Why I Am a Christian (Part Two): Because There Is Stuff

Now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, let’s jump right into it. There are several lines of reasoning that, to me, offer compelling evidence to believe in the God of the Bible, in Jesus of Nazareth, and the veracity of the Old and New Testament historical accounts.

download

A Creator God: The most reasonable conclusion

Belief in a Creator God

This issue is the easiest to address in my mind. There are several philosophical arguments that one can use to come to the conclusion that it is more reasonable to believe in a creator God than it is to hold there is no such being. First, in my mind, is the fact that there is anything at all. When we look at the “stuff” around us we realize that everything we see is temporal (finitely existing in time) and that it had a cause. If we trace the causation of each thing back, we realize that the cause had a cause, and etc. At this point we can infer one of two things: either there is an unbroken and infinite causal chain, going back into eternity past, or, more parsimoniously and probably, at some point in the finite past, there was a first cause.

Science actually confirms, as nearly as possible, that there is indeed a first cause. Here’s how: back in the early twentieth century, a man named Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe is undergoing constant expansion. Everything in the observable universe is actually moving farther apart from everything else. This was a huge surprise for scientists at the time, because if you simply “rewind the tape” you inevitably come to the conclusion that there had to be an absolute beginning. Many scientists of that day (and this day as well) did not like that implication and there have been several theories proposed to try to “rescue” the universe from an absolute beginning, but to this day all of the evidence we have from science (via observation and testable and repeatable experimentation) is that the universe did indeed have an absolute beginning.

In my article on the subject I walked through the reasons why positing God as the “Big Banger” is the most reasonable inference for the beginning of the universe. The most compelling and easily understood philosophical argument, in my mind, is what is commonly referred to as the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. It posits two premises followed by the conclusion that most naturally follows. Here it is in its simplest form:

Kalaam Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. God is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe.

In my article entitled “Why is there SOMEthing and not NOthing?” I explain the reasoning behind the first two premises, and flesh out the conclusion.

There are similar arguments that trade on the need for a contingent being, and they follow through as well, but they are also more nuanced than the Kalaam. Perhaps down the road we can look at those types of arguments more closely. However, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument serves to show that belief in a creator God is indeed the most reasonable conclusion, given the evidence from science and observation that is available to us today.

I’d love to discuss these things with you. Any questions and comments that are in line with this page’s Commenting Policy will be published and responded to (to the best of my ability). For more information on how I keep my worldview informed please go to Cross Roads Church.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

32 Comments

  1. Thanks for writing this and inviting commentary!

    Your explanation of the implications of the Big Bang Theory are not quite correct. The Big Bang Theory states that there was a period of rapid expansion of space-time about 14-billion years ago. It does not state that there was any point at which space-time did not exist. In fact, the Big Bang Theory says nothing at all about a period of time prior to the Big Bang– including whether or not that is even a cogent concept.

    It is entirely possible that the universe is past-infinite, even accounting for all the data supporting the Big Bang Theory. It is also possible that the universe is past-bounded– that is, that the universe had some initial point in time. However, neither of these scenarios requires that the universe had a “beginning,” in the sense that it once did not exist, and then did exist.

    So, if you define “beginning” as “the initial boundary of an entity in the temporal dimension,” I’ll disagree with Premise 1 of the KCA. If you define “beginning” as “a point prior to which an entity did not exist and subsequent to which that entity did exist,” I’ll reject Premise 2 of the KCA. And, even if I were to accept both initial Premises as you’ve presented them, here, I would still reject Premise 3, as I see no reason why an appeal to a God should be considered more reasonable than naturalistic explanations.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • Hello Boxing Pythagoras, and thank you for taking time to read and comment on my article. I have enjoyed reading and thinking about some of the things you have written over at your blog, http://boxingpythagoras.com/ and I recommend it to anyone interested in the kinds of things i tend to write about here, for a different perspective.

      I actually have quite a lot of thoughts on your comment, but I’d like to clear up some questions I have about it first. You started by telling me that I had misinterpreted the Big bang Theory. I will leave that for now, because there’s a different rabbit I want to chase.

      Next, you stated “So, if you define “beginning” as “the initial boundary of an entity in the temporal dimension,” I’ll disagree with Premise 1 of the KCA.”

