Within the swirling madness that is college life, I have the ambivalent experience of overhearing a wide variety of conversations. Earlier this week a conversation was brought to my attention regarding the existence of God. The major point of contention was centered on God being eternal. The obvious problem with God being eternal is the ever present question… “Then where did God come from?”
While I have no evidence, I am willing to bet that ever since the first person professed a belief in God, someone else was eager to prove that there is no God. Indeed, almost every religion must face the question “How can you prove there IS a God?” The answer to which is always “How can you prove that there IS NOT a God?” This gives rise to the juvenile “Am not!” vs. “Are too!” style of religious debate.
In this particular situation, God’s existence was brought into question because the ex nilhilo nilhil fit (Latin for: From nothing, comes nothing). But why is it so hard to believe that God, whatever he/she/it/them is, can be eternal? Why do we, as human beings, have such a problem believing that something or someone can last forever?
Well the first and most simple explanation is our feeble monkey brains. The human mind, in its nature, does not have a real grasp on numbers. This is why we call the idea of numbers and measurement abstract concepts. This is all well and good until you try to apply numbers, which we don’t fully understand, to the world around us. In short, we cannot understand the indefinite because we do not actually understand the definite.
For example: When we are in elementary school we are introduced to numbers on a small scale. First single digits then double digits. These are numbers we can see and even hold and therefore easily understand. After we have mastered that, we are introduced to the number 100 (the largest number any second grader can imagine). But as we get older smaller numbers are easier to understand because we encounter them easily and often. You will probably see 100 people a day. You can probably find a tree with about 1,000 leaves on it. But as the numbers get bigger it’s harder to understand and visualize exactly how much something actually is. Millions and billions still seem beyond our grasp.
Given that, how can we possibly understand something that cannot be measured by numbers? If we cannot fully comprehend how many a billion people is, how can we comprehend anything beyond that? For some maybe that is it. It is not that God does or does not exist, but if he does exist we won’t be able to figure it out anyway. Damn monkey brains!
But then there is another approach. So God is forever, from everlasting to everlasting, alpha and omega. What else lasts forever? What else is eternal? MATTER. According to the law of conservation of mass, matter cannot be created or destroyed only converted and changed. The same goes for energy; it cannot be created or destroyed. By that token everything around us is both eternal and infinite (including ourselves if you really think about it). We have no problem believing that both matter and energy are eternal.
Of course we believe in matter and energy because we can see it, touch it, and measure it with our fancy numbers. But as with numbers, we do not fully understand matter and energy or anything else that might make up the world around us.
At the end of the day the reason we doubt God’s existence is simply because it seems unreasonable compared to what little we do understand about creation. We have ingrained in our heads the idea of God being an old man, white beard, sitting on a cloud, watching over us always, with a basket of salvation on the cloud to his right, and a bucket full of lightning bolts labeled “smite bullets” to his left. The idea that such a person exists in the first place is ridiculous, but the thought that this person is the alpha and omega is downright absurd.
But what if we change our idea of whom or what God is. For those who believe in the big bang, maybe God is what sparked the beginning of the universe, and “let there be light” was the explosion of matter across existence. Perhaps God is the energy that holds all protons, neutrons, and elections together making God everywhere and a part of everyone. The point is we can try to figure out what God is or is not until our tiny monkey brains explode, but we probably will not be any closer to figuring it out. Maybe that is why God commands in Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Perhaps God knew that we would get him/her/it/them all wrong and end up worshiping some thinner version of Santa who somehow lives in the clouds and has nothing better to do but to shake us around like the snow globe of chaos that is our world.
Filed under: Christianity, Faith, God, Philosophy, Religion | Tagged: Abstract, Alpha and Omega, Does God exist, Eternity, Everlasting Gobstopper, Everlasting God, ex nilhilo nilhil fit, Exodus, God, Law of Conservation of Energy, Law of Conservation of Mass, Numbers, Origin of God, Philosophy, Religion, Smite Bullets, The Bible, The Big Bang, There is no God
Alex – I’m glad to see you blogging because I’ve always been interested in your thoughtful approach to life. You’re a sharp one, lad, and I’ll be a regular reader. That said, here is my initial response.
“Each man is the architect of his own fate.”
— Appius Claudius, Roman statesman, 300 B.C.
I’ve decided that I don’t care whether or not God exists. This not the response of a lazy man, but of one who has decided that the question changes nothing for himself in terms of his life and how he acts in the world. I’ve wrangled with the God question for a long time — too long. My conclusion is that the question itself, while intriguing, cannot be answered. Given that, I am free from lesser questions of religion and dogma and choice. I simply am. My moral code is like most: based on the teachings of my parents, and on what I’ve learned through action and observation.
If there is a God (and “he believes in me”) then so be it. If there is not, then I’m content with that too. I’m far more concerned with the well-being of my children and my wife and my friends. Secondary to that, I have a sense of empathy towards humanity that also drives my actions and choices.
Cheers and keep blogging!
