Hawkings made headlines about a year ago when he claimed that the fundamental forces of the universe (like gravity) were eternal and were sufficient to explain the sudden emergence of all matter and energy spontaneously in the Big Bang. Hawkings has admitted he wants the universe to be eternal, in order to avoid having to acknowledge the existence of a creator.
Unfortunately, the presentations at Hawkings' "birthday party" showed there is no workable model of an eternal universe.
The New Scientist article requires a subscription, so I quote here from another website that summarizes the situation:
"Here are the models in brief and why they don’t work:
- Eternal inflation: Built on Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal, this model imagines bubble universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever. Vilenkin and Guth had debunked this idea as recently as 2003. The equations still require a boundary in the past.
- Eternal cycles: A universe that bounces endlessly from expansion to contraction has a certain appeal to some, but it won’t work either. “Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce. Scratch that model.
- Eternal egg: One last holdout was the “cosmic egg” model that has the universe hatching out of some eternally-existing static state. “Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” No way could the egg be eternal.
The upshot of this is clear. No model of an eternal universe works. Vilenkin concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” An editorial at New Scientist called this, “The Genesis Problem.”"
It's only a problem if you rule out a priori the existence of God.
31 comments:
Not to be too big of a nitpicker, but Hawking does have a hypothesis that makes sense of the eternal cycle model. The idea that "disorder increases with time" might not be applicable to a contracting universe: or, as Hawking phrased it in his "A Brief History of Time," the arrow of time might well reverse, causing order to increase as the universe contracts to a point (in fact, he speculates that creatures in such a universe would experience time as "reversed" from us, meaning that, from the standpoint of a creature in such a situation, their actual experience would be indistinguishable from our own.
What is interesting to me is that there are plenty of reasons to acknowledge that even an eternal universe does not "solve" the problem of God: Thomas Aquinas made quite interesting arguments that an eternal universe would still need a God; that is, that the eternal and infinite chain of cause and effect in the universe would itself stand in need of creation by God. I am unsure of the ultimate validity of this argument, as one could argue simply that the entire "being" of the universe is itself necessary and thus needs to no personal God beyond itself to exist, but it is another angle of exploration.
Finally, there are no requirements from a philosophical point of view that a finite universe need a creator. In fact, there are certain arguments that suggest the impossibility of a God creating a finite universe ex nihilo, which I believe should be countered before worrying about demonstrating that a finite universe needs a Creator.
The idea that "disorder increases with time" might not be applicable to a contracting universe: or, as Hawking phrased it in his "A Brief History of Time," the arrow of time might well reverse, causing order to increase as the universe contracts to a point
In his books Hawking has always some funny and interesting ideas, but the reversal of the 'time-arrow' is highly speculative and I doubt many physicists belies that it is even remotely possible.
Sure the laws of physics are time-reversible, or better said their MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION is... however there is no proof at all on such reversal, just a fancy conjecture.
Moreover these days most cosmologists believe that the universe will expand forever until it becomes a 'sea of photons' with maximum possible entropy (the so-called 'heat death' of the universe)
---
Thomas Aquinas made quite interesting arguments that an eternal universe would still need a God
Indeed the concept of an Eternal Universe was believed by Aristotle (who also believe in God or at leas in a Pure Act that would be the creator) and also Aquinas thought he could not prove that the universe had a beginning (he tought that was a matter of faith not reason) but that by reason alone the universe needed a creator to 'sustain it'.
Also in the Reinassance many theists (like also Newton) believed that the universe was eternal, but that was not much of a problem for Thomists (more for sola scriptura people...)
So in the end it matters very little how the universe began.
there are certain arguments that suggest the impossibility of a God creating a finite universe ex nihilo
Yeah but such arguments hardly carry any weight.. since they would be irrational.
A Finite Universe would have to come from nothing (and I literally mean nothing... not the way Hawking means it... ie some obscure force or physical law) and that is impossible since true nothing cannot create anything since nothing is the complete lack of existence and any other 'property' (physical or philosophical). One cannot even say thus that nothing exists since it is the 'lack of existence' in its fullest meaning.
Hence a Finite universe would need a creator.
The problem is for some if a 'perfect infinite being' can create something finite... but their arguments carry little weight.
