Chapter 4: There Was a Beginning
第四章：有一个开始
THERE WAS A BEGINNING
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.— FRED HOYLE, "THE UNIVERSE: PAST AND PRESENT REFLECTIONS"¹
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole. — ARNO PENZIAS, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS ²
IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD JOKE:
"What did Moses know about the universe that Einstein didn't?"
"That it began."
But it's no joke. The opening statement in the Bible, recorded over thirty-five hundred years ago, makes a scientifically accurate claim that there was a beginning to everything. Cosmologists (physicists who study the structure and origins of the universe) came to agree that there was an initial moment where everything, including space and time, came into being. As theoretical astrophysicist Stephen Hawking commented, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”³ The fact that the universe is now believed to have begun is a startling development in cosmology. The accepted view from Aristotle to Einstein was that it had always existed. “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be," is the opening declaration Carl Sagan's best-selling book Cosmos.⁴ This was turned into a television series as well and gave legitimacy to the notion that the material world is all that has ever existed, or as atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell argued, “the universe is just there, and that's all."⁵
To provide some historical perspective, this view was supported in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin's release of On the Origin of Species, which proposed that all of life arose spontaneously through natural causes. This seemed to confirm the notion that there was no need to look beyond nature itself for the answer to how everything began.
As the twentieth century dawned, there were virtually simultaneous breakthroughs in the fields of physics and astronomy. Einstein gave the world the theory of relativity and started a revolution in the way we understand how the world works. The subatomic world was redefined by quantum mechanics that gave us a counterintuitive view of how particles at the smallest level really operated. But maybe the most earthshaking discovery came through the observations of astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929. Like Galileo over three hundred years before him, he looked through his telescope and observed something that would change the world: he saw that the light measured from distant stars appeared to be redder as the distance of the stars from the earth increased. Light appears redder when a star is moving away from the earth and bluer when coming toward the earth. This is called the red-shift effect, and it demonstrated that all distant galaxies are moving away from Earth at velocities proportional to the distance from Earth. This discovery led to the big bang theory, the idea that if you put the observed expanding universe in reverse, everything would come back to a single starting point (single infinitesimally small volume).
“For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space time itself."⁶ Most significantly, this evidence about the beginning of the universe shows that its Creator must have existed outside of time and space, exactly as implied in Genesis.
有一个开始
对事实的常识性解释表明，超级智力已经玩弄了物理学。——弗雷德·霍伊尔，“宇宙：过去和现在的反思”¹
我们所拥有的（关于大爆炸的）最好的数据正是我所预测的，如果我除了摩西五书、诗篇和整本圣经之外什么都没有的话。 — 阿诺·彭齐亚斯 (ARNO Penzias)，诺贝尔物理学奖获得者 ²
这听起来像是一个好笑话：
“关于宇宙，摩西知道哪些是爱因斯坦不知道的？”
“就这样开始了。”
但这不是玩笑。 《圣经》中记录于三千五百年前的开篇陈述从科学上准确地宣称一切都有一个开始。 宇宙学家（研究宇宙结构和起源的物理学家）一致认为，一切事物（包括空间和时间）都有一个初始时刻。 正如理论天体物理学家史蒂芬·霍金评论的那样，“现在几乎每个人都相信宇宙和时间本身在大爆炸时就有了开始。”³ 现在相信宇宙已经开始的事实是宇宙学中令人震惊的发展。 从亚里士多德到爱因斯坦，宇宙一直存在。卡尔·萨根的畅销书《宇宙》的开篇宣言是“宇宙是现在、过去或将来的一切”。⁴这本书也被改编成电视剧 并赋予了物质世界是曾经存在过的一切这一观念的合理性，或者正如无神论哲学家伯特兰·罗素所说，“宇宙就在那里，仅此而已。”⁵
为了提供一些历史视角，这种观点在 19 世纪得到了查尔斯·达尔文 (Charles Darwin) 发表的《物种起源》的支持，该书提出所有生命都是通过自然原因自发产生的。 这似乎证实了这样一个观念：没有必要超越自然本身来寻找一切如何开始的答案。
二十世纪来临之际，物理学和天文学领域几乎同时取得了突破。 爱因斯坦为世界带来了相对论，并引发了我们理解世界运作方式的一场革命。 量子力学重新定义了亚原子世界，让我们对最小水平的粒子如何运作有一个反直觉的看法。 但也许最惊天动地的发现来自天文学家埃德温·哈勃 (Edwin Hubble) 1929 年的观测。就像三百多年前的伽利略一样，他通过望远镜观察到了一些将改变世界的东西：他看到从遥远恒星测量到的光出现了。 随着恒星与地球距离的增加而变得更红。 当恒星远离地球时，光线显得更红，而当恒星靠近地球时，光线显得更蓝。 这被称为红移效应，它表明所有遥远的星系都以与距地球距离成正比的速度远离地球。 这一发现催生了大爆炸理论，该理论认为，如果将观察到的膨胀宇宙倒转，一切都会回到单一起点（单一无限小体积）。
“出于这个原因，大多数宇宙学家认为最初的奇点是宇宙的开始。 根据这种观点，大爆炸代表创世事件； 不仅是宇宙中所有物质和能量的创造，而且是时空本身的创造。”⁶ 最重要的是，有关宇宙开始的证据表明，它的创造者一定存在于时间和空间之外，正如所暗示的那样 在创世记中。
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BIG BANG
Astronomer, agnostic, and former head of the Goddard Institute at NASA, Robert Jastrow, captured the tension of the big bang theory in his book God and the Astronomers.
When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by the implications in some of the scientific developments of recent years. The essence of these developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning— that it began at a certain moment in time.
