Deep Time

Cosmological and geological phenomena suggest, but cannot prove due to the epistemological limitations of mere visual observation, that that Earth is over four billion years old and that the universe Earth is but one part of is almost 14 billion years old.  Deep time references the idea of an ancient universe, either referring to the whole of the duration in which the universe has existed following the Big Bang or, in some cases, the smaller but still relatively vast periods during which Earth has been present.  Even if the phrase is not always used in conversations about the age of the universe, not that anyone needs the words to understand the ideas behind it, deep time is at the forefront of the asinine debates between evangelicals and evolutionists who not only tend to conflate deep time, evolution, and abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) as if they are the same concept, but also pretend like the age of the universe is of any true importance in itself.

It has nothing at all to do with the metaphysics or epistemology of logic, with how we should live or if there is such a thing as obligation, and so on.  Not even the possibility, probability, or veracity of Christianity in particular would be affected in almost anyway by how ancient Earth and the universe really are: yes, only assumptions and misconceptions lead people to think that the Bible in any way teaches that the universe is any specific or approximate age.  The potential gap of time intended by the authors to have elapsed between the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 alone refutes the idea that the strictest genealogical timeline of the Bible in any way would logically necessitate a "young" or "old" universe.  More foundationally, deep time, even if true, is at most a subjectively stimulating concept that has no major ramifications for anything of utmost primacy irrespective of whether Christianity is true.

It is actually objectively trivial if the universe has existed for two seconds, six thousand years, or 14 billion years; this has no moral ramifications, does not change or usurp the place of logical axioms as the heart of all things, and cannot even be logically proven (absolute certainty on something like this is prohibited by human limitations, though one can know with absolute certainty that everything about the age of the cosmos is consistent with logical axioms and that it does not particularly matter one way or another).  Only things of no relevance to anything of utter centrality are impacted if the universe is a specific age, be it "old" or "young" by comparison to the age of individual planets or objects within the universe.  What this does not mean is that there is never nothing deep about contemplating deep time.

Now, reflecting on the age of the universe can still manage to make someone feel in awe of the universe and, far more significantly, in awe of the metaphysical existents that precede or underpin it--the laws of logic, the uncaused cause, and metaphysical space, or even just the epistemological prerequisite of recognizing one's own conscious existence as a being with sensory experiences that allow one to perceive a universe at all.  It could even stimulate thoughts about foundational and general philosophy that go far beyond dwelling on the mere age of a set of planets and stars floating around in outer space.  In turn, someone might be eager to relish or revisit philosophical truths or ideas that are more significant than deep time could ever be.  Yes, the age of the universe, and especially the notion of deep time, can be existentially and epistemologically inspiring, but it is hardly the core of reality metaphysically or epistemologically.

Christians and non-Christians who get so focused on the hypothetical, unverifiable age of the universe, which in itself is not logically tethered to issues like abiogenesis or evolution, that they overlook logical axioms, absolute certainty, the uncaused cause, and matters of justice are grand fools who do not know their left hands from their right hands.  To mistake a subjective infatuation with something so ultimately trivial for proof of something that is neither especially vital on its own nor provable to begin with is philosophical idiocy that no one who avoids assumptions would ever come anywhere near embracing.  How long the universe has existed, as opposed to whether a universe exists at all, how one can know it exists, and the inherent relationship of the external world to the uncaused cause before it (as well as the necessary truths of logic), is in no way central to reality.