In the Beginning Where Was Space to Put the Creation?
There is a scene in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov in which the half-brother, Smerdyakov, asks,
“If God created light on the first day and the sun and stars on the fourth day, where did the light come from on the first day?”
Some years ago a physicist friend told me he became a physicist to find out where the laws of nature came from.
At the end of his career he said he still hadn’t found the answer.
Smerdyakov’s question was a halfwit’s way of asking the same question as my physicist friend. For after all, one of the laws of nature is the energy that shines as light.
In all scientists’ exploration of cosmic beginnings, they have not found the beginning of creation.
Not even in the big bang. For there has to be energy to cause the bang.
I have still a related question.
Where did the space come from to put the big bang?
And where did time come from for the bang to go boom?
Why Did Science Start Looking for a Beginning of the Universe?
Actually, isn’t the search for a beginning a really a new activity for science?
Didn’t science, up until some time in the twentieth century, believe there was no beginning to the cosmos, that natural laws were eternal?
Back when I was in school I thought Einstein spoke of “Time being endless and beginningless” and thus avoided the beginning-of-time paradox?
Alright, I suppose this sounds like the childish never-ending “why?” questions, tossing another “Why?” after each previous “Why?”
Why Can’t Evolutionists Be More Like Cosmologists?
Here’s an excerpt from a May 12, 2015 article in Aeon by Senior Editor of Science at Atlantic magazine:
Cosmology has been on a long, hot streak, racking up one imaginative and scientific triumph after another.
But cosmology’s hot streak has stalled.
Cosmologists have looked deep into time, almost all the way back to the Big Bang itself, but they don’t know what came before it.
They don’t know whether the Big Bang was the beginning, or merely one of many beginnings.
Something entirely unimaginable might have preceded it.
Cosmologists don’t know if the world we see around us is spatially infinite, or if there are other kinds of worlds beyond our horizon, or in other dimensions.
And then the big mystery, the one that keeps the priests and the physicists up at night: no cosmologist has a clue why there is something rather than nothing.
To solve these mysteries, cosmologists must make guesses about events that are absurdly remote from us.
So, when topnotch cosmologists are willing to admit they don’t know the answers, they say so ,and call their guesses just that, guesses.
Wouldn’t that be something if evolutionists were that classy?
For some of these good questions I highly recommend a book by Scientific American columnist, John Horgan, The End of Science. He interviews a leading scientist in each of several fields of science. His interview with evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, is most revealing. It is a well-written, easy to read book with some fascinating conclusions. Interestingly, he has some great suggestions for challenging the evolutionists’ arrogance.