Hawking is dead serious about science having all the answers whilst religion & philosophy are dead in the water for him. By wanting the universe to be eternal, he can avoid having to acknowledge the existence of a creator. He has consistently rejected any need for a creator. These have been similar themes in his books and have received lots of ensuing media coverage. As long as his books & articles keep on proving the non-existence of God, he keeps selling. Defying divine creation has become a money maker for him. The question is who created the laws of physics that Prof. Hawking holds in greatest esteem? There must have been a creator of those laws before the universe could exist. I’d also like to see him answering the challenging questions that religion has to deal with. Trying to explain the unexplainable with only logic and no faith – well that’s not the real world….. it’s groping in the darkness.
//In his books Hawking has always some funny and interesting ideas, but the reversal of the 'time-arrow' is highly speculative and I doubt many physicists belies that it is even remotely possible.//
My point is not that this is the case, but rather that Hawking is aware of the problems of eternal cycles vis a vis entropy. However, since a contracting universe would be returning to a state of order equivalent to the early universe, it is not a completely wild notion.
//So in the end it matters very little how the universe began.//
Aside from the importance that question has for cosmology in general...
//Yeah but such arguments hardly carry any weight.. since they would be irrational.//
I would hardly call them irrational. It may be that they are incomplete arguments; but they are nevertheless important objections to the concept of ex nihilo creation.
The primary question of such objections are twofold: first, upon what could God have been acting when he created the universe? He was clearly not acting on Himself. He could not have acted on the universe, because that did not exist until he created it and could not be the object of God's actions. He could not have acted on nothing, because that would give substance to a substanceless concept.
The second important objection is that by creating something other than Himself, God would have to become limited in a way contrary to His own nature.
Now, I am not saying these arguments are ultimately persuasive (nor am I saying that they are not persuasive). I am saying that they do present problems that must be examined charitably, not blithely dismissed in an act of intellectual pride (something I've seen far too often in my fellow Catholics, who assume that having received the faith means that they are exempt from truly rigorous thought on these matters; I am not saying you are among these individuals, but rather that I once was).
According to Stephen Hawking the laws of physics prove that the universe can be created from nothing; however, why do such laws of physics exist? Even though it is possible for particles to enter into existence from “nothingness”, it has never been proved that non-quantum-sized objects can in fact do so. Nevertheless, if it were possible, why would it be expected - that laws of physics that allow such incidences to occur – would actually exist? Why would an absolute nothingness not consist of no laws of physics and no chance of anything popping into existence? Atheists may ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothingness! After all, they seem to think that nothingness is a powerful force for creating something! lol!
We cannot measure God directly, but we can examine the universe to detect God's imprint on the physical world. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe.
@ S. Ellis
"//So in the end it matters very little how the universe began.//
Aside from the importance that question has for cosmology in general..."
I never said that scientifically it is not important. As a physicist I think it is a fascinating study and cosmologists should continue to work on that.
-----
"upon what could God have been acting when he created the universe? He was clearly not acting on Himself. He could not have acted on the universe, because that did not exist until he created it and could not be the object of God's actions. He could not have acted on nothing, because that would give substance to a substanceless concept"
Ok but if God ACTED on something that would NOT be creatio ex-nihilo... so this critique assumed that God must have acted on something pre-existent, but that would not be at all creatio ex-nihilo, but just reshaping something into something else.
Perhaps creation of something where before there was literally nothing is difficult for some to accept or comprehend, but that is the very concept of 'creatio ex-nihilo'.
Indeed the concept of nothing is in itself very puzzling.
--
"The second important objection is that by creating something other than Himself, God would have to become limited in a way contrary to His own nature"
That, more than a critique, sounds like a statement that needs some argument to back it up.
One would have to prove WHY exactly God would have to become 'limited'.
---
"I am saying that they do present problems that must be examined charitably, not blithely dismissed in an act of intellectual pride "
I am not saying that they should not be thought over or just put under the rug... but these critiques, IMO carry little weight because they either miss somewhat the point (like the first one) or need stronger arguments in their favor (like the second one).
That is just my opinios. Perhaps some other people have a more enlightened answer for you.
