Why didn't God create the world sooner?

[TheWhim]

The Kalam argument runs roughly like that:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Thus, the universe has a cause to its existence.
(4.etc. This cause turns out to be God.)

In this thread I presuppose the idea that God had the timeless intention of creating the universe. Timeless without creation. By creating the universe God entered time and thus with the creation of the universe(t=0) begins change, temporal becoming and, in conequence, time to be measured. This is Leibnitz view of time, the relational one. - Dr. William Craig has shown in various articles why this model is best to explain the creation of the universe, so I won’t enlarge on these points now(for instance, a whole bunch of logical problems easily appears if one claims, instead, that God once didn’t want to create the universe, then changed his mind and wanted to create it). Check out reasonablefaith.org → scholarly articles.

However, perhaps an awkward question remains.

Now we know the universe to be so-and-so many billion years old, say, just to have a number, 14 billion years old.

Augustine, when faced with the question “Why, then, didn’t God create the world sooner?” replied that the question was senseless, because time began with the beginning of the universe and there was no time the universe could have sooner been created in before the beginning of the universe, before the beginning of time.

But is this really a sufficient reply?

It seems much like saying: the universe had no beginning, but always existed in time, since at every moment t the universe existed. But what has no beginning requires no cause. Therefore it is senseless to ask for a cause of the existence of the universe. - Of course, one would reply if this were so, it would remain unexplained why the universe didn’t always exist instead of 14 billion years.

But likewise I, and every other disciple of the Kalam argument, leaves unexplained why the universe is just 14 and not 40 or countless billion years old given God’s timeless intention to create the universe and the timeless carrying out of this intention since the argument presupposes, as said above, that time began with the creation of the physical universe(and not within God, who would once have had the intention not to create, and then would have had altered his intention).

Well, what do you think?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m with St. Augustine on this one - it’s a senseless question, because there was no time that was “sooner than” the beginning of Time.

This doesn’t mean that the Creation had no beginning - only that Time is part of the Creation, and not external to it. (Which is why Time operates relatively, as Einstein discovered.)

 

[piejesu]

Sooner than when?

 

[juiceman96]

That’s all hinging on the time dating theory. Which is what it is. A theory and not an absolute science. So there is a lot of supposing going on here just to begin with. Also, when you understand that the things that happened with Lucifer happened before time maybe God was busy. Ya think?

 

[Julian0404]

The Kalam argument runs roughly like that:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Thus, the universe has a cause to its existence.
(4.etc. This cause turns out to be God.)

In this thread I presuppose the idea that God had the timeless intention of creating the universe. Timeless without creation. By creating the universe God entered time and thus with the creation of the universe(t=0) begins change, temporal becoming and, in conequence, time to be measured. This is Leibnitz view of time, the relational one. - Dr. William Craig has shown in various articles why this model is best to explain the creation of the universe, so I won’t enlarge on these points now(for instance, a whole bunch of logical problems easily appears if one claims, instead, that God once didn’t want to create the universe, then changed his mind and wanted to create it). Check out reasonablefaith.org → scholarly articles.

However, perhaps an awkward question remains.

Now we know the universe to be so-and-so many billion years old, say, just to have a number, 14 billion years old.

Augustine, when faced with the question “Why, then, didn’t God create the world sooner?” replied that the question was senseless, because time began with the beginning of the universe and there was no time the universe could have sooner been created in before the beginning of the universe, before the beginning of time.

But is this really a sufficient reply?

It seems much like saying: the universe had no beginning, but always existed in time, since at every moment t the universe existed.**No, that is not what St. Augustine said. He said “…time began with the beginning of the universe.” Your spinning his words to recreate your arugement and repeat your postion a 2nd time without defending it against St. Augustines solution. And St. Augustines solution is further and very succintly validated and supported by the brilliant brevity of words put forth by PIEJESU in his/her post as well, i.e. “Sooner than when?”
One of my favorite versus in the Bible describes the birth of Jesus as “…in the fullness of time…” I love that verse. Those few words open the door to eternity, but at the same time give us a snap shot of hope in our salvation, which will also happen “…in the fullness of time…”, and that is the essence of your question. What is GOD’s definition of “fullness of time”, such that we, his creatures can know more of HIS motives, motivations, desires, acts and understand HIM etc. etc. And the answer will come to you in the “fullness of time”. **

But what has no beginning requires no cause. Therefore it is senseless to ask for a cause of the existence of the universe. - Of course, one would reply if this were so, it would remain unexplained why the universe didn’t always exist instead of 14 billion years.