      Now, premise one simply states “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Here, I am not addressing the beginning, or lack thereof, of the universe. To me this (the principle behind premise 1) seems to be fairly obvious. As I look around my house I see many things that were obviously crafted by human beings, and at some point, they began to exist as what they are now (i.e. a TV, couch, tables, pictures, books, etc. etc.) When I look outside I see grass and trees and rocks and animals and etc. and I know that all of these things began to exist at some point. I also know that all of these things have causal explanations for their existence. In fact, I can think of nothing I have ever seen that did not begin to exist and that did not have a cause for its existence.

      Here’s how I define beginning to exist: trees begin to exist as pollinated seeds that grow into adult trees. Humans begin to exist as fertilized eggs that grow into adult humans. In each case, the tree nor the human existed before that point. A table begins to exist when it is assembled from raw materials. Before it was assembled, it did not exist as a table. A rock begins to exist through natural geological forces. Before those forces formed the rock, it did not exist as a rock.

      Given this interpretation of premise one- do you still disagree with it?

      And, if you do deny premise one based on this interpretation, can you point out something to me that you have observed begin to exist uncaused?

      Thanks, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      • Thanks for the reply and for your support of my own blog! I absolutely love this sort of dialogue, and I am of the opinion that all sides are made better for it.

        Given your explanation, it would then seem that you are defining “begins to exist” along the lines of the second definition: an entity “begins to exist” at the point prior to which it did not exist.

        On this definition, I have no issue with Premise 1, as it is describing a localized phenomenon which occurs within space-time as analyzed along a specific direction. However, I would reject Premise 2, as it is not at all clear that there was a point prior to which the universe did not exist.

        I’ll note that William Lane Craig tends to define “begins to exist” more along the lines of my first definition, when he discusses the KCA. His definition only requires an initial boundary in time for an entity to “begin to exist;” it does not require that there was a temporal point at which the entity did not exist, followed by temporal points in which the entity does exist. It is on this definition that I reject Premise 1. The concept is a bit difficult to unpack, since this definition of “begins to exist” is very unlike the common usage of the phrase, but I find a mathematical approach to be the best– especially considering the fact that our best scientific understanding of the universe as a single entity is as a 4-Dimensional manifold.

        If you’d prefer to discuss a definition of “begins to exist” which does not require a point of temporal non-existence, I can spend more time explaining why I disagree with Premise 1. If, however, you’d prefer to continue with a definition which does require a point of temporal non-existence, I’ll offer no challenge to Premise 1.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        • BP, you said

          “If, however, you’d prefer to continue with a definition which does require a point of temporal non-existence, I’ll offer no challenge to Premise 1.”

          Hehe, um I think I do?

          In this sense: I now exist, temporally, and in space. There was a time in which the entity that is me did not exist, temporally or in space.

          But I’m not sure if this is what you accept or reject. You’ll have to forgive me, these fine details are fuzzy to me alot of the time. Anyway, do you agree with my definition of my own existence? And, if not, can you tell me where I went wrong? Thanks!

          Like

          Reply
      • Cool, that clarifies things quite a bit, then.

        Honestly, words can be defined in a number of ways. I wasn’t trying to say that your definition of “begins to exist” was right or wrong. I was simply trying to get on the same page so that the conversation could continue. The definition you are using for “begins to exist” is the one most people commonly mean when they hear the phrase; however, some people have a different meaning in mind (like William Lane Craig, as I mentioned before). My response to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument depends largely on what a person means by “begins to exist.”

        So, let’s say this: for any entity P, it can be said that P “began to exist” when:

        1. There was a period of time, T, in which P did not exist.
        2. The period T was followed by a period T’ in which P did exist.

        On this definition, I have no objection to the first premise of the KCA: anything that begins to exist has a cause. However, I will object to the second premise: the universe began to exist. It is not at all evident that there was a period of time prior to the existence of the universe, and this might not even be a cogent concept, considering the fact that time is generally considered to be a part of the universe. It doesn’t make sense to say that there was a period of time prior to time’s existence.

        Like

        Reply
        • It is not at all evident that there was a period of time prior to the existence of the universe, and this might not even be a cogent concept, considering the fact that time is generally considered to be a part of the universe. It doesn’t make sense to say that there was a period of time prior to time’s existence.

