms how specific forms of life on our Planet have been created..  However, this does not go on to establish ant principal to explain why a religious God should want to create life on our Planet, until the next passage continues to establish that “(26) God said, Let us make man in our image” (Bible, KJV. Genesis 1:26).

Until this point in The Book of Genesis it is not explained as to why a religious God chose to create specific aspects of life on our Planet, but the creation of mankind here changes the argument.  The Cult of R’Lyeh have thought this through on our own terms, and believe that in  representing religions as equal, then it must be logical that if God might not be on practical terms able to physically destroy the Cosmos Himself, then the creation of mankind must have been in order for us to be able to do so on His behalf (Thompson, T. 2016).  Current technology is our point here, with the point being that Particle Collider technology poses a risk that the Cosmos could easily be destroyed on a literally accidental basis.  There would not have been a problem with mankind being able to immediately take this intention through, but The Cult of R’Lyeh believe that Creation and the Fall from Grace were both on the basis that Lucifer believed He was justified in opposing such Cosmological destruction, and felt that He had no option other than to rebel (Thompson, T. 2016).  This defines our religious terms as to where the Earth has literally any significance on the greater scale of the infinity of the Cosmos on greater religious terms.

The religious Cult of R’Lyeh on Earth argue to justify this position that mankind is instinctively destructive, whilst at the same time being the only animal on Earth who have scientific intelligence.  We argue that on logical terms the Fall of Lucifer and other aspects of human religions can be easily interpreted to justify this view (Thompson, T. 2016).  We stand to define this as an aspect of reasoned logical opinion, when one of The Cult of R’Lyeh online statements on this subjects states that:

“From Nuclear Power Generators to breaking the speed of light, the technological achievements of mankind are advanced.  Most of us own a computer that interprets Stonehenge to process billions of pieces of data in a millionth of a second.  There are so many holographic discs that they’ve become a point of human evolution.  Nuclear was can potentially destroy our part of space in less than a minute.  It could be argued that none of this would have happened without the Garden on Eden; but if God is going to leave Space Probes lying about, then that actually is up to Him… Does the train of logic follow, then, that the mind of God is not so straightforward, and that mankind was created for some massive and Cosmological act of destruction?  Does it here follow, that if God wanted to destroy the [Universe], then He would have created mankind in order for us to do this on His behalf?” (Thompson, T. 2016).


If we were to follow this statement regarding the first two people on Earth, it could be safely assumed that, until the middle ages, mankind must have been unaware that the Earth did not equate to being a tiny part of the Universe that exists on vast terms beyond our Planet as the single point of significance on a massive Cosmological scale.

The start of the new scientific movement of astronomy as established in historical Europe caused outrage on the part of the early Christian Church, in establishing evidence to contradict creation as an early statement of belief, in standing to establish that in actual fact the Earth orbits the Sun (Crabtree, V. 2008).  If we were to argue the claim of the Christian Church that a religious God created the Universe, then this might be the start of the acceptance by the Church that the Cosmos is a much bigger issue than that which they had previously acknowledged.  “[T]he destruction of creation centres around events occurring on planet Earth… It was deeply challenging to Christians to face the facts that the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe.  Also challenging were other basis facts of astronomy; that the universe is massive, the Earth is only one of many planets, and the likely fact that there is life elsewhere in the universe too” (Crabtree, V. 2006).

This would have been the first point in history that evidence had been given to Christianity that the scope of physical existence was much bigger than the single example of the Earth and representing the first people as the start of the human race.  “Theories were formed to explain discovered facts, and it was clear that the idea that the Earth was flat, or stationary, did not fit the evidence.  The Church fought against this not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of Scripture” (Crabtree, V. 2006).

If we are discussing the claim that God created the Universe, what we have seen is that, until this point God’s involvement with creation focuses specifically on our Planet, and regards these specific points.  The discovery and advancements in the early study of astronomy established to challenge this view, and therefore religious movements were forced to argue on these terms.