But likewise I, and every other disciple of the Kalam argument, leaves unexplained why the universe is just 14 and not 40 or countless billion years old given God’s timeless intention to create the universe and the timeless carrying out of this intention since the argument presupposes, as said above, that time began with the creation of the physical universe(and not within God, who would once have had the intention not to create, and then would have had altered his intention).

Well, what do you think?

 

[JimG]

Creation didn’t occur at an particular instant of time.

The universe is a 4 (or more) dimensional space-time object with extension in both space and in time. Creating it is a unitary act.

It’s analogous to a machine that stamps out metal yardsticks in a manufacturing plant. The machine doesn’t manufacture the yardstick inch by inch. It punches out the entire product at once. It is the same with God and the universe in all its dimensions, both temporal and spatial.

 

[jmcrae]

Creation didn’t occur at an particular instant of time.

The universe is a 4 (or more) dimensional space-time object with extension in both space and in time. Creating it is a unitary act.

It’s analogous to a machine that stamps out metal yardsticks in a manufacturing plant. The machine doesn’t manufacture the yardstick inch by inch. It punches out the entire product at once. It is the same with God and the universe in all its dimensions, both temporal and spatial.

 

[TheWhim]

Creation didn’t occur at an particular instant of time.
The universe is a 4 (or more) dimensional space-time object with extension in both space and in time. Creating it is a unitary act.
… It is the same with God and the universe in all its dimensions, both temporal and spatial.

Which, however, does not answer my question. - Anyway, creation did occur at a particular instant of time, namely t=0. Or t=1. Doesn’t matter. - One might say as well that the universe always existed since there was no time t when it did not exist - thus, the universe has no beginning and thus needs no cause. - I don’t agree with that since I believe this is not a *sufficient explanation *. A sufficient explanation answers as well why the universe is only 14 billion years old and not infinitely old. And the sufficient explanation to this problem is God as the cause of the universe. -

But given God created the universe, why is it 14 billion years around and not 40 or an infinite time? Remember God always had the intention to create the universe. There was no change in his intentions. A change in intention would imply change, that is, time, that is, time in God. But you remarked as well that time only began with the physical universe. And that was Augustine’s answer to the question: why God didn’t create the world sooner.

How can it be sufficiently explained that the universe is just 14 billion years around given God’s timeless intention to create the universe? Or must we accept this as a brute fact? But, again, in the same manner the atheist could accept it as a brute fact that the universe is just 14 billion years and not infinitely old and leave God as cause of time and universe entirely out of the question.

Therefore I think it’s important that a sufficient explanation is to be given why the world is 14 billion years around given God as its cause.

 

[jmcrae]

Which, however, does not answer my question. - Anyway, creation did occur at a particular instant of time, namely t=0. Or t=1. Doesn’t matter. - One might say as well that the universe always existed since there was no time t when it did not exist - thus, the universe has no beginning and thus needs no cause. - I don’t agree with that since I believe this is not a *sufficient explanation *. A sufficient explanation answers as well why the universe is only 14 billion years old and not infinitely old. And the sufficient explanation to this problem is God as the cause of the universe. -

But given God created the universe, why is it 14 billion years around and not 40 or an infinite time? Remember God always had the intention to create the universe. There was no change in his intentions. A change in intention would imply change, that is, time, that is, time in God. But you remarked as well that time only began with the physical universe. And that was Augustine’s answer to the question: why God didn’t create the world sooner.

How can it be sufficiently explained that the universe is just 14 billion years around given God’s timeless intention to create the universe? Or must we accept this as a brute fact? But, again, in the same manner the atheist could accept it as a brute fact that the universe is just 14 billion years and not infinitely old and leave God as cause of time and universe entirely out of the question.

Therefore I think it’s important that a sufficient explanation is to be given why the world is 14 billion years around given God as its cause.

Because the Universe is a four-dimensional object, and, being an object (and not an amorphous mass), it is specifically limited in all four dimensions.

 

[TheWhim]

Because the Universe is a four-dimensional object, and, being an object (and not an amorphous mass), it is specifically limited in all four dimensions.

Well, this is all very nice but does not address my question in any way whatsoever. Let’s find an analogy to your way of dealing with my query. It’s like I would have asked: “Which way can I get to New York?” and you would have replied “Hamburgers taste better than fries.”

All very funny, all very nice, but, indeed, not very helpful.

