Bible Question:
Doc (and others) It seems that my days are far too busy to sit and articulate this well, so here is an off the cuff thought on rationally proving that 'a' god or higher power beyond the material world HAS to exist. ------------- Time may be infinite in the future. That makes sense rationally. But time can not exist infinitely in the past. There is no possibility of such an idea, because infinity past would mean that the present time we are in would never arrive. (If you can't get your mind around this idea....or others that follow, let me know and I will try to articulate them more fully.) Second. If you have material you must have time. It is impossible for material to exist without the existence of time. Material is dependant upon time. Third. Time cannot exist apart from a material substance (not as easy to understand why...but true). If there is no material world then time has no meaning nor purpose. It is non-existent by its own definition. (If you don’t grasp #3, then keep going because it may not matter.) Fourth. If there can be no possibility of infinity past and therefore time had to have a beginning, then matter or material too had to have a beginning, a start from true nothingness. Any other thought is illogical. It just can not be any other way. The mathematics would not work otherwise. Therefore; how it all happened would still be up in the air. When it all began would still be up in the air. But some non-material being HAD TO HAVE STATED IT. Some being not bound by the material world and therefore not bound by that confining fourth dimension, had to create the material out of nothing. Thought had to bring the material into being...... This leads to any number of conversations, but there it is, my premise that proves if nothing else, that at least some non-material being (a spirit being) had to start matter from nothing and begin time as we know it. My conclusions are that YHVH is that One True God and that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah that further proves by his resurrection that YHVH is who He says he is. YOUR THOUGHTS? MJH |
Bible Answer: Dear MJH, Good reasoning. As always, I appreciate your posts! Einstein proposed that mass actually "generates" time and space. I've been too long out of physics to know where that position currently stands. Even years ago, attempts at a unified field theory (the so-called, "Theory of Everything") ended up sounding almost like Eastern Philosophy. I remember finally canceling my "Physics Today" subscription in disgust. The article that troubled me the most was in the field of cosmology. You see, to get down to the nitty-gritty of some of their theories would require us to be able to manipulate energies equivalent to the entire output of multiple galaxies. That, of course, is unlikely to ever happen, even in the most optimistic views of the future. So, the author proposed the following (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Since we cannot test the theory, we are left to speculate about its merits. Since everything that we discover to be true is also beautiful in symmetry and elegance, we may properly conclude that any sufficiently beautiful and elegant theory must be true." I trust the fundamental mistake in logic is obvious to every Christian! Back to the point at hand: Your argument is the historical cosmological argument. That's the same line of thinking as expressed by the phrase "out of nothing nothing comes." In other words, everything both conceivable and within our experience has a cause. Every cause has a cause. Every cause of every cause has a cause. Etc. Etc. So what was the original cause that got everything started, since you can't keep going back forever. However, this argument only proves an Original Cause -- a Causeless Cause -- but it cannot characterize it. Although it might surmise intelligence, it certainly does not necessitate that that intelligence be continually involved in the universe. That's why, at least in my own thinking, I have to include the Anthropic Principle. The combination of the two require that we see a God like the One described in the Scriptures. A God who is the Original Causeless Cause and One Who actively is involved with His creation. Now, when it comes to apologetics, you might look into Cornelius Van Til and his method of that was called a "presuppositional" defense of the faith. He really says things that ring so true. Van Til argued from 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Corinthians 10:5, that our arguments will be most sound when they are and we are fully and supremely under the full authority of Christ. He must necessarily be the ultimate authority over our philosophy, our reasoning, and our argumentation. In other words, He is not just the conclusion of our apologetics, but He must be at the beginning of them. Greg Bahnsen put it this way, "An ultimate commitment to Christ covers the entire range of human activity, including every aspect of intellectual endeavor. To reason in a way which does not recognize this is to transgress the first and great commandment: 'You shall love the Lord your God with... all your mind' (Matthew 22:37). In light of this, our thoughts about apologetic method should be controlled by the word of Jesus Christ, not merely our apologetic conclusions." He continue, "Very simply, if the apologist is to rid himself of profane audacity, his faith in the greatness of divine wisdom must be championed by means of a procedure which itself honors the same wisdom." "In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) So, as I thought and prayed about your question, I realized that our most potent argument for the God of the Bible is being a disciple. Disciples are always growing in their love of Christ, and their resemblance to Christ! Their minds are being transformed by the Word, which they love. Their words -- seasoned with grace -- originate in the Holy Spirit, effecting change in the hearts of others. Disciples are in the business of replicating themselves. In Him, Doc |