Many in the skeptical community would try to downplay the notion of a definite beginning because of the religious implications. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington would echo this same reluctance: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me . I should like to find a genuine loophole." The idea of a beginning was uncomfortable for the naturalist who was committed to a worldview that excluded the existence of a supernatural realm. Stephen Hawking noted this discomfort in his bestseller A Brief History of Time: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. ⁹
大爆炸的影响
天文学家、不可知论者、美国宇航局戈达德研究所前所长罗伯特·贾斯特罗在他的《上帝与天文学家》一书中捕捉到了大爆炸理论的张力。
当一位科学家写到上帝时，他的同事们会认为他要么已经过气了，要么已经疯了。 就我而言，从一开始就应该理解我在宗教问题上是不可知论的。 然而，我对近年来一些科学发展的影响着迷。 这些发展的本质是，宇宙在某种意义上有一个开端——它在某个时间点开始。
由于宗教含义，持怀疑态度的社区中的许多人会试图淡化明确开始的概念。 阿瑟·斯坦利·爱丁顿爵士也表达了同样的不情愿：“从哲学上来说，当前自然秩序的开端这一概念令我感到反感……” 我想找到一个真正的漏洞。”对于那些致力于排除超自然领域存在的世界观的博物学家来说，开始的想法感到不舒服。斯蒂芬·霍金在他的畅销书《时间简史》中指出了这种不舒服：“ 许多人不喜欢时间有一个开始的想法，可能是因为它带有神圣干预的味道。⁹
Astronomer Fred Hoyle came up with the term big bang out of ridicule. The thought of a beginning to him was tantamount to slipping in the concept of a Creator:
At first sight one might think the strong anticlerical bias modern science would be totally at odds with western religion. This is far from being so, however. The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation, which so called thermodynamic theories the origin life in the organic soup biology are the contemporary equivalent the voice in the burning bush and the tablets of Moses. ¹⁰
Regardless of the implications, the entire universe along with all matter, energy, space, and time had a beginning. Trying to conceive of what could have existed before the beginning or caused the beginning is mind-bending. However, the logic of connecting the evidence for a beginning of the universe to a Creator is too challenging to ignore.
天文学家弗雷德·霍伊尔出于嘲笑而提出了“大爆炸”这个词。 对他来说，开始的想法就等于陷入了造物主的概念：
乍一看，人们可能会认为现代科学强烈的反教权偏见与西方宗教完全不一致。 然而，事实远非如此。 大爆炸理论要求宇宙有一个最近的起源，公开地引入了创造的概念，即所谓的热力学理论，有机汤生物学中的生命起源相当于当代燃烧的灌木丛中的声音和摩西的石板。 ¹⁰
不管含义如何，整个宇宙以及所有物质、能量、空间和时间都有一个开始。 试图想象在开始之前可能存在或导致开始的事物是令人费解的。 然而，将宇宙起源的证据与造物主联系起来的逻辑太具有挑战性，不容忽视。
THE LOGIC OF FAITH
When someone says, “Belief God in isn't logical,” they are simply hurling an insult at people of faith much like candidates from rival political parties try to marginalize their opponents. Maybe a person can’t articulate her or his faith logically, but that doesn't mean faith God itself is illogical or irrational. This is illustrated by one of the oldest arguments for God's existence, known as the cosmological argument. William Lane Craig is a noted philosopher and theologian who has become a leading voice in the origins debate. He has written numerous books and published scores of peer-reviewed articles on these related issues. He and coauthor J. P. Moreland are also experts on the cosmological argument, the concept that there was a “first cause” or “uncaused cause” to the universe.
The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos. The roll of the defenders of this argument reads like a Who's Who of western philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, ibn Sina, al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Locke, to name but some.¹
One form of the cosmological argument is stated in this way:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. ¹²
Step one is undoubtedly true. The key phrase is “begins to exist." This obviously would not include a Being with no beginning.
Step two is as close to a physical fact that there is:
For not only all matter and energy but also space and time themselves came into being at the initial cosmological singularity. On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that it is false that something existed prior to the singularity.
Step three is a cause that must itself be uncaused. The cause of the universe must exist outside of space and time, since space and time came into existence in this beginning. It must be therefore eternal, nonmaterial, and ultimately personal since the universe appears to have the purposeful intent of supporting human life.
The uncaused First Cause must transcend both time and space and be the cause of their origination. Such a being must be, moreover, enormously powerful, since it brought the entirety of physical reality, including all matter and energy and space-time itself, into being without any material cause.
Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly taken to be personal. ¹⁴
Some are content to give token assent to the fact that a divine force is behind the universe. The sheer magnitude of evidence for this so-called uncaused cause calls for consideration for the existence of God. Just so long as this entity remains anonymous and impersonal, everything's fine. But this kind of caring, personal God, who answers prayer and judges sin is frightening to the imagination. If the Creator of the eye actually sees or if the Maker of the ear actually hears, then we are responsible and accountable for our words and actions.
信仰的逻辑
当有人说“信仰上帝不合逻辑”时，他们只是在侮辱有信仰的人，就像竞争对手政党的候选人试图边缘化对手一样。 也许一个人无法逻辑地表达他或他的信仰，但这并不意味着信仰上帝本身是不合逻辑或非理性的。 关于上帝存在的最古老的论证之一，即宇宙论论证，就说明了这一点。 威廉·莱恩·克雷格是一位著名的哲学家和神学家，他已成为起源争论的主要声音。 他就这些相关问题撰写了大量书籍并发表了数十篇经过同行评审的文章。 他和合著者 J. P. Moreland 也是宇宙论论证的专家，即宇宙存在“第一因”或“无因因”的概念。
宇宙论论证是一系列论证，旨在证明宇宙存在的充分理由或第一原因的存在。 这一论点的捍卫者名单读起来就像西方哲学名人录：柏拉图、亚里士多德、伊本·西那、安萨里、迈蒙尼德、安瑟姆、阿奎那、司各脱、笛卡尔、斯宾诺莎、莱布尼茨和洛克，仅举几例。
宇宙论论证的一种形式是这样表述的：
1. 任何事物的出现都有其原因。
2. 宇宙开始存在。
3. 因此，宇宙是有原因的。 ¹²
第一步无疑是正确的。 关键词是“开始存在”。这显然不包括没有开始的存在。
第二步最接近物理事实：
因为不仅所有的物质和能量，而且空间和时间本身都是在最初的宇宙奇点处形成的。 在这样的模型中，宇宙起源于无中生有，因为在奇点之前存在某种东西是错误的。
第三步是一个本身必须是无因的因。 宇宙的起因必定存在于空间和时间之外，因为空间和时间是在这个开始时就存在的。 因此，它必须是永恒的、非物质的，并且最终是个人的，因为宇宙似乎有支持人类生命的目的。
无因的第一因必须超越时间和空间，成为它们起源的原因。 此外，这样的存在必定非常强大，因为它在没有任何物质原因的情况下带来了整个物理现实，包括所有物质、能量和时空本身。
最后，也是最值得注意的是，这样一个超然的原因似乎被认为是个人的。 ¹⁴
有些人满足于象征性地承认宇宙背后有神圣力量这一事实。 这种所谓无因原因的大量证据要求我们考虑上帝的存在。 只要这个实体保持匿名和非个人化，一切就都很好。 但这种垂听祷告、审判罪孽、充满关怀、有个性的神却是令人恐惧的。 如果眼睛的创造者确实看到了，或者耳朵的创造者确实听到了，那么我们就要对我们的言语和行为负责。
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
The German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz posed the question in the seventeenth century, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”¹⁵ This question seems to capture the essence the quandary the skeptical position is in. Why are we here? Why is anything here? The responses to this question have ranged from the absurd to the sublime.