---
"My point is not that this is the case, but rather that Hawking is aware of the problems of eternal cycles vis a vis entropy. However, since a contracting universe would be returning to a state of order equivalent to the early universe, it is not a completely wild notion."
Ok, I agree, but without sufficient proof it's more an ad hoc argument rather than an explaination.
Since Hawking is a scientist and not a philosopher he'd need at least some empirical indication to back up some statement.
NOW to be fair to Hawking, he was writing a popular science book, where he brought forward some exciting and provocative ideas.... but like most pop science it often easy for the layman reader to exchange theory from fact.
In any case Hawking has my respect and admiration as a great scientist and as a very courageous person.
The bottom line with Hawking is that logic rules.
The fact is that Hawking - having lived 70 highly dynamic years stands as testment that something other than logic was at play in his life.
When he gets around to explaining the practical force that gave him his longevity and creativity then I'll take seriously his theoretical musings
In this case, Hawkings will bet on the seemingly inevitable march of science, at some vague time in the future. Just because no one can explain it now, doesn't mean no one will!
//"The second important objection is that by creating something other than Himself, God would have to become limited in a way contrary to His own nature"
That, more than a critique, sounds like a statement that needs some argument to back it up.
One would have to prove WHY exactly God would have to become 'limited'.//
In short:
God is infinite in nature and without limitations. However, if there is something that exists that is truly other than God, there must be by definition some "boundary" between them: that is to say, God's being is limited by the existence of something else. In the most banal sense, God simply cannot be that other thing, but in a more relevant sense God's own existence is bounded by that thing's nature.
But I really don't want to get into an argument about this, which would be in some ways to miss the point of the blogpost we're commenting on. I do believe that these arguments are faulty to some extent, but perhaps the fault is not with their reasoning but with the assumption that we have adequate terms to describe an event such as "creation ex nihilo," something you pretty well point to when you said:
//Perhaps creation of something where before there was literally nothing is difficult for some to accept or comprehend//
That being said, I guess I give these arguments more credence than you do because I see them as important touchstones for attempting to understand creation - and I also am more sympathetic to atheists and agnostics who find the answers that the faithful give...well..wanting.
This has absolutely no effect on Hawking's ideas.
Hawking holds that forces are eternal, that is, that they existed, uncaused, at the point of singularity and going forward. The eternal nature of these forces allows for there to be a definite beginning.
The beginning required by Borde Guth and Vilenkin is not the beginning of forces, but of space and time as we know it. Also, by the authors' own admission, their conclusion is necessarily inapplicable to the very beginning, when quantum mechanical effects (which they do not consider) dominate.
Eternal universe is still a possibility. Sean Carroll's eternally-recreated universe is possible because it reverses entropy.
But the most likely answer, in my mind, at this time, is that the universe came about from an uncaused pre-universe, for which forces and physical principles are eternal. This is a fairly Spinozistic solution.
As a physics neophyte, I would like to thank the bloggers for setting a standard of scientific wisdom which naturally leads the probing mind to consider doubt. To you folks, I say thank you. On the other hand, Hawkings, sadly, appears more to deal in desperation. What was once hailed as an inquisitive mind, may perhaps through fear, leave an unintended legacy. Nevertheless, let’s celebrate a spectacular life while lived.
Hawkins really need the POEM of Man-God to read before he dies. So He will understand what is the universe, the world and himself. This book will answer his delimam
Even though I am a physicist, I think it's a mistake to try to resolve philosophical issues like this by means of science, especially when the "science" is hyper-speculative. Remember, science is based on observation and experiment. When it comes to questions like "What came before the Big Bang?" or "Is the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 'really true'?" we have neither. Here be dragons.
Regarding Hawking (not Hawkings or Hawkin), his stubbornness and arrogance have probably added decades to his life, which I think we should remember whenever his abrasive manner offends us. I just hope he learns a bit more humility before he dies.
"[Hawking] does more or less claim that, since the big bang is a quantum event, the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics must precede the big bang and so are eternal in the strict sense of the term and are also responsible for the big bang."