I am going to keep a majority of what I write to a minimum, because I could go for days. To build on that, a very strong majority of what I write will not be from my mind(opinion), rather it will be from research and information. By using existing information and facts, and leaving references for all that is said can be researched on each person’s own time.
Opinions for the most part are subject to be flawed, and no one is entirely perfect. There are two common types of opinions, the first is normative analysis, and the second is positive analysis. Normative analysis is the analysis based on opinions. This normative analysis is a person’s thoughts and ideas regarding something which is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of the matter at hand is regarded as unimportant to the individual. An opinion of this sort is not a fact, because it is not falsifiable or that the opinion has yet to be verified as fact. If the topic becomes proved as fact, then it is no longer an opinion, but truth.
Positive analysis is the analysis based on scientific evidence or scientific observation. Therefore all proved scientific evidence is truth and not opinion.
First point about what was written so far. Mainly what was in the blog introduction. Even though millions and even billions may seem out of reach, they are equally tangible numbers. For example, grains of sand on any beach. Though they may seem countless, especially being that they are very small, but the grains of sand can be counted. On almost any beach there are at least several million grains of sand, all the way up to trillions or more on larger beaches.
The second point, is also the willingness to learn. While on the internet, we often neglect to realize the fact that there is an incredibly vast quantity of information that is available at our fingertips. With the vast quantity of material on the internet, one has to sift through the mud (all the junk), in order to find the gold(the information). To build on the wealth of information, most topics may seem out of reach or are too complex to understand because the basics of each subject may not yet be known to the individual. Even the definitions, linguistics, etymology and the historical relevant information regarding that subject (the basics) can often be found.
So, there in essence are several options, seek the education and likewise the choice to seek truth. Or to ignore the information, and likewise remain in the lies that our minds come up with.
As we are surrounded by both evolution and theology alike, there are combative and debated issues.
One crucial philosophical debate is Darwinian evolution versus Creation. This single debate is both simple and complex at the same time. To begin with, this debate is multifaceted. The first facet to look into are the multiple battlegrounds. One key part of the whole debate is centered on antithesis. Antithesis is a contrast or opposition. Usually an antithesis is regarding two phrases, clauses, or sentences. In relation to the conflict of agreement, to agree or disagree, some people say yes others say no.
But then there are the maybes. This maybe, or the “I don’t know” answers can result either from a lack of information that would confirm one side or the other. The lack of information would be result from a incompletely tested theory or opinion. If there is conclusive evidence regarding that topic, but there remains doubt (“I don’t know) within the individual, then that doubt gives rise to the unwillingness to learn (They don’t care).
So, to explain the Darwinian evolution versus Creation debate. These two topics are against each other in several ways. They are in opposition to each other, thus they are in antithesis with the other. However, there are middle ground topics within the Darwinian evolution versus Creation. Two key middle ground topics are Day-Age Theory and Gap theory. Both the Day-Age Theory and the Gap theory use passages of scripture to support both Creation and Darwinian evolution. These middle grounds create a false antithesis, and include options and other testable areas of study. The “Could there be a creator God, who used quantum physics to create the universe?” question.
A false antithesis is where there are multiple view points, which give rise to other possible views (other opinions) and other testable fields of study. That is why earlier I mentioned not only a yes and a no as options, but included the options of maybe both and I don’t know. Thus having Darwinian evolution, Day-Age theory, Creation and Gap Theory, there is a false antithesis within the debate.
With the complexity of the basic options of this debate, there is also a very concise simplification to narrow down the pool of options. This pool being the multiple views of this debate.
The Darwinian evolution, Gap Theory and the Day-Age theory all have to throw basic Biblical doctrines, in order to support the presuppositional views that each of these have. These crucial, yet basic, Biblical doctrines that are thrown out are sin, death as a result of transgression, and Adam and Eve being the first people, etc. All three view points contradict the literal six days of Creation that is mentioned in scriptures. Also that death has been around for millions and millions of years, that Adam and Eve were not the first two people, and ultimately there is no sin.
To clear that up, there are two sides Literal six day creation, or billions of years of Darwinian evolution. Thus it is an antithesis, yet again.
I know that I did not answer the questions of:
“Then where did God come from?”
“How can you prove there IS a God?”
Nor did I touch on topics of basic linguistics, and likewise morals or ethics.
Just needed to clarify basics before continuing.
Opinion references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
http://www.answers.com/topic/opinion
Antithesis references:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/antithesis
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n3/ant_v1n3_schaeffer.html
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/niv-tniv-comparison/
Relevant sites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/12/05/feedback-put-the-bible-down
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dp/introduction-darwins-plantation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp
Firstly, thanks Greg, I always appreciate our conversations and your input.
Second, thanks Jeff for your input. My overall thesis, which did not come till the end of my post was ” The point is we can try to figure out what God is or is not until our tiny monkey brains explode, but we probably will not be any closer to figuring it out.” Opinions aside, no one can prove or disprove that there is a God. But given my points, I do not think believing in God is too outlandish, if we are a bit flexible with our beliefs.
I have some fun views on Evolution and scripture, I will probably write on that in the near future. I am sure that will be a fun discussion.