The question “Why is there something rather than nothing”
presupposes “nothing” as being the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can’t we
flip the question on its head? In other words, why can’t it be the case that
the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness
itself would be
weird.
When it is said, “things… actually
exist” in what manner do they exist? Do they exist contingently or necessarily?
By “things” I take it the writers refer to “physical” things (whatever that
means), in which case, I’d argue against such a position. The “physical” is
grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is not too difficult to refute. Simply it is
self-refuting. Empiricism understands knowledge as exclusively from sense
experience. However if, indeed, knowledge was as empiricism makes it out to be,
then the truth of empiricism, itself, should be known from sense experience.
But empiricism cannot be known by assuming empiricism. Therefore empiricists do
well to abandon empiricism. Once it is, we are left with knowledge either by
rationalism or dogmatism. Rationalism is unsuccessful as the history of
philosophy can testify. Thus we are left with dogmatism.
However, I would agree that it is
utter nonsense to state there is any possible world, or state of affairs in
which nothing could exist, since God is a necessary being; He exists in all
possible worlds and states of affairs. This author understands this world as
the only possible world in which God would create given His eternal purposes.
Given that the universe has a
finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?
It is plain God eternally created
time. It did have a definite contingent, but not temporal, beginning.
Why is so much of our universe
intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency? Why does the history of science
contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural
ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones?
Science has not proven or
discovered anything. It only produces operations, experiments, and procedures,
to tell us a story about the world. But the story itself is not the world. Nor
does this story in fact accurately represent the world.
Science itself is a fallacious
enterprise. Even Thomas Kuhn brought this fact out to the scientific community.
There are many things that can be said. Science has a compulsion to wrongly
make generalizations from only a few dozen examples. Wrongly it does pick and
choose what data should be considered relevant. Moreover, it confirms its
theories by interpreting facts in terms of its theories.
Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?
Simply because God wanted it to be
as such.
If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why
isn’t the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types
of sensory beauty?
What is meant by sensory beauty?
If the writers mean sensations, then I’d ask them to define precisely what are
sensations. The main point here, however, is beauty comes from God to fulfill
the purposes He has decreed.
Why would God use biological evolution as
a method for creation?
Evolution is the same as science
it consistently denigrates logic. Oddly, this is, perhaps, the only time it
successfully uses logic.
Why is the human mind dependent on the physical
brain?
Everything is mind-dependent
including the claim that the mind is dependent on the “physical” brain. Much
like a musician uses an instrument to play music. It makes us physical. But we
are not merely physical we are also spiritual. Five reasons can be given for
this. First, our brains are affected by our thoughts. Second, if we think of a
physical object, say, like a toaster, and a neurosurgeon opens up our brains,
there would be no object in it.
Third, our brains change but our minds do not. Forth, the only people
that have access to their own thoughts are themselves. People have to ask what
others are thinking. There is no way to know what a person is thinking without
asking her. Fifth, we can think “about” things. We can think about what we
want. So if the mind is merely the brain then there is no freedom. Actions,
thoughts, and beliefs (including the belief that the mind is the brain) are a
byproduct of chemical processes in the brain.
How do souls interact with
physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t
know?” (HT: Keith Parsons)
What is physical or matter? God
controls and sustains all things, including minds.
If you believe humans have free
will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to
exercise free will in some situations but not others?
Humans do not have free will. God
determines all things including humans.
Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the
biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random?
This question is put in the
irrational language of science. Pain and pleasure are irrelevant to the moral,
unless, of course, the writer wishes to beg the question. Connections are made?
Are these connections logical, conceptual, or causal? Were these connections
observed? How so? Randomness is
nonsense without its relationship to order. One cannot have one without the
other.
Why
is there nonculpable (reasonable) nonbelief in
God? Why are there former believers, i.e., people who, from the
perspective of theism, were on the right path when they lost belief? Why are there so many people who gave their lives to God only to discover there is
no God? Why are there lifelong seekers? Why are there converts to
nontheistic religions and especially nonresistant believers who arrive as a
result of honest inquiry at nontheistic experiences and beliefs? Why are there
isolated nontheists, i.e., people who have never so much as had the idea of
God?
Why
are there such striking geographic differences in the
incidence of theistic belief? Why does
theistic belief vary
dramatically with cultural and national boundaries? For example, why does a
population of millions of non-theists persist in Thailand but not in Saudi
Arabia? And why has the global incidence of theistic belief varied dramatically
over time,
i.e., during the existence of the human species?
It pleased God that He might justly save some and damn others for His glory. He might give faith to some and unbelief to others. This is just since God’s law is the standard of right and wrong. In no way is God bound by His own laws He issues to man.
Why
does the the relatively new discipline of cognitive science of religion support
the claim that we have a Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), which
causes human beings to naturally form beliefs about invisible agents?
Considering HADD’s poor track record of producing true beliefs about invisible
agents in general, why should we trust it when it produces a belief about one invisible agent, the God of
theism.
This
is fallacious. It begs the question, makes a hasty generalization, and fails to
discredit the belief in question on the grounds of its origin.
Why
does God allow such confusion or disagreement among people, including theists,
about what is morally good or bad and morally right or wrong?
It pleased God that He might justly save some and damn others for His glory. He might give faith to some and unbelief to others. This is just since God’s law is the standard of right and wrong. In no way is God bound by His own laws He issues to man.
Why
should we believe that, of the innumerable deities worshipped by human beings
over the ages, yours is the one that really exists? Why believe in Yahweh rather than
Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, Ahura-Mazda,
etc., etc., etc.? (HT: Keith Parsons)
There are no good reasons for me to believe in Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar,
Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, or Ahura-Mazda. All of these leave man in skepticism (like empiricism and naturalism). Furthermore, to ask such a
question is to falsely make a hasty generalization.
