Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?
I'm not sure what Jeff means by that question, but according to proponents of mature creation, there's a sense in which God did create the world in time rather than with time. On that view, the universe is like a period movie set. It begins at a certain point along a timeline. It has a shadow past.
Of course, atheists object to mature creation, but in that case they're raising contradictory objections.
The answer from a physics educated theists is a no-brainer: God, and God-alone is timeless, tangible property-less etc.. Per scripture, everything else we know was brought into creation. Maybe time is a property of that creation such as mass and energy is? Now, why did God assign such properties to what he created is a different, and an unanswerable question just as predicting what was before time is in physics from a natural science perspective. In other words, the question becomes meaningless.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand his question properly - I understood the answer of that question when I was 16-17 year old, probably during my high school years. If I did not understand what he was saying - I probably still dont. :)
The following are my two cents as someone who has had exposure to (and privilege/ of) studying science.
ReplyDelete>>>The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” presupposes “nothing” as being the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can’t we flip the question on its head? In other words, why can’t it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird?
Even if it is - how would you know? And why is it so? And how would you know otherwise? And how does going with an intuition false on ordinary level (an effect without a cause) become intelligent? On what grounds?
>>>Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?
Answered.
>>>Why is so much of our universe intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency?
How is so much defined, quantitatively. Science is not rhetoric. It is a qualitative and quantitative science. So, please define your term in a way people can actually intelligently deal with it. I gues Sean Carroll's (one of the cosmologists I like) major objection with theism is that it is not properly defined - well, per your definition your qualm is equally undefined and therefore unintelligent.
>>>Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?
Because... God is.... erm.... omnipotent?
>>>If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why isn’t the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types of sensory beauty?
Why do you assume that visual beauty should be either insufficient or inabundant? Which natural law states that electromagnetic frequencies must be matched by equal occurrences of mechanical vibrations in the universe?
To be continued.
>>>If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn’t our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?
DeleteThe fact that it is fine-tuned precludes the possibility of an abundance of life. Else, what is the point of the fine-tuning? If fine-tuning can cause abundance of life, how much more can a non-fine-tuned universe? And how would you know the difference?
As for impressive life to humans - that is subjective. One can make a case that a lion is far more impressive than humans except in rationality. So?
>>>Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation? Do you have any answer that is independent of the scientific evidence for evolution?
Why would God not use it as a method? Not implying that he did, but what would stop him? And the second question - how is the point that it insinuates not an argument from ignorance?
>>>Why would God desire to create embodied moral agents, as opposed to unembodied minds (such as souls, spirits, or ghosts)? Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain?
Why did God create you? And in a world with internet where you'd even have a platform? Or for me, that matter? Or anybody?
I hope you get the drift.
>>>Did Australopithecus have a soul? What about homo habilis? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Why or why not?
What reasons would count? Scientific, researchable and reproducible or any? Would theological reason count? Or philosophical?
>>>How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?”
DeleteIs an answer that is tantamount to I dont know conclusive in any sense? This way or that way? How? How is your answer not an answer from ignorance or absence of evidence?
>>>Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random?
How are you certain they are morally random? How can you gauge the effects of morality or the lack of it?
....
One gets the idea of how silly these questions sound to the scientifically informed. Without even counting the theologically or philosophically informed....
>>>If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn’t our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?
DeleteThe fact that it is fine-tuned precludes the possibility of an abundance of life. Else, what is the point of the fine-tuning? If fine-tuning can cause abundance of life, how much more can a non-fine-tuned universe? And how would you know the difference?
I guess the fine tuning example applies to the Goldilocks zone, and that was the context of my reply. I doubt any person with a minimum iota of general knowledge thinks the whole universe is inhabitable.
"In other words, why can’t it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it flies in the face of everything we know and experience about the natural world. Everything that is, regardless of whether it's animal or human or plant or created thing, has a *cause*. Even if the cause is natural and not arising from direct intent, there is always ... always ... a triggering event.