Well, since you talked about the universe as a four-dimensional object, please keep in mind that I agree with Dr. Craig and his view of an A-theory or tensed theory or presentist theory of time. You seem to do the same, since you agreed with Augustine’s reply to my question(Augustine obviously being a presentist). However, I just want to point this out again lest any future participant in this thread should write: adopt a B-theory of time and all your problems are solved. I know that much. But I believe the B-theory is flawed therefore I’d like a response in line with the presuppositions I laid out, namely Dr. Craig’s views.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, this is all very nice but does not address my question in any way whatsoever. Let’s find an analogy to your way of dealing with my query. It’s like I would have asked: “Which way can I get to New York?” and you would have replied “Hamburgers taste better than fries.”

Um - okay.

You were wanting to know why the Universe is limited in the fourth dimension, and my answer is that it is also limited in the other three dimensions, and the reason for the limitations is that it is an object; not a phenomenon.

 

[punkforchrist]

I think what TheWhim is asking is this: why is the universe 14 billion years old instead 30 billion years old? Surely, God could have created the universe to be older than it currently is. What this brings up, I think, is the issue of how a temporal effect could arise from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe’s beginning were mechanical, then all of the necessary and sufficient conditions would exist timelessly along with the cause. This implies that the the mechanical cause’s effect would likewise be timeless, and not temporal.

Only if the universe’s cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create at some point in time can we get a temporal effect from a timeless cause (timeless sans the universe, at any rate). Is this what you had in mind?

 

[JimG]

Which, however, does not answer my question. - Anyway, creation did occur at a particular instant of time, namely t=0. Or t=1.

I don’t agree that creation occurred at a particular instant of time. God does not exist in time, and ‘when’ he creates, he does not create within time. God creates the universe as a whole, not as one manufacturing a clock and then setting it on its own.

This is why I don’t get very excited about p(name removed by moderator)ointing the Big Bang as “the” instant of creation. It may be one edge of the universe, one boundary, but it’s not the whole of the universe in any of its spatial or temporal extensions, and God creates the whole thing.

At one time, astronomer Fred Hoyle espoused what he called a “steady state” universe (before the big bang came be accepted generally), his theory being that the universe extended both backward and forward in time in an infinite series, and as it expanded, atoms of matter were spontaneously created in space to keep the universe looking pretty much the same at any given instant.

But even such a ‘steady state’ universe would need a creator, because the universe is a contingent object, not a necessary one. The universe might not have been. It does not contain within itself sufficient reason for its own existence.

And God’s creation of the universe is in a sense continuous and instantaneous. Because He creates from nothing, if he goes off an leaves it, it reverts to that from which it was made, namely, nothing. As long as we do not observe nothing, we can be sure that creation continues. (Although from God’s standpoint, it is not ‘continuous’, but a single action.)

 

[stringbeanduck]

But likewise I, and every other disciple of the Kalam argument, leaves unexplained why the universe is just 14 and not 40 or countless billion years old given God’s timeless intention to create the universe and the timeless carrying out of this intention since the argument presupposes, as said above, that time began with the creation of the physical universe(and not within God, who would once have had the intention not to create, and then would have had altered his intention).

Take 1 cubic mile of highly dense substance(like a metal for example) and attempt to put it inside a 1 cubic inch box. Once you have made your attempt you will have an answer to that question.

God is not bound by time. I think many people, including myself sometimes, have a very difficult time understanding that our knowledge of God, however small or large we may think it is, simply can not compare to the infinite knowledge God has about Himself or even us.

There are no set laws of physics applied to our universe or any other universe that is existing, existed, or will exist that God is required to be bound by.

 

[a_priori]

To ask that question, one must live in “nowhen”, IOW outside of time.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nowhen

 

[TheWhim]

I don’t agree that creation occurred at a particular instant of time. God does not exist in time, and ‘when’ he creates, he does not create within time.

Well, I agree with Dr. Craig who talks about simultaneous causation. Perhaps I should also have laid this out as a precondition to the understanding of my argument.

But even such a ‘steady state’ universe would need a creator, because the universe is a contingent object, not a necessary one. The universe might not have been. It does not contain within itself sufficient reason for its own existence.

I absolutely agree. But this is not the argument I’m concerned about. Rather I’m concerned about the value of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as I outlined it in my original post.

Though the argument you revert to, arriving at an efficient cause(Aquinas) or a sufficient explanation for the universe(Leibnitz), is actually quite helpful to put my own dilemma into frame: how can it be sufficiently explained that the universe is 14 and not 30 billion years old? Surely, since I believe in actual temporal becoming, this is not a whimsical question. 14 billion real years have passed by. Why not 40? How can one possibly explain this difference given that it seems like an impossible, utterly unexplainable difference? God always had the intention to create the universe! Thus one cannot say that something in God has happened, like a change of mind, that could somehow explain the difference.