Forgive the intrusion of the non-physicist, but I see no philosophical reason why the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics could not have come into existence with the big bang, or at least co-terminous with the small, dense mass that expanded. It seems to me that assuming the pre-existence of the laws comes packaged with the assumption that the matter of the big bang was the detritus of a prior universe. Without such matter, there wouldn't have been "laws" in any meaningful sense, since the term refers to regular interactions and there would have been nothing to have regular interactions. Any thoughts?
Come unto me, all ye labouring and burdened ones, and I will give you rest
@Anthony S. Layne
It is possible to say that the Big Bang created the laws of physics in the same way it created matter, energy, space, and time. In fact, this is the standard view, if by "laws of physics" we mean things like specific masses and coupling constants for particles -- many people think these arose from spontaneous symmetry breaking after the first few bajillionths of a second.
The problem is that Hawking wants to say that the laws of physics caused the Big Bang. Since cause usually precedes effect, this does seem to require the laws of physics to be pre-existent. It's not impossible for the effect to be immediate, though, so maybe that isn't a huge problem. That still leaves two problems, though. (1) Why these laws and not some others? We can imagine other laws that would have been mathematically consistent. (2) What "breathes fire into the equations"? I can describe the an imaginary person in great detail, but that doesn't make him real. The idea that the description of the universe (physical laws) causes the universe to become real sounds a bit too much like evocative magic.
I’d like to thank Howard for covering the water front with his perception. I especially appreciated the reference to there being dragons. What I don’t understand is why the scientifically trained community feels a need to give Hawking a pass on his mission. Why can’t highly trained scientists come flat out and say that Hawking has crossed the line that divides science and propaganda. In addition, at the peril of mixing metaphors, am I supposed to believe that dragons are a two edged-sword?
Just because I think Hawking (no “s”) is peddling a flat earth theory, I am prepared to
hear the other side of the story, if one exists. Otherwise, call a snake oil salesman, a snake oil salesman.
The non-eternity of the universe is Catholic teaching, and if established scientifically, makes popular ‘arguments for God’s existence’ rhetorically easier. However, philosophically, the eternity or non-eternity of the universe has in the end no bearing on the question of God’s existence.
What is found is that if the logic showing the need for an infinite first cause is valid for a universe with a beginning, it is equally valid for a universe without beginning, (whether the entities conceived of in this universe are particles, or laws, or whatever). Conversely, if the logic were invalid for a universe without beginning, it would also be invalid for a universe with a beginning.
The debate as to this validity is on the plane of metaphysics and logic, not science.
If Hawking is scientifically right to say that a particle can come into existence without a cause, this only has validity on the scientific level, i.e. the absence of a cause can only be verified within the physical universe. But if the metaphysical proofs are logically valid, it necessarily follows that a finite entity lacking a cause within the physical universe must at least have a cause outside the physical universe, e.g. in the timeless action of God. Science cannot investigate this.
Conversely, if the metaphysical proofs are not logically valid, then they fail anyway, even if Hawking is scientifically wrong.
Either way, quantum cosmology is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of God’s existence. Science and metaphysics are two different things.
The causal proof of God's existence is essentially independent of the time question.
The metaphysical reason a thing’s existence must be caused is the absence of complete identity between existence and essence in that thing, whether or not de facto that thing has always existed. (‘Essence’ is about ‘what something is’, existence concerns the fact ‘that something is’: both are aspects of reality as we find it.)
This need for a cause derives from the self-evident principle that elements of a thing [e.g. essence and existence] which are of themselves non-identical are not of themselves identical.
If non-identical elements are nonetheless found to be ‘identified / one / united’ with each other (as when we say, ‘This essence exists’), what do we mean? What does it mean to be ‘identified / one / united’ with something but not be ‘identical’ with it? The only way we can in the end logically distinguish such concepts is by reference to some other factor in the situation in virtue of which non-identical elements are, nonetheless, de facto, ‘identified / one / united’ with each other.
Now (to take the essence / existence case) if there is no such factor in the situation distinct from what the metaphysical elements of essence and existence are ‘of themselves’, then de facto, since by hypothesis they are they are not ‘of themselves’ ‘identical / identified / one / united’, they are not ‘identical / identified / one / united’ in any way whatever. That is, the essence does not actually exist: without existence, an essence is not even there, it is simply nothing at all.