          I agree. It is not cogent to say that there was a time (as we experience it) before the Big Bang. Since time (as we experience it) began at the Big Bang, then it follows that there was no time (as we experience it) before the Big Bang. So it follows that space and time both started AT the Big Bang. (The universe began to exist i.e. height depth width and time, or space-time). Thus, the second premise of KLA.

          http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364

          See also: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
      • I think you missed my point. If your definition of “began to exist” requires a period of time prior to existence, it is not at all cogent to claim that the universe began to exist.

        Unless, by your parentheticals, you are attempting to say that there existed time as we have not experienced it prior to the past-boundary of space-time, in which case I would once again say that it is not at all evident that this is the case. This is why Dr. Craig utilizes such a peculiar definition for “begins to exist” in his formulation of the KCA. He is perfectly aware that it is not cogent to require a temporal non-existence for time in order to claim that it “began to exist.”

        Also, I am extremely familiar with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. It does not say what William Lane Craig commonly misrepresents it as saying. The BGV does not state that all models of the universe must have a beginning in the finite past. It does, however, state that “inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.” That is to say, we do not have enough information, as yet, to formulate a conclusion regarding whether the universe is finite or eternal in the past.

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

        Like

        Reply
        • Hello BP and thank you again for continuing our discussion.

          I think you missed my point. If your definition of “began to exist” requires a period of time prior to existence, it is not at all cogent to claim that the universe began to exist.

          Indeed, I did miss it and now I see your point. Before I attempt an answer, let me ask you to clarify something you said earlier.

          It is also possible that the universe is past-bounded– that is, that the universe had some initial point in time. However, neither of these scenarios requires that the universe had a “beginning,” in the sense that it once did not exist, and then did exist.

          If, as you put it, the universe had some “initial point in time”, how does that not require a beginning?

          Regarding the BGV Theorem: I admit that all that stuff is way beyond me. My method is to let the guys who do that stuff speak for themselves. In his book, “Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes”, Alex Vilenkin had this to say regarding this subject:

          “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

          That’s a pretty strong statement. So, I’m not going off my own personal inerpretion of BGV, or William Craig’s interpretation, but Alex Vilenkin’s interpretation. He’s one of the three guys who did the work, so in my estimation he’s one of the three guys most able to tell what it means.

          I do note you did not address the other link I provided.

          I look forward to continuing our discussion. Thank you for your input.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
      • How could an initial point in time require a “beginning?” Again, if your concept of “beginning” requires a temporal period of non-existence, then there can have been no beginning for time.

        Think of it this way: what sense does it make to say something “began to exist” when there was literally never any time when that entity did not exist?

        As regards Dr. Vilenkin, I have not yet read “Many Worlds in One,” so I can’t really comment on the quote with any erudition. However, I can note that Dr. Alan Guth, one of the other architects of the BGV (and one of the most well-respected cosmologists on the planet), has publicly gone on record as stating that he believes the universe is probably past-eternal.

        Regarding the link to the Cornell “Ask an Astronomer” page, it’s fairly difficult to compact complex cosmology (say that 3 times fast!) down into a few paragraphs intended for the layman; however, I would wager that this page is using “started” in the sense of “initial boundary” rather than in the sense of “did not exist, and then came into existence.”

        Incidentally, I have a big post up on my blog about the KCA, which I wrote yesterday, expanding on some of the concepts we have discussed, here, as well as elucidating upon a number of others.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        • BP, you asked

          How could an initial point in time require a “beginning?” Again, if your concept of “beginning” requires a temporal period of non-existence, then there can have been no beginning for time.

          Think of it this way: what sense does it make to say something “began to exist” when there was literally never any time when that entity did not exist?

          I see what you’re saying and here’s my answer: before the universe (spacetime) began to exist, there was nothing physical. Literally no physical thing, not space, not time, not matter, etc. God, however, existed before the universe began to exist. He experienced the passage of time in His existence, and was able to act. So, from His perspective, there was a time when the universe did not exist, and then began to exist, upon His act of creating it.

          However, I can note that Dr. Alan Guth, one of the other architects of the BGV (and one of the most well-respected cosmologists on the planet), has publicly gone on record as stating that he believes the universe is probably past-eternal.

