Thank you Sarah for this excellent summary and your own conclusion that rationally encapsulates and incorporates the raw essentials of metaphysics, physics, cosmology and creationism into a unified theory.
Okay, so I haven’t read Aristotle, so maybe this is a silly question - but why does he make the leap that, “the Prime Mover causes movement as a final cause—the result of an object desiring or loving the Prime Mover?” Why love? Why not something more impersonal, rational, “scientific” like energy or power or pure bland “attraction?” How did Aristotle get to love as the primary force behind the universe? Thank you for this well-researched summary of how scientists have thought through the origins of the universe!
Thank you for this detailed account of what I knew only in rough outline. If I understand correctly, the BGV theorem proves that the only alternative to God the creator is a much dreaded infinite regress.
Sarah, what an amazing, inspiring, beautiful, informative, well written and perfect essay. (( had more adjectives, but you get the point). Is this in your book (or some version of it). I mean I knew quite a bit, but learned a whole lot more. And I love the part about love. I think that love (a purely metaphysical thing,) may very likely be a lot more than that. Is gravity a form of love? How about electromagnetism? And once we have life, its all about love. Thank you for this, and God bless.
"I think a lot of that is because God created a discoverable universe that 'wants' to be known."
Correct me if I'm wrong: NEEDS to be known (observed)--to exist.
So, what if our "universe" is just one atom of something immensely (seemingly eternally) larger that can't be discerned from our subatomic perspective? Wouldn't that support the "multiverse" theory?
And finally, for another time perhaps, since it is suddenly a hot debate here and abroad, what are your thoughts on ISLAM?
Thank you Sarah for this excellent summary and your own conclusion that rationally encapsulates and incorporates the raw essentials of metaphysics, physics, cosmology and creationism into a unified theory.
Okay, so I haven’t read Aristotle, so maybe this is a silly question - but why does he make the leap that, “the Prime Mover causes movement as a final cause—the result of an object desiring or loving the Prime Mover?” Why love? Why not something more impersonal, rational, “scientific” like energy or power or pure bland “attraction?” How did Aristotle get to love as the primary force behind the universe? Thank you for this well-researched summary of how scientists have thought through the origins of the universe!
Thank you for this detailed account of what I knew only in rough outline. If I understand correctly, the BGV theorem proves that the only alternative to God the creator is a much dreaded infinite regress.
Sarah, what an amazing, inspiring, beautiful, informative, well written and perfect essay. (( had more adjectives, but you get the point). Is this in your book (or some version of it). I mean I knew quite a bit, but learned a whole lot more. And I love the part about love. I think that love (a purely metaphysical thing,) may very likely be a lot more than that. Is gravity a form of love? How about electromagnetism? And once we have life, its all about love. Thank you for this, and God bless.
"I think a lot of that is because God created a discoverable universe that 'wants' to be known."
Correct me if I'm wrong: NEEDS to be known (observed)--to exist.
So, what if our "universe" is just one atom of something immensely (seemingly eternally) larger that can't be discerned from our subatomic perspective? Wouldn't that support the "multiverse" theory?
And finally, for another time perhaps, since it is suddenly a hot debate here and abroad, what are your thoughts on ISLAM?