But we empirically find the opposite: something does exist. So, there must be another factor in virtue of which its existence and essence are in union, making its essence to be, and this is precisely what we mean by its ‘cause’.
So, a cause is required, existing and acting here and now, to resolve the contradiction that threatens when we say that the thing’s existence and essence are one with each other and yet not one. Reference to its cause thus enters into the very constitution of the being that is thus made to exist and to be one.
St Thomas validly rules out an infinite hierarchy of such causes (acting here and now, not in a sequence going back in time). The resolution of the looming contradiction would otherwise never be attained, and the contradiction would stand, even at the very heart of the first entity in the sequence, because of its constitutive reference to all the causes in the sequence, each of which has its own looming contradiction in the non-identity of its own essence and existence.
Thus an uncaused cause is logically reached, whose existence and essence must be utterly identical in order to itself require no further cause. (This Cause, it will turn out, is ‘outside’ and ‘above’ the whole time sequence, but holds the whole time sequence, whether eternal or finite, in distinction from nothingness.)
And since existence is only limited, held back from its fullness, by its union with something non-identical to itself, this pure subsisting self-identical Existence is unlimited in all the perfections of existence. Thus the universe we experience, not being infinite in perfection, and furthermore being composite and diverse rather than pure self-identity, cannot itself be the Uncaused Cause, Subsisting Existence.
@lilyboraks
I'm not really sure what you mean, but let me make some distinctions.
First of all, I think it is very easy to sympathize with Hawking as a human being. The way he has refused to allow his illness to limit him is really inspirational. This explains to a large degree his stubbornness and arrogance. They are still character flaws, but he has a better explanation for his flaws than I do for mine.
Secondly, scientists like anyone who can get the public interested in science. To the public, black holes and parallel universes are "sexy", even though you can't really do anything with them. Better transistors are more important in the real world, but which do you think would have higher ratings -- a documentary explaining semiconductor electronics, or a show in which plumbers try to record the voices of ghosts? So if it takes people talking about black holes, or dinosaurs, or asteroid impacts to get kids interested in becoming the next generation of scientists, we're all for it.
The biggest problem is that the kind of speculative physics that Hawking practices reinforces a very wrong public perception of science. Many people think that we still do science the way the ancient Greeks did; we sit around and dream up just-so stories, and the one that sounds best becomes "scientific law". The closest thing to this being true comes from Einstein's theories of relativity -- where it was scary close to being true, given the scant experimental evidence when they were first put forward -- and Dirac's "prediction" of the antimatter electron (positron). (Dirac's quantum-mechanical equation for the relativistic electron had TWO solutions, so he initially ignored the "spurious" solution; only after the positron was seen in experiments did he realize it may be the embodiment of that solution.) In reality, there is a HUGE body of experimental and observational data with which any new theory must be consistent to be acceptable. This heavily constrains flights of fancy.
@lilyboraks
(cont.)
What Hawking hawks is not so much snake oil, it's mostly just mathematically sophisticated hypotheses. These have a role in science, but they are not the finished product. He knows it, too, but it doesn't always come across, particularly in popular presentations.
Really the only place where he has a huge problem is when he crosses the line and speculates on things he understands very little, like theology. He should know better, of course, but then so should 99% of the public, too. In addition to his own arrogance, we all live an a Protestant-dominated culture where we each tend think we are our own private Magesterium.
The universe does not have a beginning in any metaphysical sense - only in an anthropocentric sense as we pick the arrow of time arbitrarily.
If one actually bothers to look into the definition of time and an arrow of time one will see what is quite nicely put on the wiki page:
"We can (arbitrarily) call one of these equivalence classes "future-directed" and call the other "past-directed". Physically this designation of the two classes of future- and past-directed timelike vectors corresponds to a choice of an arrow of time at the point." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_structure
We pick an arrow of time based on our accumulation of memories - an anthropocentric concept.