          Yes, and I’m sure many other cosmologists have said the same thing. However, this is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. Everything we know from science indicates an absolute beginning: i.e. observation of expansion, the laws of thermodynamics, properties of matter, implication of the BGV Theorem, etc. These lines of evidence all point to an absolute beginning. It seems to me that an absolute beginning would at least be a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence we currently have.

          Can you give me any reasons, scientifically, why the explanation of a past eternal universe should be preferred over a finitely past-bounded universe?

          Like

          Reply
      • 1. If I understand you correctly, then, you are claiming that there is either another dimension of time, or else that our dimension of time is encapsulated by a larger, infinite dimension of time. This would solve the issue of cogency for claiming that the universe begins to exist, however it introduces two further problems. Firstly, there does not seem to be any reason, physically, to suspect that this is the case. Secondly, classical theology has long held that God is timeless, in contradiction to what you are saying, here. To be clear, I’m not saying that a disagreement with classical theology invalidates your argument, but I am noting that your view differs greatly from that of most theologians, and could introduce further issues that you might not have realized (for example, the problem of infinite regress applies to God if you assert that he experienced time prior to the creation of the universe).

        2. Forgive me for saying so, but it is completely obtuse to dismiss these claims by cosmologists as being philosophical and not scientific. Dr. Craig attempted to do so in his debate with Dr. Carroll, as well, and Dr. Carroll immediately pointed out that such a dismissal was preposterous. Alan Guth was not stating his position based on how he would prefer the universe to be or how he wishes the universe to be. Dr. Guth stated his position based on his evaluation of cosmology. The observation of expansion, the laws of thermodynamics, the properties of matter, and the implications of BGV do not necessitate an absolute beginning to the universe.

        While I agree that a past-finite boundary for time is absolutely reasonable, based on the evidence that we currently have (it is, in fact, the view that I maintain of time), it is certainly not unreasonable to believe that the universe may have been past-eternal. Expansion only means that space-time was once more contract, not that it necessarily had an absolute beginning. Thermodynamics only implies that entropy was lower in the past, not that it ever actually stood at a zero-state. The properties of matter are irrelevant, since matter is a development of the universe and not intrinsic to it. And, as I pointed out, the BGV does not indicate an absolute beginning, in the least, but rather states that inflationary cosmology is not sufficient to describe the history of the universe.

        Like

        Reply
        • Secondly, classical theology has long held that God is timeless, in contradiction to what you are saying, here.

          Classical theology has held that God is past and future eternally existing, not timeless. I’ll be honest and admit this stuff is way out of my ken, but for instance, it God were to count to ten, there would have to be a sense of time in which He did so, in my mind. If He existed prior to the universe, and then created the universe, he would be aware of a past that did not include the existence of the universe. This is what I mean about God and time, as crude as it may seem.

          Forgive me for saying so, but it is completely obtuse to dismiss these claims by cosmologists as being philosophical and not scientific.

          There’s no need for forgiveness, however I’m afraid you have mistaken me. I did not “dismiss” Guth’s claim because it was philosophical, I merely stated objectively that his claim is philosophical and not based on the science. I stand by that assessment unless and until it can be shown otherwise.

          The observation of expansion, the laws of thermodynamics, the properties of matter, and the implications of BGV do not necessitate an absolute beginning to the universe.

          [emphasis mine]
          I haven’t made that claim. All I am saying is that it seems like a reasonable conclusion based on what we actually know about these evidences. It also seems you would agree, from your commentary, that it is a more reasonable position to hold than a past eternal universe.

          BP, I’m not trying to “prove” to you or anyone else that God exists. I am however, attempting to show that based on the evidence currently in our possession, it is a reasonable position to hold. You have agreed with me.

          Like

          Reply
      • 1. The traditional view in Classical Theology really has been that God is timeless and altogether outside of time. This view can be traced all the way back to such thinkers as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. If you’re looking for a thorough, but accessible, place to read about this question, I’ll recommend William Lane Craig’s book, “Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s relationship to time.” For a fairly quick overview, you can check out this link:
        http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

        2. When I say that it is reasonable to believe that time has a past-finite boundary, that does not mean that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe is past-eternal. It doesn’t even mean that there’s more evidence for past-finitude than for past-eternality. Both are absolutely reasonable positions based on the scientific evidence, at hand. This is why I objected to your claim that Dr. Guth’s statement was philosophical rather than scientific, especially when you were attempting to foist a similar claim by Dr. Vilenkin as if that was the consensus of science. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not yet have a good enough understanding of physics to describe the universe’s history beyond a certain point. Attempting to say that past-finitude is more reasonable than past-eternality (or vice versa) is simply an argumentum ad ignorantium.