If this early scientific study of astronomy established terms to describe theoretical evidence for God’s creation of the Universe (or the opposite opinion), this was the start of contemporary scientific studies such as astrophysics, x-ray astronomy and other contemporary studies which take these scientific studies much further.  These early advancements in scientific study have led directly to statements which have radically redefined humanities view on the greater scale of existence on literally massive terms.

Some of the early religious philosophers (Aristotle being one specific example in hand) argued that the Universe had no beginning, whilst those who did hold opposing views used this to argue as evidence to prove the existence of God on their defined terms (Hawking, S. n.d.).  This argument has continued since the early days of Greek philosophy, and in discussing scientific study in relation to the greater scale of the Cosmos, one of the greatest names in defining this study would be Professor Albert Einstein (Hawking, S. n.d.), who was the most famous example of those representing such views.

Einstein first published his General Theory of Relativity in 1915 (Hawking, S. n.d.).  Whilst it could be argued that this research contributed to a larger amount of similar scientific theory to argue that the Cosmos is more massive than anything which could be conceived by any creating God (as already discussed), Einstein’s theories were accepted in popular society as representing truth on these terms.  The Cosmos was “shaped by the matter and energy in the universe… [and] so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began… Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times… This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence” (Hawking, S. n.d.).  Whilst a large number of similar statements have been put forward to describe similar views, the work of Einstein is largely accepted in popular culture as representing the main representative study of physical science.

I could at this point go into some depth to describe a position that science disproves the existence of God, but such views are controversial and are debated by many others.  I would, however, like to quote a statement from Professor Stephen Hawking who discusses these points in context with the views of the Christian Church:

“Einstein’s theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun.  There are two attitudes one can take… One is that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand.  This was the view of Pope John Paul.  At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God” (Hawking, S. n.d.).


All of this philosophical reasoning brings us back to the essay topic in hand, being can science provide evidence for the claim (which is in itself an issue for serious debate) that God created the Universe?  Whilst Centuries of systematic religious and scientific argument seems to take us no further in trying to establish how God exists on manifest terms, the intelligent advancements of human society have ultimately given us the technological advancements to be able to create and use Particle Collider Technology.  The Cult of R’Lyeh have argued that God did not create the Universe, as the history of the Church have argued, but that mankind was created to uphold God’s worship “on Earth as it is in Heaven”.  We answer this question to say that the creation of mankind was in order to be able to destroy the Cosmos on His behalf.  These philosophical points of debate stand to establish that even if this cannot be proven to be the case, there is still a clear reason for philosophical debate in human society, and this must be considered as being a possibility in hand.

As an individual in religious society, I have no influence as to how the philosophy of humanity is upheld.  I must, however, be concerned as to the possibility that the Cosmos could be ended as the act of the worship of God.  I do, however, stand to reason through issues on my own terms.  As a student of religious philosophy I cannot accept that any God created the Universe, and I issue this as a statement from The Cult of R’Lyeh as a statement of religious opposition to the theoretical basis of existence as here defined.

Tim Thompson

High Priest for The Cult of R'Lyeh on Earth

The VIRUS Group



The Bible: King James Version (KJV). Available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-10&version=KJV [accessed 12-4-2017]

Crabtree, V. (2006) Christianity v. Astronomy The Earth Orbits the Sun! Available at: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity-astronomy.html [accessed 12-4-2017]

Hawking, S. (n.d.) The Origin of the Universe. Available at: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html [accessed 12-4-2017]

Lovecraft, H. P. (1925) The Call of Cthulhu. In: Joshi, S. T. (ed.) The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Tales (2nd ed.) England: Penguin Modern Classics. pp 139-169

Thompson, T. (2016) Religion and The Cult of R’Lyeh on Earth. Available at: http://e-publishingcult.com/The_religious_views_of_The_Cult_of_R’Lyeh_on_Earth.html [accessed 12-4-2017]

Thompson, T. (2016) The Meaning of Life and all that. Available at: http://e-publishingcult.com/The_Meaning_of_Life.html [accessed 12-4-2017]