hawking must read the koran to find insers about who creates the universe. in fact all he says is written in koran, the bible contains many contradictions with science that's why many scientists be atheist,in addition the laws of physics cannot creates the universe, then who creates the laws of physics !!!! please be rationnel ;)finally the intelligent design is the solution of all the questions of scientists, so we don't need hawking to explain who creates the universe because the truth is really in koran that ALLAH( god) is the creator of universe :)
i have a note , the bible is falsified, then don't lose your time to read a fault copy of bible because the truth is in islam :)
Hawkins has the time and the mind to contemplate such matters. A simplistic view that approaches subjects as vast and unknowable as the beginnings of the universe, and Time itself, by inserting a God that comes from the early superstitious days of mankind is presumptuous and a waste of intellect. It's like lawyers discussing love. You don't know, and I don't know. What is obvious is that this vast universe, extending beyond our ability to perceive it in time and space, caused early man to imagine Gods and goddesses, an imaginative way to connect the earth and the sky, and the male and female expressions in animal form. Reality is beyond our perception, we all only perceive a tiny portion of the elephant. Look to the intelligence of the buddha and how his understanding of reality intersects modern physics. it's a place to start. There had to be a God, because the universe had to have a beginning: please, just ask the questions and enjoy the wondering. Any attempt to force your God concept on others only shows immaturity.
The roman catholic church should cease to exist and the universe is eternal.Peace.
Scientists & theologians are both driven by the belief that reality is within their grasp. They stumble & they fall, but they both live in faith that the reality either is or will be defined. I would like to thank those people of science who suggest that faith need not be weakened in the face of scientific explanation. These are the intellects who either know or feel that there is no line between science & faith. To say that reality is beyond our perception is a denial of both theology & science.I can question Hawking's lack of scientific thoroughness or his motives, but I can never question his faith in his mission.
One can admire an adversary. A reason for the church's survival is that it allows believers to doubt & return. Without doubt, there cannot be growth. Without growth, there cannot be faith. Without faith, there cannot be a church. Hawking was sent to us as a challenge as were Galileo & Copernicus. Whether or not Hawking is ultimately proven correct, the fact is that his challenge will strengthen our faith in the church. Dante reserved the hottest part of hell for those who remain neutral. Neutrality is not maturity. It is a handmaiden of evil. Regarding lawyers & their relevance to the big bang.....I asked my husband (a lawyer)for his opinion & he takes the firm posistion that he's all for the big bang whatever the cause....which confirms Forrests' position on the subject of a lawyer's ability to discuss love.lol:)
Anonymous said...
Scientists & theologians are both driven by the belief that reality is within their grasp. They stumble & they fall, but they both live in faith that the reality either is or will be defined. I would like to thank those people of science who suggest that faith need not be weakened in the face of scientific explanation. These are the intellects who either know or feel that there is no line between science & faith. To say that reality is beyond our perception is a denial of both theology & science.I can question Hawking's lack of scientific thoroughness or his motives, but I can never question his faith in his mission.
One can admire an adversary. A reason for the church's survival is that it allows believers to doubt & return. Without doubt, there cannot be growth. Without growth, there cannot be faith. Without faith, there cannot be a church. Hawking was sent to us as a challenge as were Galileo & Copernicus. Whether or not Hawking is ultimately proven correct, the fact is that his challenge will strengthen our faith in the church. Dante reserved the hottest part of hell for those who remain neutral. Neutrality is not maturity. It is a handmaiden of evil. Regarding lawyers & their relevance to the big bang.....I asked my husband (a lawyer)for his opinion & he takes the firm posistion that he's all for the big bang whatever the cause....which confirms Forrests' position on the subject of a lawyer's ability to discuss love.lol:)mnixpa
The second law of thermodynamics is reset each time the big bang happens, it happens in the same way each time, converting mass into energy that is the hottest it can possibly be. The end of entropy is a single black hole singularity that never happens, because when it tries to happen, it goes bang again.
The big bounce theory or big crunch theory is the only theory that makes any sense at all. It's hard to understand why supposedly smart people can't understand that.
An eternal universe is the only possibility, because every effect has to have a cause. There is no effect possible, without a previous cause. Gravity wins in the end, until the next universe happens. This should be seen as 99.99% certain.
The law says that everything falls apart, slows down, cools down, etc unless something causes it not to, and that's the key part that was overlooked.
There is something wrong with your understanding. The notion of a creator god preceding everything else is not probable as self-existence is not possible. The creator god in order to exist, has to be dependent on other factors like space or time etc.
Post a Comment