        3. I have agreed that it is reasonable to hold that the universe has a finite temporal boundary in the past. I haven’t agreed that it is reasonable to hold the position that God exists. In fact, I’ve argued that it is unreasonable to hold that the KCA is a good argument for God’s existence.

        Like

        Reply
        • BP, first, an error on my part. I didn’t mean to say you agreed with me about the reasonableness of God’s existence, because I understand you clearly haven’t. I meant to say you agreed with me that it is reasonable to believe the universe is finitely past-bounded. Forgive me.

          Like

          Reply
          • No worries. I figured it was simply a slip of the tongue (so to speak), but I thought I should clarify. I do look forward to your other answers, though, especially as regards God’s timelessness!

            Like

          • I’ll read the link you sent first, and get back to you. Thanks!

            Like

          • Okay BP, I have read (or attempted to read) the link you sent me on “God and Time.” I will have to say I agree with the conclusion:

            Questions about God’s relation to time involve many of the most perplexing topics in metaphysics. These include the nature of the fundamental structures of the universe as well as the nature of God’s own life. It is not surprising that the questions are still open even after over two millennia of careful inquiry. While philosophers often come to conclusions that are reasonably settled in their mind, they are wise to hold such conclusions with an open hand.

            I’m not sure how to reconcile all the implications of each position with the attributes of God and honestly, it doesn’t bother me that much- If God is God then I would expect that I would not be able to entirely grasp everything about Him.

            Like

        • BP, you made a statement in your first comment on this article I’d like to focus on if that’s okay. You said

          …even if I were to accept both initial Premises as you’ve presented them, here, I would still reject Premise 3, as I see no reason why an appeal to a God should be considered more reasonable than naturalistic explanations.

          Which naturalistic explanations would account for explaining the beginning of existence of the universe? Why would you prefer those explanations over a creator God? Thanks.

          Like

          Reply
          • There are several, but the one I tend to prefer is the one which I think makes the least number of assumptions. The universe is a self-contained 4-Dimensional space-time manifold. I see no need to posit the existence of a multiverse or an immaterial supernature. Since time is a part of the universe, the universe has literally existed for all time, and there has never been a time when the universe did not exist. The universe just is.

            I prefer such an explanation over a creator God because (excluding those few hard solipsists out there) we all seem to agree that the universe exists, however I see no reason to believe that a God does. The intelligent creator hypothesis seems like an unnecessary addition over the implications of the data.

            Like

          • I’m trying to understand your view. Is it along the lines of-

            1. nothing
            2. The big bang happened and the universe (self-contained 4-Dimensional space-time manifold) exists.

            ?

            Like

          • Almost, just without #1. I don’t believe that there ever was “nothing.”

            If time is finite, as I suspect, then the whole question of “what came before time?” is as nonsensical as asking “what is north of the North Pole?” It’s not that some entity “nothing” exists north of the North Pole; it’s that there is no such thing as north of the North Pole. The question is not cogent.

            Like

          • So, in your view, the universe is finitely past-bounded, if I understand correctly.

            However, it did not begin to exist, it just is.

            Is that accurate?

            Like

          • Yes, I would say that accurately describes my current understanding of the universe.

            Like

    • This is in response to your last comment (I hate the way the comm boxes get narrower and narrower),

      recap: your view is that the universe is finitely past bounded (ie not past eternal) yet it did not begin to exist, and it just is.

      I think I understand your view even if the coherence of the concept is eluding me. To me there seems to be a dichotomy between the two statements. Can you give me any examples of anything else that fit the criteria “finitely past bounded, yet did not begin to exist, and just is” or maybe an analogy of some sort that would help explain it?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • I completely understand– this is a fairly difficult area of philosophy, and non-Euclidean 4-Dimensional geometry is fairly arduous for a person to wrap their head around, if they don’t have a strong mathematical background.