Once at the University of New Orleans, I was conducting a meeting for students on campus and made this statement: “Either everything you see around you started itself, or it was started by something besides itself.” I thought, Surely this is just simple logic.
Surprisingly a student in the back of the class raised his hand and said, "Well, there's a third choice."
"What is it?" I asked.
Trying to sound very philosophical he said, “Maybe we aren't really here at all." So much of contemporary dialogue is riddled with blatant assertions like this. People say anything they want, regardless of the evidence logic, and expect the idea to be given equal consideration to other, far more reasonable voices.
My only comeback was, “If we aren't really here, then you wouldn't be here, so be quiet."
Though the class laughed, the fact remains: we are here!
The skeptical responses are divergent and times irrational as the one just described in that classroom. On one hand, Dawkins says that the why question is silly. Silly? He tries to avoid the topic by pretending it isn't important. This is whistling in the dark at best. He frequently flip-flops like an inexperienced politician who hasn't quite realized that his previous comments have been recorded. In fact, in a debate with John Lennox, he stated that the why question was what lured him into his career in science. ¹⁶ It wasn't a silly question when he asked it.
Lawrence Krauss, a physicist from Arizona State, tried to answer the why question in his book A Universe from Nothing. As a devout materialist he attempted to give an answer to this question from a purely naturalistic, or at least an impersonal, point of view. Any notion of the impossibility of such an explanation would be disastrous.
His first trick was to redefine the word nothing. Nothing isn't really nothing in Krauss's view. “For surely 'nothing' is every bit as physical as ‘something,' especially if it is to be defined as the ‘absence of something.' It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words."¹⁷
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
This kind of science gives legitimacy to as many absurd ideas as skeptics claim religion does. Just think for a moment how much time and effort has to be spent to define nothing. The atheists tell a tale worthy of a Shakespearean play, truly Much Ado About Nothing. I must digress for a moment and acknowledge how obscure and pedantic this discussion may sound to many. In spite of this, it must be addressed because it is within this obscurity that the proof for God's non-necessity or non-personality is asserted.
The reality is that what Krauss means by nothing isn't really nothing. Throughout A Universe from Nothing Krauss continually changes his definition nothing, and his definitions almost always are not nothings but actual somethings. Most nothings do not eliminate the need for Something beyond that explains how the “lacks” become filled. In a detailed review of Krauss’s book, Hugh Ross explained that the nothings Krauss describes can do amazing things that, nonetheless, still require God. ¹⁸
为什么有东西而不是没有？
德国数学家和哲学家戈特弗里德·莱布尼茨 (Gottfried Leibniz) 在 17 世纪提出了这样一个问题：“为什么有东西而不是空无一物？”15 这个问题似乎抓住了怀疑论立场所处困境的本质。我们为什么在这里？ 为什么这里有东西？ 对这个问题的回答从荒谬到崇高不等。
有一次在新奥尔良大学，我在校园里为学生举办一次会议，并发表了这样的声明：“你周围看到的一切要么是由自身开始的，要么是由自身以外的事物开始的。” 我想，这当然只是简单的逻辑。
出乎意料的是，教室后排的一个学生举手说：“好吧，还有第三种选择。”
“它是什么？” 我问。
他试图听起来很有哲理，他说：“也许我们根本就不在这里。”当代对话中充斥着这样公然的断言。人们想说什么就说什么，不管证据逻辑如何，并期望这个想法能够实现。 同等考虑其他更为合理的声音。
我唯一的反应是，“如果我们真的不在这里，那么你就不会在这里，所以安静点。”
尽管全班同学都笑了，但事实是：我们来了！
正如刚才在教室里描述的那样，怀疑的反应是多种多样的，有时甚至是非理性的。 一方面，道金斯说“为什么”这个问题很愚蠢。 愚蠢的？ 他试图假装不重要来回避这个话题。 这充其量只是在黑暗中吹口哨。 他经常出尔反尔，就像一个没有经验的政客，没有意识到他之前的言论已经被记录下来。 事实上，在与约翰·伦诺克斯的辩论中，他表示“为什么”问题是吸引他从事科学事业的原因。 当他问这个问题时，这并不是一个愚蠢的问题。
来自亚利桑那州立大学的物理学家劳伦斯·克劳斯（Lawrence Krauss）试图在他的著作《无中生有的宇宙》中回答这个“为什么”的问题。 作为一个虔诚的唯物主义者，他试图从纯粹的自然主义或至少是客观的角度来回答这个问题。 任何认为这种解释不可能的想法都将是灾难性的。
他的第一个技巧是重新定义“无”这个词。 在克劳斯看来，“无”并不是真正的“无”。 “毫无疑问，‘无’与‘某物’一样有形，特别是如果它被定义为‘某物的不存在’。 那么我们有必要准确地理解这两个量的物理性质。 如果没有科学，任何定义都只是文字。”
无事生非
这种科学为许多荒谬的想法提供了合法性，就像怀疑论者声称的宗教一样。 试想一下，要花费多少时间和精力才能定义任何东西。 无神论者讲述了一个值得莎士比亚戏剧的故事，真正的无事生非。 我必须先离题一下，承认这个讨论对许多人来说听起来是多么晦涩和迂腐。 尽管如此，它仍然必须得到解决，因为正是在这种模糊性中，证明了上帝的非必然性或非人格性。
事实上，克劳斯所说的“无”并不是真正的“无”。 在《从无到有的宇宙》中，克劳斯不断地改变他对“无”的定义，而他的定义几乎总是不是“无”，而是实际存在的东西。 大多数“虚无”并不能消除对某些东西的需求，除了解释“缺乏”如何被填补之外。 在对克劳斯的书的详细评论中，休·罗斯解释说，克劳斯描述的虚无可以做出令人惊奇的事情，尽管如此，这些事情仍然需要上帝。¹⁸
Atheist Victor Stenger wrote, "Something is more natural than nothing,”¹⁹ and his colleague Michael Shermer stated,
In both the Judeo-Christian tradition . . . and the scientific worldview, time began when the universe came into existence, either through divine creation or the Big Bang. God, therefore, would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such supernatural entity. The theist's answer is an untestable hypothesis.²⁰
Ironically, Shermer goes on propose multiple untestable hypotheses about why there is something rather than nothing. The critical mistake in logic Shermer makes is limiting how we can know something to be true by testing only. There is no way for us to repeat and experimentally test such a one-time event. However, the universe can be observed, its properties ascertained, and its theoretical implications, including the existence of a causal, personal Agent beyond space and time, be put to rigorous scientific testing. Therefore, the theory that provides the best explanation is believed to be true.
