Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from (Talk.Origins)

Claim CE440:


 * Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.

Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 20.

CreationWiki response:

There can be a variety of possible explanations of how space, time, energy and laws came into being, but they mostly come down to an eternal universe. As you can see, Talk Origins is trying to evade the possibility of a God. However, there isn't any evidence to support such a position and it actually leads to the contrary! That is nothing but blind faith in science and doesn't deal with the issues at hand.

 In either case, therefore, one must simply believe - either in eternal, omnipotent Matter or else in an eternal omnipotent, Creator God. The individual may decide which he considers more reasonable, but he should recognize this is not completely a scientific decision either way. ( Henry M. Morris, 'Scientific Creationism' 1974, p. 19)

Scientists are unable to explain origins because it's a consequence of the very nature of science. For science is the study of what "is" but it can't speculate as to what "was". This, of course, doesn't imply that science cannot describe the past. For it can do so, but only so far as those past events were controlled by the laws that are observed today. After this point, many will see the failure of science to address these issues and they enter into philosophy. Even science has an inability to explain the scientific laws. Why is the universe as it is? There is basically an infinite amount of alternative laws that could've been used.

See here. Could it be arduous to comprehend because the universe actually is a creation of God? This makes perfect sense to the creation account of origins since the universe points to a superior cause. Many have recognized the impossibility of explaining the origin of things and they attempt to avoid a beginning.

That is not what they claim. However, there are occasions when creationists mention something that is a bit inconceivable but they usually provide good reasons. How is a God not objective when it could serve as a truth? Such an objection is only applicable if one denies the existence of a God but they still must believe in some kind of uncaused First Cause.

 ...But, then, who made God? But such a question of course begs the question. If the evolutionists prefers not to believe in God, he must still believe in some kind of uncaused First Cause. He must either postulate matter coming into existence out of nothing or else matter having always existed in some primitive form. In either case, matter itself becomes its own Cause, and the creationist may well ask: "But, then, who made Matter?""( Henry M. Morris, 'Scientific Creationism' 1974, p. 19)

1. God raises more questions

2. It should bring up more answers than questions.

3. Therefore the God is not valid.'

TO is assuming that naturalistic explanations are the best explanations but that also raises more questions. Does this make the big bang or evolutionist theory incorrect? They obviously won't support such a position, so why are they treating God differently? In the explaining game, cosmologists are far from being in the lead. God is a perfectly logical explanation for the origins of the universe and explains a lot more than cosmologists could.