Anyways, here's my thoughts on ways we can see God that are not centered on the Bible. Remember that this kind of reasoning is common grace stuff that makes everyone accountable to God (Romans 1:18-2:1).
Let's take things step by step:
Is there a beginning to all things?
1. Yes, if yes, continue to the next question
2. No -- This is impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all things tend to disorder. Things do not organize themselves, and so everything decays over time. This means that if an infinite amount of time has passed, then there has been an infinite amount of decay. Thus, if the universe was eternal (always existing), then we should have an experience where the universe was a homogeneous blanket with no change. It would be a maximally disordered reality with no order whatsoever. Thus, since we see order in the universe, then we can logically work to a beginning of the universe.
How did the universe begin?
1. Supernatural cause -- if this, continue to the next question
2. Purely natural causes
- First, let's acknowledge that the best idea surrounding the beginning that is purely natural in its causes is the Big Bang Theory. It's widely considered to be the best explanation for what we see in the universe today by the scientific community as a whole. It states that the universe began as an infinitely massive, infinitely dense point. Remember a point has no dimensions, and so there is no space in a point. There are a few problems with this. First, the theory (remember it's a theory, not fact) doesn't account for where the point came from, where the material came from. Secondly, by its own laws of physics, the beginning of time was impossible. Stephen Hawking stated that time doesn't pass in an infinite gravity field, which precludes the notion of an event. Events require a passage of time, so the Big Bang is stuck at the point-stage. Hawking posited that the laws of physics were suspended only once, at the beginning, and he calls this the singularity. For those of us that believe in the supernatural, we have something called a miracle to explain this. However, science denies the notion of a supernatural force, and so must break its own laws of reality in order to explain reality. Furthermore, science has been searching for a unified field theory that brings together all of the various laws and theories of physics. They have been unable to explain link classical understandings of physics (Newton's laws, Einstein's relativity) and quantum theory. Science is still looking for ways to bring everything together in a coherent, consistent way.
- Secondly, the purely mechanistic worldview gives no room for meaning and purpose. Since things operate according to laws and chance, there's no meaning in your choices. There's no greater purpose for you other than to be a cog in the machinery of the universe, destined to be replaced when you wear out.
How involved is the Creator?
1. Personally involved God -- You resolve the notion of creation ex nihilo (where does the stuff ultimately come from?), the physics of it (no need for a law breaking singularity), and the meaning/purpose of things (you're created to accomplish the purpose he created you for).
2. He winds up the universe and lets it go -- The problem with this worldview is that you get the same problem as the purely mechanistic worldview with regards to meaning and purpose.
Why are meaning and purpose criteria?
Answering the question, "Why are we here ?", is fundamental to the human experience. We all rebel against the idea that we are worth the same as an ant. Clearly humans are more valuable than ants. Why an particular ant is here has less meaning and purpose than a particular person's meaning and purpose. The reason is because meaning and purpose are tied to dignity and value. Worth calculations require meaning and purpose to be present. Since we all know that people have worth, meaning, and purpose (even the dregs of society), where does the value of human life come from? It can only come from something outside of them. Ants can't declare themselves valuable, neither can objects, and neither can you. Thus we need a god that is personal, that declares value upon us.
So, we've made our way to the need for a personally involved God just from evaluating the options. A personal, involved creator god is the only sensible, coherent, self-consistent option available to us. Thus we should all believe in God.
Which God?
Which one of the world religions that affirms God is right?
1. Which one actually fits our experience and reality?
- Cannot be works based -- you cannot have hope to please an infinitely holy God if you commit even one wrong. You cannot hope to outweigh that one wrong with your finite good works because your one wrong is infinitely terrible.
- Islam is out then.
- Modern Judaism is Torah-centric -- and thus they really only have the Mosaic Law to live by.
- Must be theistic
- Buddhism is out then -- trying to be one with the fabric of the universe
- Atheism is out too
- Must realistically deal with suffering
- Buddhism is out too because suffering is mostly to do with the self's cravings and ignorance. Suffering is a personal delusion, in other words.
- It must be workable. It has to give you a foundation/anchor to hold to.
- Agnosticism doesn't work, though is probably the most honest position for lots of people. Agnosticism basically is a closing of your eyes and wishing the problem would go away.
- Hinduism is a really interesting fuzzy religion that defies clarity. It's polytheistic which is hard for me to understand because the definition of a god requires god to be unique or else he's not much of a god.
No comments:
Post a Comment