And it is my idea that Augustine’s answer actually plays into the hands of the sceptic(insofar the Kalam argument as I presented it is concerned). Augustine says the question(Why didn’t God create the world sooner?) is senseless since there was no sooner: time only exists with the universe. In the same line, the sceptic might comfortably say: “I’m not bothered that I cannot explain the age of the universe, which is finite - for me, the universe always existed since there was no moment in time when it did not exist. And can you[addressing me, the Kalamist] explain the age of the universe, for that matter? No, you cannot. Either explanation leaves in the dark why the universe is as old as it is. So stop harassing me about the finite 14 billion years of the universe pointing to a transcendent cause of the universe. Why should it need a cause if the universe always existed and never began to exist since there never was a time when it did not exist, time only beginning with the universe? You adopt the same view when you side with Augustine in reply to the question[Why didn’t God etc.] and declare the problem of the age of the universe a non-problem.”

 

[TheWhim]

I think what TheWhim is asking is this: why is the universe 14 billion years old instead 30 billion years old? Surely, God could have created the universe to be older than it currently is.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. And this question is so bewildering! I termed it impossible above, but impossible only in the sense a bewildered mother might say to her grossly misbehaving child: You’re acting just impossible! - Any particular age of the universe seems to make no sense at all given God’s timeless intention to create. And to say the question is senseless is to virtually adopt the sceptic’s fancy, namely, that it would be senseless to ask for a cause to the beginning of the universe because the universe never began at all but always existed in time. That is, I see a strong parallelism in the two following statements:

1. [Augustine]: There was no ‘sooner’ since ‘sooner’ is a temporal notion implying a time t independent of the universe: but time only exists with the universe, therefore, there’s nothing sooner than the universe.
2. [Mr. Sceptic]: There was no ‘beginning’ since ‘to begin’ is a temporal notion implying a time t at which something didn’t exist yet, a time t independent of the universe - but time only exists with the universe, which, therefore, did not begin.

Only if the universe’s cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create at some point in time can we get a temporal effect from a timeless cause (timeless sans the universe, at any rate). Is this what you had in mind?

Yeah, that’s it.

And that’s the problem: God does not choose to create the universe at some point in time. There’s only one point, t=0, about which we can be talking here since time began with the creation of the universe. - How come the universe is as old as it is, 14 and not 1400000000000000000000000000000000 billion years old?

 

[JimG]

I guess I just don’t understand the problem. T=0 is no different than T=14 billion or T=130 trillion. They are just points on the line.

I suppose if one were to ask God, “why is the universe 14 billion years old and not 104 billion?,” he would reply, “But it IS 104 billion years old.” The question seems to be rather, why do I find myself at this particular point on the line?

Looking back at the original post, I find myself in some disagreement with the way the problem is presented–i.e., whatever begins to exist must have a cause. The implication is that “begins to exist” implies a temporal beginning, as though all subsequent existence is explained by that one instant. But it isn’t. Nothing that exists along any part of a temporal continuum is sufficient reason for its own existence. Its essence is not existence, but something else.

And in creating, God does not enter time, any more than a filmmaker enters his own creation as an actor, though he can. God remains outside of time, and creates the whole thing at once, from t=1 to t=infinity. Or if he wants, he could create a universe with infinite temporal extension in both directions. (Just as we can construct an infinite series of negative and positive integers.)

 

[Twiggzro]

I think you are over thinking the concept of time. time in mans eyes is vastly different than time in God’s eyes. what would be a blink of an eye to God is could be infinite to man. The Bible clearly says

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

so on Gods timeline, how could he possibly have created earth any sooner than the start of creation?

 

[TheWhim]

I guess I just don’t understand the problem. T=0 is no different than T=14 billion or T=130 trillion. They are just points on the line.

I suppose if one were to ask God, “why is the universe 14 billion years old and not 104 billion?,” he would reply, “But it IS 104 billion years old.” The question seems to be rather, why do I find myself at this particular point on the line?

You embrace the tenseless or B-theory of time. And with this view, of course you cannot understand my problem. I pointed out as much in post #10 in saying:

However, I just want to point this out again lest any future participant in this thread should write: adopt a B-theory of time and all your problems are solved. I know that much. But I believe the B-theory is flawed therefore I’d like a response in line with the presuppositions I laid out, namely Dr. Craig’s views.

Gee, I’ve truly got some psychic powers!

Craig has defended his view in a number of sophisticated articles(check out reasonablefaith.org) but also presented it in a popular manner, like here closertotruth.com/video/Is-God-Temporal-or-Timeless-Part-1-of-2-William-Lane-Craig-/997 and here closertotruth.com/video/How-Could-God-Know-the-Future-Part-2-William-Lane-Craig-/639