Another mistake Shermer makes is to assume that just because we as humans are limited by our finite existence, the Creator is not limited by space and time and can choose to make Himself known to His creation. The way the Creator does this is the subject of the remaining chapters. Allan Sandage, winner of the Crawford Prize in astronomy (equivalent to the Nobel Prize), remarked, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” ²¹
无神论者维克多·斯坦格写道：“有总比没有更自然，”¹⁹ 和他的同事迈克尔·舍默说，
在犹太教和基督教传统中。 。 。 在科学世界观中，时间是从宇宙诞生时开始的，无论是通过神圣的创造还是大爆炸。 因此，上帝必须存在于空间和时间之外，这意味着作为生活在有限宇宙中的自然生物，我们不可能对这种超自然实体有任何了解。 有神论者的答案是一个无法检验的假设。²⁰
具有讽刺意味的是，谢尔默继续提出了多个无法检验的假设，解释为什么存在某些东西而不是什么都没有。 舍默在逻辑上犯的一个严重错误是限制了我们仅通过测试来了解某件事的真实性。 我们没有办法重复和实验测试这样的一次性事件。 然而，宇宙是可以观察到的，它的属性是可以确定的，它的理论含义，包括超越时空的因果个体代理的存在，可以接受严格的科学测试。 因此，提供最佳解释的理论被认为是正确的。
舍默犯的另一个错误是假设，仅仅因为我们作为人类受到有限存在的限制，造物主就不受空间和时间的限制，并且可以选择让他的创造物认识他自己。 造物主如何做到这一点是其余章节的主题。 克劳福德天文学奖（相当于诺贝尔奖）获得者艾伦·桑德奇表示：“我发现这种秩序不太可能是从混乱中产生的。 必须有一些组织原则。 上帝对我来说是一个谜，但却是对存在奇迹的解释，为什么有东西而不是空无一物。” ²¹
COULD THE UNIVERSE POP INTO
EXISTENCE?
宇宙会突然出现吗？
Now we come to a very critical point in deconstructing the skeptics' attempt to eliminate the need for God. If everything that exists came from nothing, then the first trace anything would have had to appear suddenly. One of the most celebrated scientists of our day who espouses this is Stephen Hawking. Hawking has been an undeniable force in the arena of theoretical physics. However, in his latest work, ironically titled The Grand Design, Hawking emphatically stated that the universe could literally pop into existence without God, ultimately as a consequence the laws of nature. "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."²² This belief derives from the quantum theory that describes how particles (such as protons) appear and disappear without apparent cause. This is in contrast to Newton's laws physics, which assert that objects were set in motion because they were influenced by other objects. The central claim of some in physics is that the quantum theory eliminates the need for a cause. The first episode of the Discovery Channel program Curiosity was titled "Did God Create the Universe?" It dramatically illustrated Hawking's assertions about the possibility spontaneous creation the universe, without the need for God.
What could cause the spontaneous appearance of a universe? At first it seems a baffling problem. After all, in our daily lives things don't simply materialize out of the blue. You can't just click your fingers and summon up a cup of coffee when you feel like one, can you? You have to make it out of other stuff, like coffee beans, water, perhaps some milk and sugar. But travel down into this coffee cup, through the milk particles, down to the atomic level, and right down to the subatomic level, and you enter a world where conjuring something out of nothing is possible, at least for a short while. That's because at this scale particles such as protons behave according to the laws of nature we call quantum mechanics. And they really can appear at random, stick around for a while and then vanish again, to reappear somewhere else. Since we know the universe itself was once very small, smaller than a proton in fact, this means something quite remarkable. It means the universe itself in all of its mind-boggling vastness and complexity could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature ²³
To the average observer, it seems as if the discussion is over. If science shows that everything could simply pop into existence without apparent cause, then God as a needed First Cause is rendered unnecessary. However, in their rush to eliminate the need for causality, atheist scientists fail to mention that without the laws of nature, nothing would take place at all. This reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of Oz where the curtain is pulled back and Dorothy and her three friends behold the Wizard himself. The veil of intended mystery is torn down. The Wizard frantically says, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”²⁴ In a way, the atheist wants you to ignore these laws behind the universe and simply accept they are there and quit asking about where they came from.
The world consists things, which obey rules. If you keep asking “why” questions about what happens in the universe, you ultimately reach the answer “because of the state of the universe and the laws of nature." . . .
Theologians sometimes invoke “sustaining the world" as a function of God. But we know better; the world doesn't need to be sustained, it can simply be.²⁵
现在我们到了一个非常关键的时刻，要解构怀疑论者消除对上帝的需要的企图。 如果一切存在都是从无到有，那么任何事物的最初痕迹都必须突然出现。 斯蒂芬·霍金是当今最著名的科学家之一，他支持这一点。 霍金一直是理论物理学领域不可否认的力量。 然而，在他最新的著作《大设计》中，霍金强调，宇宙实际上可以在没有上帝的情况下突然出现，最终是自然法则的结果。 “因为存在像万有引力这样的法则，宇宙能够并且将会从虚无中创造出自己……自发创造是存在某种东西而不是虚无的原因，是宇宙存在的原因，我们存在的原因。没有必要祈求上帝来创造 点亮蓝色触摸纸，让宇宙运转。”²²这种信念源自量子理论，该理论描述了粒子（例如质子）如何在没有明显原因的情况下出现和消失。 这与牛顿物理学定律形成鲜明对比，后者断言物体之所以运动是因为它们受到其他物体的影响。 一些物理学家的核心主张是量子理论消除了对原因的需要。 探索频道节目《好奇心》的第一集标题为“上帝创造了宇宙吗？” 它戏剧性地说明了霍金关于宇宙无需上帝而自发创造的可能性的断言。
什么可能导致宇宙的自发出现？ 乍一看，这似乎是一个令人困惑的问题。 毕竟，在我们的日常生活中，事情不会凭空出现。 当你想喝一杯咖啡时，你不能只是敲响手指，召唤一杯咖啡，不是吗？ 你必须用其他东西来制作它，比如咖啡豆、水，也许还有一些牛奶和糖。 但是深入到这个咖啡杯中，穿过牛奶颗粒，下降到原子水平，一直下降到亚原子水平，你就进入了一个可以从无到有变出某种东西的世界，至少在短时间内是这样。 这是因为在这个尺度上，质子等粒子的行为符合我们称之为量子力学的自然定律。 它们确实可以随机出现，停留一段时间，然后再次消失，重新出现在其他地方。 因为我们知道宇宙本身曾经非常小，实际上比质子还小，所以这意味着一些非常了不起的事情。 这意味着宇宙本身以其令人难以置信的浩瀚和复杂性可以在不违反已知自然法则的情况下简单地出现。
对于普通观察者来说，讨论似乎已经结束了。 如果科学表明一切事物都可以在没有明显原因的情况下突然出现，那么上帝作为必要的第一原因就变得不必要了。 然而，在急于消除因果关系的需要时，无神论科学家没有提到，如果没有自然法则，什么都不会发生。 这让我想起了《绿野仙踪》中的场景，幕布被拉开，多萝西和她的三个朋友看到了巫师本人。 原本神秘的面纱被揭开了。 巫师疯狂地说：“别理会幕后的那个人。”在某种程度上，无神论者希望你忽略宇宙背后的这些法则，简单地接受它们的存在，不要再问它们从哪里来。
世界是由遵守规则的事物组成的。 如果你不断地问关于宇宙中发生的事情的“为什么”问题，你最终会得到答案“因为宇宙的状态和自然法则。”……
神学家有时将“维持世界”视为上帝的一项功能。但我们更清楚；世界不需要维持，它可以简单地维持。²⁵
So where did the laws of physics come from? They must be assumed order for particles to pop into existence.
In any case, even in a universe with no miracles, when you are faced with a profoundly simple underlying order, you can draw two different conclusions. One, drawn by Newton himself, and earlier espoused by Galileo and a host of other scientists over the years, was that such order was created by a divine intelligence responsible not only for the universe, but also for our own existence, and that we human beings were created in his image (and apparently other complex and beautiful beings were not!). The other conclusion is that the laws themselves are all that exist. These laws themselves require our universe to come into existence, to develop and evolve, and we are an irrevocable by-product of these laws. The laws may be eternal, or they too may have come into existence, again by some yet unknown but possibly purely physical process.²⁶
So there is either an eternal set of laws or an eternal lawgiver. Notice that Krauss is faithful to his dogma of naturalism and asserts that the laws of physics could “possibly" be the result of a “purely physical process." However, the laws themselves point in a different direction.
那么物理定律从何而来呢？ 必须假设它们是粒子出现的顺序。
无论如何，即使在一个没有奇迹的宇宙中，当你面对一个极其简单的底层秩序时，你也可以得出两个不同的结论。 其中之一是由牛顿本人提出的，并且多年来得到伽利略和许多其他科学家的支持，即这种秩序是由神圣智慧创造的，它不仅负责宇宙，而且还负责我们自己的存在，并且我们人类 生物是按照他的形象创造的（显然其他复杂而美丽的生物不是！）。 另一个结论是，法律本身就是存在的一切。 这些法则本身要求我们的宇宙得以存在、发展和演化，而我们是这些法则不可逆转的副产品。 这些定律可能是永恒的，或者它们也可能已经存在，同样是通过一些未知但可能纯粹的物理过程。²⁶
因此，要么存在一套永恒的法律，要么存在一个永恒的立法者。 请注意，克劳斯忠实于他的自然主义教条，并断言物理定律“可能”是“纯粹物理过程”的结果。 然而，法律本身却指向不同的方向。
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE
One of the most astonishing pieces of evidence for the existence of God is called the fine-tuning of the universe. This refers to the incredible calibration of a vast number of variables that had to have precise values to allow for a life-permitting universe such as our own. Only if a Designer had specifically created our universe with the intention of supporting life would we exist. This evidence is so compelling for the presence of an intelligent designer that atheists, such as Dawkins, admit it's a problem. "The physicist's problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws. The biologist's problem is the problem of complexity."²⁷
宇宙的微调
证明上帝存在的最令人惊讶的证据之一被称为宇宙的微调。 这是指对大量变量进行令人难以置信的校准，这些变量必须具有精确的值才能允许像我们这样的宇宙存在。 只有当设计者为了支持生命而专门创造了我们的宇宙时，我们才会存在。 这个证据对于聪明设计师的存在是如此令人信服，以至于道金斯等无神论者承认这是一个问题。 “物理学家的问题是终极起源和终极自然法则的问题。生物学家的问题是复杂性的问题。”²⁷
UNIVERSE STARTER KIT
When I was growing up, there were knobs on radios and TVs that helped you fine-tune the sound and picture. You can imagine the tuning of a piano or an instrument as another example of the necessity to calibrate something to a precise position for it to function properly. Astrophysicists tell us that there were dozens of physical constants (such as gravity) and quantities (such as entropy) that had to be carefully adjusted (fine-tuned) in order for there to have been a life-producing universe.
Imagine you have a universe starter kit, and it comes with dozens of knobs that must be precisely set. Maybe it looks like a sound board at the back of a concert. The ranges for many of these knobs are not between one and one hundred, but between one and one trillion. Each knob must be precisely set, or you don't have a life-permitting universe.
One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument. It's if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God . ²⁸
These values include the strengths of the fundamental forces of gravity, the strong nuclear force (which holds the nucleus together), the weak nuclear force (which governs radiation), and the electromagnetic force (which governs the attraction of opposite charges to one another). Other quantities range from the charge of electron the expansion rate of the universe. Some values must be set within modestly tight ranges. For instance, if the neutron mass were 0.1 percent more massive, the universe would not have sufficient heavy elements essential for life, or if it were 0.1 percent less massive, all of the stars would have collapsed into black holes.²⁹ Likewise, if the strong nuclear force were just 2 percent weaker or 0.3 percent stronger, the universe would lack sufficient quantities of essential elements. ³⁰
Other values are far more precisely set. Hugh Ross described in The Creator and the Cosmos the example of the ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons in the universe: “Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10³⁷ (ten to the power of thirty -seven) or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed.”³¹ In total, Dr. Ross has identified hundreds of details that required fine-tuning in relation to the laws of physics, our galaxy, the sun, the moon, and planet Earth.³² The point cannot be stressed enough: from the beginning the universe was engineered by a fantastic intellect that is beyond human comparison. Great minds like Sir Isaac Newton understood the mathematical order the universe displayed. However, no mind has conceived the level of precision that existed from the very start. Oxford mathematician John Lennox would say that we are using “realms of precision far beyond anything achievable by instrumentation designed by humans.”³³ These facts are often glibly dismissed by naturalists in favor of wild speculation on unproven theories devoid of experimental support. For intelligent people to dismiss such overwhelming odds proves no amount of evidence can overturn their predetermined stance that there is no God.
As a clear example, Victor Stenger wrote in an encyclopedia entry about the anthropic principle, "In short, of the so-called fine-tuning of the parameters of microphysics is in eye of the beholder, not always sufficiently versed in physics, who plays with the numbers until they seem to support a prior belief that was based on something other than objective scientific analysis.”³⁴ Regardless of the evidence pointing overwhelmingly to an Intelligence that fine-tuned nature, Stenger's worldview blinds him from seeing that evidence.
宇宙入门套件
在我成长的过程中，收音机和电视上都有旋钮可以帮助你微调声音和图像。 您可以将钢琴或乐器的调音视为需要将某些东西校准到精确位置以使其正常运行的另一个例子。 天体物理学家告诉我们，有许多物理常数（例如重力）和物理量（例如熵）必须经过仔细调整（微调）才能产生生命的宇宙。
想象一下，您有一个宇宙入门套件，它带有数十个必须精确设置的旋钮。 也许它看起来像音乐会后面的音板。 许多旋钮的范围不是在一到一百之间，而是在一到一万亿之间。 每个旋钮都必须精确设置，否则你就没有一个允许生命存在的宇宙。
对这些明显的巨大巧合的一种反应是，将它们视为证实了有神论主张，即宇宙是由一位人格化的上帝创造的，并为适当克制的有神论论证提供了材料——因此是微调论证。 就好像有大量的刻度盘必须调整到极其狭窄的范围内，才能在我们的宇宙中存在生命。 这种情况极不可能是偶然发生的，但如果有上帝这样的人，这种情况发生的可能性就更大了。 ²⁸
这些值包括基本重力、强核力（将原子核保持在一起）、弱核力（控制辐射）和电磁力（控制相反电荷相互吸引）的强度。 。 其他量的范围从电子电荷到宇宙的膨胀率。 某些值必须设置在适度严格的范围内。 例如，如果中子质量增加 0.1%，宇宙就没有足够的生命必需的重元素，或者如果质量减少 0.1%，所有恒星都会坍缩成黑洞。²⁹ 同样，如果 强核力只要弱2%或强0.3%，宇宙就会缺乏足够数量的基本元素。 ³⁰
其他值的设置要精确得多。 休·罗斯在《造物主与宇宙》中描述了宇宙中电子数与质子数之比的例子：“除非电子数等于质子数，精确到10^3⁷分之一（ 十的三十七次方）或更好，宇宙中的电磁力将完全克服引力，以至于星系、恒星和行星永远不会形成。” 罗斯博士总共确定了数百个需要的细节 与物理定律、我们的银河系、太阳、月球和地球相关的微调。这一点怎么强调都不为过：从一开始，宇宙就是由人类无法比拟的奇妙智慧所设计的。 像艾萨克·牛顿爵士这样的伟大思想家了解宇宙所显示的数学秩序。 然而，没有人能想象到从一开始就存在的精确程度。 牛津数学家约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）会说，我们正在使用“远远超出人类设计的仪器所能达到的精确度。”这些事实常常被自然主义者轻率地驳回，转而对缺乏实验支持的未经证实的理论进行疯狂的猜测。 对于聪明人来说，忽视如此压倒性的可能性证明没有任何证据可以推翻他们预先确定的立场，即不存在上帝。
作为一个明显的例子，维克多·斯坦格（Victor Stenger）在关于人择原理的百科全书条目中写道：“简而言之，所谓微观物理学参数的微调是情人眼里出西施，并不总是足够精通物理学，谁扮演 直到它们似乎支持基于客观科学分析以外的东西的先前信念。
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
The name anthropic principle stems from the Greek word for human beings, male female: anthropos. The term was introduced on the five hundredth anniversary of Copernicus's discovery that the earth was not the center of the solar system but orbited the sun instead. The principle in essence states the universe was designed for conscious life to emerge.
To better understand the implications of the concept, let me use popular analogy. Imagine you arrive at a hotel room and all your favorite things are there already: your clothes, your favorite foods, pictures of your family. It would be safe to say that someone knew you were coming to that room and prepared it for you. That's what the anthropic principle suggests. The universe was made with humans in mind. “The universe in some sense must have known we were coming."³5 Sir Fred Hoyle noted the amazing unlikely appearance of life in most basic elements, such as carbon.
Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule."? Of course you would. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Paul Davies, a physicist as well as an agnostic, echoed the sentiments of Hoyle:
Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth-the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if “a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics."³⁷
Atheists have recognized the clear implications of acknowledging that a universe had a beginning and that it was fine-tuned for life. Therefore, they have attempted to rationalize this dire threat to their worldview by developing various theories, which deny both of these conclusions.
Dawkins also challenged the faith physicist John Barrow, an Anglican. Like several other speakers, Barrow emphasized how extraordinarily “fine-tuned" the universe is for our existence. Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Dawkins asked. Why do you want to explain it with God? "For the same reason you don't want to,” Barrow responded drily. Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, “That’s not an answer!”³⁸
人择原理
人择原理这个名字源于希腊语中的“人类”一词，即男性和女性：anthropos。 该术语是在哥白尼发现地球不是太阳系中心而是绕太阳运行五百年之际引入的。 该原则本质上表明宇宙是为有意识生命的出现而设计的。
为了更好地理解这个概念的含义，让我使用通俗的比喻。 想象一下，您到达酒店房间，您最喜欢的所有东西都已经在那里：您的衣服、您最喜欢的食物、家人的照片。 可以肯定地说，有人知道您要来到那个房间并为您准备好了。 这就是人择原理所暗示的。 宇宙是为人类而创造的。 “从某种意义上说，宇宙一定知道我们即将到来。”5 弗雷德·霍伊尔爵士指出，在大多数基本元素（例如碳）中，生命的出现令人惊奇，不太可能出现。
你难道不会对自己说：“一定有一些超级计算能力的人设计了碳原子的性质，否则我通过自然的盲目力量找到这样一个原子的机会将是微乎其微的。”？当然你会的。 对事实的常识性解释表明，超级智力已经玩弄了物理、化学和生物学，并且不存在值得谈论自然的盲目力量。在我看来，根据事实计算出的数字是如此压倒性 使这个结论几乎毫无疑问。
物理学家兼不可知论者保罗·戴维斯（Paul Davies）呼应了霍伊尔的观点：
科学家们正在慢慢意识到一个令人不安的事实——宇宙看起来可疑地像是一个修复体。 这个问题涉及自然法则本身。 40年来，物理学家和宇宙学家一直在悄悄地收集宇宙基本定律中所有太方便的“巧合”和特殊特征的例子，这些特征似乎对于生命以及有意识的生物的存在是必要的。改变任何一个 杰出的宇宙学家弗莱德·霍伊尔（Fred Hoyle）曾经说过，这就好像“一个超级智力者在玩弄物理学”。
无神论者已经认识到承认宇宙有一个开端并且它为生命进行了微调的明确含义。 因此，他们试图通过发展各种理论来合理化这种对其世界观的可怕威胁，这些理论否认了这两个结论。
道金斯还挑战了英国圣公会的信仰物理学家约翰·巴罗。 和其他几位演讲者一样，巴罗强调了宇宙对于我们的存在是如何异常“微调”的。为什么不直接接受这种微调作为自然事实呢？道金斯问道。为什么你想向上帝解释它？“因为 “这和你不想这么做的原因是一样的。”巴罗冷冷地回答道。 除了道金斯之外，每个人都笑了，道金斯抗议道：“这不是答案！”³⁸
ATHEISTS' RESPONSE? THE MULTIVERSE
In order to dismiss the evidence for fine-tuning, a large number of atheists appeal to the concept of a multiverse. The multiverse is the hypothesis that our universe is one of a virtually infinite number of universes. Atheists argue that in such a multiverse it is mathematically possible, by chance alone, that one of the universes would exhibit all the just-right features for life, including humans. This idea shows how desperate many are to embrace any alternative to the overwhelming implications of the fine-tuned universe. The multiverse theory is not testable or observable; it must simply be assumed without any evidence of it.
无神论者的回应？ 多元宇宙
为了驳回微调的证据，大量无神论者诉诸多元宇宙的概念。 多重宇宙是这样一种假设：我们的宇宙是几乎无限多个宇宙之一。 无神论者认为，在这样一个多元宇宙中，仅凭偶然，数学上就有可能其中一个宇宙展现出适合生命（包括人类）的所有恰到好处的特征。 这个想法表明，许多人是多么绝望地接受任何替代方案来替代微调宇宙的压倒性影响。 多元宇宙理论是不可测试或可观察的； 它只能是简单地假设而没有任何证据。
As an example, Stephen Hawking attempts to ignore the universe's beginning by appealing to the notion of imaginary time. He then appeals to string theory, which supposedly allows for the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Likewise, Krauss asserts that cosmic inflation could generate an infinite progression of universes with different physical properties. However, neither of them has developed a testable theory, which makes clear testable predictions. As such, their claims reside more in the realm of science fiction, not science. Cosmologist Edward Harrison has made this deduction:
The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. . Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.
Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God-the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished, ³⁹
Even if one granted the fantastic, unprovable hypothesis for the existence of numerous other universes with slightly varying laws, any mechanism that could produce the required universe-generating machine would itself need to be fine-tuned and therefore designed.⁴⁰ Any attempt to create a theory of the universe from nothing inevitably leads to the reality of a universe from nothing visible (Hebrews 11:3). (Hebrews 11:3 , By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.)
例如，斯蒂芬·霍金试图通过虚数时间的概念来忽视宇宙的起源。 然后他求助于弦理论，据说弦理论允许无限数量的宇宙的可能性。 同样，克劳斯断言，宇宙膨胀可能会产生具有不同物理特性的无限级数宇宙。 然而，他们都没有发展出可检验的理论，从而做出明确的可检验的预测。 因此，他们的主张更多地属于科幻小说领域，而不是科学领域。 宇宙学家爱德华·哈里森做出了这样的推论：
宇宙的微调提供了自然神论设计的初步证据。 做出你的选择：需要多个宇宙的盲目运气或只需要一个宇宙的设计。 。 许多科学家在承认自己的观点时，倾向于目的论或设计论证。
这是上帝存在的宇宙学证明——佩利的设计论证——更新和翻新， ³⁹
即使有人承认存在许多其他宇宙（其定律略有不同）这一奇妙的、无法证明的假设，任何能够产生所需的宇宙生成机器的机制本身都需要进行微调和设计。⁴⁰任何创造一个宇宙的尝试 从无到有的宇宙理论必然会导致从无到有的宇宙现实（希伯来书11:3）。 （希伯来书 11:3，我们凭着信心知道宇宙是按照上帝的命令而形成的，所以所见的东西并不是由可见的东西造成的。）
MIND BEFORE MATTER
A simple way to think about all of this was presented by the legendary writer and philosopher C. S. Lewis. He would say that the ultimate power behind the universe had to be mind and not matter. How could something like a rock communicate to humans what they ought to do?⁴¹ Lennox told Dawkins at their Oxford discussion that the primary essence of the universe is a mind, not matter. Mind comes first, then matter —not mind emerging from matter.
Then the fact of the creator, remember the claim I'm making is, is perhaps even bigger than you realize. What I am claiming is this; there are two worldviews. There is your worldview which is as I understand it is an essentially a materialist or naturalist worldview. The universe is self-explanatory in terms of matter and energy and the laws of nature and so on. So that matter energy is essentially primary in the universe. And mind is a development, a development after a long process wherever. Whereas my claim is that it is the exact opposite way round. Mind is primary in the universe. God is the ultimate reality.⁴²
As the gospel of John opens, “In the beginning was the Word." The Greek word logos is translated here as “word," but logos can also mean “reason” or “logic.” Therefore, before matter there was reason, logic, and intelligence. This is what the scientific evidence suggests. Robert Jastrow, formerly of NASA, was willing to follow the evidence, even if it led to God: and under circumstances that seem to make it impossible — not just now, but ever — to find out what force or forces brought the world into being at that moment. Was it the Bible says, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands"? No scientist can answer that question,⁴³
Lennox would boldly bring this truth into the discussion with Dawkins in their Oxford discussion. After he explained the two options of either matter or mind coming first, he made the logical case that mind must have preceded matter. But he did not stop there; he went on to show that we can know more about that mind.
Whereas my claim is that it is the exact opposite way round. Mind is primary the universe. God is the ultimate reality. Everything else, including you and me is derivative, so that means that here's the claim, let me set it out. In the beginning was the Word, the word was with God, the word was God. All things were made by him. So I'm claiming that whatever mechanisms that were used, that we can tease those out scientifically, and so that's the fascination of science. ⁴⁴
Ultimately it's the mind of God, the Word [ Logos] of God that is responsible for them.
SUMMARY
The fact that the universe began is a recent realization in the disciplines of astrophysics and cosmology. In one moment, all space and time itself came into being. This notion of a beginning of everything was resisted due to the fact that it pointed people toward a Creator. What's more, the incredible fine-tuning of the fundamental laws of physics is evidence as well of a personal superintellect responsible for a universe that is life-permitting. The naturalist asserts that the universe came into being from nothing, by nothing, for nothing. The theist believes the universe came from nothing, by Something, for something.
Clearly the naturalistic theories of an infinite number of potential impersonal, mindless universes or an eternal set of equally impersonal, mindless laws of physics are not as reasonable as an eternal, uncreated, personal Creator. Therefore, when someone asks for evidence of the existence of God, you stand on solid ground by referencing the fact that the universe itself demonstrates the reality of our God.
先心后物
传奇作家兼哲学家 C.S. 刘易斯提出了一种思考所有这些问题的简单方法。 他会说宇宙背后的最终力量必须是心灵，而不是物质。 像岩石这样的东西如何能向人类传达他们应该做什么？⁴¹ 伦诺克斯在牛津大学的讨论中告诉道金斯，宇宙的主要本质是思想，而不是物质。 心灵先出现，然后是物质——而不是从物质中产生的心灵。
然后，记住我所说的，创造者的事实可能比你意识到的还要大。 我所主张的是这样的； 有两种世界观。 据我所知，你的世界观本质上是唯物主义或自然主义的世界观。 宇宙在物质、能量以及自然法则等方面是不言自明的。 所以物质能量在宇宙中本质上是主要的。 心是一种发展，无论在哪里，都是经过漫长过程的发展。 而我的观点是事实恰恰相反。 心灵在宇宙中是首要的。 上帝是最终的现实。⁴²
正如约翰福音开头所说，“太初有道。”希腊语 logos 在这里被翻译为“道”，但 logos 也可以表示“理性”或“逻辑”。 因此，在物质之前就有了理性、逻辑和智慧。 这就是科学证据所表明的。 前美国宇航局成员罗伯特·贾斯特罗（Robert Jastrow）愿意追随证据，即使它通向上帝：在似乎不可能的情况下——不仅是现在，而且永远——找出是什么力量或多种力量创造了世界 那一刻。 圣经是不是说：“主啊，你起初奠定了大地的根基，诸天是你双手所造的”？没有科学家能够回答这个问题，⁴³
伦诺克斯在牛津大学的讨论中大胆地将这一真理带入与道金斯的讨论中。 在他解释了先有物质或先有心灵的两种选择之后，他提出了逻辑上的理由：心灵一定先于物质。 但他并没有就此止步； 他接着表明我们可以更多地了解这种思想。
而我的观点是事实恰恰相反。 心灵是宇宙的原初。 神是最终的现实。 其他一切，包括你和我，都是派生的，所以这意味着这就是主张，让我把它列出来。 太初有道，道与神同在，道就是神。 万物皆由他所造。 所以我声称，无论使用什么机制，我们都可以科学地梳理出它们，这就是科学的魅力⁴⁴
归根结底，是神的心意、神的道[Logos]对他们负责。
概括
宇宙开始的事实是天体物理学和宇宙学学科最近的认识。 刹那间，所有的空间和时间都诞生了。 这种万物之始的观念遭到抵制，因为它把人们引向了造物主。 更重要的是，物理基本定律令人难以置信的微调也证明了个人的超级智力对允许生命存在的宇宙负有责任。 博物学家断言，宇宙是从无到有、无中生有、无缘无故地产生的。 有神论者相信宇宙是从无到有、由某种东西、为了某种东西而产生的。
显然，关于无限数量的潜在的非个人的、无意识的宇宙或一组永恒的同样非个人的、无意识的物理定律的自然主义理论并不像永恒的、非受造的、个人的造物主那样合理。 因此，当有人要求上帝存在的证据时，你可以通过引用宇宙本身证明了我们上帝的现实这一事实来站稳脚跟。
No comments:
Post a Comment