        The North Pole analogy is the most intuitive one that I can think of, so I’ll try to elucidate upon it further. Imagine that the globe of the Earth represents space-time. Time is a dimension by which the universe is measured in much the same way as Latitude is a dimension by which we measure the globe, so Latitude will stand for Time, in this analogy. Latitude has a finite boundary at the North Pole, yet you would not say that the Earth begins to exist at the North Pole. The whole Earth exists, even though it has a finite Northern boundary by which it can be measured.

        Space-time, on my view, has a somewhat similar geometry. The fact that there may be a finite past boundary in time– a sort of Temporal Pole– does not imply that the universe came into being from non-being, at that point.

        Like

        Reply
        • The fact that there may be a finite past boundary in time– a sort of Temporal Pole– does not imply that the universe came into being from non-being, at that point.

          What, in your understanding, does it imply then?

          I understand what you are saying with your analogy, but it doesn’t really explain anything, to me, in regards to time.

          If I walk north on one of the earth’s latitudinal axis until I reach the North Pole, I do not run into a dead end. If I keep walking, I merely begin walking south, and cease walking north.

          So I’m not sure what you’re saying, in regards to a finite past-time boundary. If somehow we could follow the “latitude” of time into the past, to the point at which we reach the “past time pole” what would we find?

          Latitude has a finite boundary at the North Pole, yet you would not say that the Earth begins to exist at the North Pole. The whole Earth exists, even though it has a finite Northern boundary by which it can be measured.

          However, we would say the earth began to exist at a certain point in time. (4.5 BYA, I believe, is the current popular estimate.) We don’t measure an object’s “beginning to exist” by directional latitude, but by it’s relationship to time. On our birthday, we don’t (necessarily) go back to the hospital where we were born to celebrate, and when a married couple celebrates their anniversary, they don’t (necessarily) go back to the exact spot they said “I do.” We relate beginnings with time and not geography, typically.

          his is a fairly difficult area of philosophy

          When I called Guth’s statement philosophy, you dressed me down as “dismissing” his statement, and said he stated what he did based on science and not philosophy. Where in this discussion did the gears shift from science to philosophy, and how can we tell the difference?

          Like

          Reply
          • On the “Temporal Pole,”
            The implication of a past-boundary or pole of time is exactly the same as the implication of the North Pole.

            You are correct. If you walk directly North until you reach the North Pole, then continue to walk along the surface of the Earth, you will have ceased to walk North and begun to walk South.

            Similarly, if you were somehow able to travel a geometrically direct route backward through time to the finite past boundary, you would reach a point where you could not travel any further backward in time, and any travel away from that point would see you walking forward in time, again.

            On “beginnings,”
            I used the analogy of Latitude because the surface of a sphere tends to be the easiest example of non-Euclidean geometry for a person to visualize. This surface has only two dimensions to measure.

            Space-time is understood just as geometrically as the surface of a sphere, except that it has four dimensions. Time is one of those geometric dimensions, in the same manner as Latitude is one of the dimensions by which our sphere-surface is measured.

            Space-time doesn’t “come into being” at the Temporal Pole. If you travel backward through time as far as you possibly can, space-time exists. Again, there was literally never a time when space-time did not exist. How can something come into being if there was never a time when it did not exist?

            On Guth,
            I wasn’t objecting to your saying that Guth’s statement was a philosophical one. I was objecting to your claim that Guth’s statement was not a scientific one. The nature of time is a subject which has tremendous philosophical implications; however, discerning that nature is the prerogative of the physical sciences. We have not ceased discussing science and begun to discuss philosophy. We are discussing both, at once.

            Like

  2. Say, BP, do you have a source that explains “non-Euclidean 4-Dimensional geometry” that I could look at, perhaps an article for beginners on the subject or something?

    Like

    Reply
  3. I would ask, what is it, specifically that your faith hinges on?

    Like

    Reply
    • My faith hinges on the witness of the Holy Spirit within my heart. Thankfully, He has also given many evidences, one of which I have tried to present here in this article, and hope to continue to do so in subsequent articles.

      Like

      Reply
  1. Who Created God? A Non-Problem with Baseball and the Existence of God | Entertaining Christianity
  2. Baseball and the Existence of God | Pastor Dave

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: