Saturday, January 06, 2007

The Universe







From a traditional Biblical perspective, God is beyond these incredible stars and planets, and is the creator. I am amazed how large our Earth seems, and how much larger our Sun is than the Earth. Amazingly, Antares is far larger than our Sun. It seems unlikely to me that naturalism alone could account for the alignment of the universe in a way that human beings can exist.

I wrote an article on First Cause here:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. New American Standard Bible (1984: 1).

From my Infinite article of thekingpin68, an edited version:

Brian Davies writes that God's infinity is viewed as marking his perfection, and that God alone is understood as infinite. As God is uncreated and uncreatable, he is infinite. Davies (1999: 298). God would be superior to all creatures and would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Davies (1999: 298). Davies notes that process theology has postulated that God's personal nature means that he can change as he works within created time. Davies (1999: 228). Process theology reasons that God possibly develops in personality as he deals with his created beings. Davies (1999: 228).

I would state that if God's nature can be changed and develop within time, then he is not infinite, but rather the most advanced finite being in existence. A finite being that is beyond matter, perhaps. I reject process theology's notion of a finite God, for at least the following reasons.

1. If God is merely finite, then we have a problem of determining the first cause. If God is not infinite then he cannot posses any infinite attributes, and this would prohibit God from being eternal. To be eternal would mean that one has unlimited life. If God is not eternal, then how did God come to exist? If there was a God that created God and so on, we have the problem of vicious regress in which we are stuck with an infinite regressions of Gods, and never the first cause, who would be the infinite God. If it is suggested at some point the regression ends, why cannot we simply reject the vicious regress and state that the Biblical God could be the first cause? To state that God simply came to exist from nothing does not seem reasonable, and the suggestion answers nothing.

2. Many scientists and scholars reason that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, and believe in a 'Big Bang Theory'. Accepting this scientific theory as plausible, by that model, the universe in agreement with the Bible, is not eternal. Billions of years is more time than any of us can comprehend and may be considered perhaps from a human perspective, virtual eternity, but is not actual eternity, and therefore is not infinite. Since God created matter in Genesis, Chapter 1, it is clear that nothing within the material, physical realm existed prior to creation. This would leave us with God, and perhaps the angelic beings prior to the existence of matter. It can be deduced that angels cannot be infinite in nature, because if they were limitless in nature they would themselves be God. We cannot have two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance.

3. Millard J. Erickson discusses the Scriptural concept of God's existence in contrast to that of his creation. In Acts 17: 24-25 it states that God does not dwell physically, but is the creator of everything. Erickson notes that God is called the first and last in Isaiah 44: 6, and the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13. The idea being shown here is that God has always existed and will always exist. Erickson (1994: 273-274). As pointed out previously, before the creation of matter and the angels nothing else would have existed. There is also the idea put across in Scripture that God is immutable and does not change in his nature. Malachi 3:6 states that the Lord does not change and Erickson views this as referring to God’s nature and attributes.

It can be stated here that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic as the creator is totally independent in nature from his creation. Erickson (1994: 303). God existed before the creation of matter as a purely spiritual being, and was not dependent on matter or anything other than himself for existence. God is not equal to his creation or matter, he is beyond it. God is also not to be considered in a panentheistic context as although the creator does sustain all of his creation through his power he is not the vital force within all he creates. Erickson (1994: 307). God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my view a traditional Christian understanding would be that God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. If God is the vital force within a tree, it could be argued that the tree’s essence is infinite and eternal and I think that this would be error. In contrast I think that God sustains and energizes all of his creation while allowing it existence separate from his own. The tree remains finite although it is sustained by God. When the tree dies so does its essence.

I think that my three points offer solid reasons to conclude that the God of Christianity and the Bible is infinite and not finite in nature.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Infinity’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, M. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

13 comments:

  1. I firmly believe in the use of both theology and science in the pursuit of truth. I am by no means a scientist, but believe that it is a way of finding empirical truth. Theology is a means of finding philosophical truth.

    If I was not a theologian attempting to finish my PhD, I probably would pursue some type of creative job in computer science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Faith. I feel so small now though, and some of my friends call me thekingpin;).

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said!
    And those are great pictures too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, loved the pictures as well! Nice job. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. These eyes they grieve in pity for my heart. I have known the suffering of every tear utterly undone they fall. Will they remember the words I spoke? My gentle heart goes willingly with her, but I must remain here. Weeping, I then will speak of her again, and again, who to her heaven came so suddenly, leaving Love grieving here on earth with me...

    To the high heaven she has gone, up to the realm where Angels dwell in peace, she lives with them now. To this world she bade farewell. Tis no degree of cold on her has won, nor of such heat as makes all others cease: it only was her goodness, great appeal. So did her shining humbleness excel, it passed the heavens with such wondrous worth, it moved to marvel the eternal Sire, so that a sweet desire pricked Him to call such worthiness from earth, and made her to himself go from down here: for when He saw this life of suffering had not been made for such a gentle thing...


    Her gentle spirit, full of gentle grace, at last departed from her beauteous frame, and chose in glory its most worthy home. He who weeps not, {Mark David Breakiron} when talking of her trace, harbors a heart of wickedness and shame, to which no kindly spirits ever shall come.


    No mind, if heart is wicked, may so roam as to imagine in the least her lot: therefore no grief or weeping will transpire. But sadness and desire of tears and sighs and death, and every thought that fails to comfort for a loss of immense, conquer those souls that even once recall the thing she was, now taken from us all...

    Ahhhhhhhhh so much anguish nearly halts my breath when the least thought to this comes in my grievous mind brings back the one who split my heart in me; and oftentimes, when thinking of her death the color from my face fades utterly. And when the imagining is sharp in me, from everywhere I'm struck by such dismay that at the ache I feel right then I start to cry, and so distraught it grows. Fore it is then that I am alone in every crowd.

    I wander in my tears....

    For a face that looks like mine.

    Angel Feathers Tickle Me

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for creating this addition on the universe to your blog. It is simply amazing to see our planet's size in comparison to other planets and stars. What an incredible, eye opening perspective on planet Earth!!
    I remember reading a short article somewhere that said that our Milky Way Galaxy is travelling through space at 375 miles per second! and that our Sun and solar system is travelling along at 12.4 miles per second! What an amazing universe in which we live, and what an amazing Creator who created this all!!
    -Sir BB-

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cheers, Sir BB.

    If we were too close to any one of those suns, there would be no "we".
    I doubt that the universe was established randomly, although randomness, or apparent randomness could come from order I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i understand how one might look at this representation of the universe and see a metaphysical entity behind it, but that conclusion is hardly a forgone one. others may (and do) look at it and reach the exact opposite conclusion, namely, that humans, instead of being importan and central to the universe are instead insignificant and trifling little specs in the overwhelming whole.

    now who knows which is the more accurate representation, but i just thought i would interject on your blog and offer a dissenting opinion. keep up the good posts; they are well thought out and interesting, which is more than i can say for many of the blogs on the web.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, thanks!

    I am dealing with Kant and the noumena realm a little with my PhD work, and I readily admit that God cannot be empirically known, as in empirically scientifically provable. I do think God can reveal himself in the person of Christ and supernaturally when he desires. It that sense God can be known.

    I appreciate you pointing out that my arguments and points are well thought out, and from my theodicy research I think there are some good arguments from atheists and theists. The first cause argument that I discussed on thekingpin68 has me thinking that there is a creator from the perspective of natural theology and if one looks at my NT Manuscripts article on s&t, I reason that the Bible was written by actual historical persons that experienced the supernatural, and so I believe that revelation is the primary reason to believe in God and Christ. My arguments on these points are not exhaustive I admit, but I am not going to attempt to write another PhD on line of course:).

    As far as meaning is concerned, the following does not on its own prove God's existence or everlasting life. Rejecting God and everlasting life, we shall look at Donald Trump and give his life a hypothetical 9/10, and we shall look at a street person on Hastings in Vancouver and give his life a 1/10. When both these persons die in my view their lives both become 0/10. Neither person can take any success with them and are not conscious and therefore I conclude both their lives are virtually meaningless. One can argue that Trump will likely leave a greater legacy, and I agree, but in death he does not enjoy his legacy and as the centuries and millennia go by his legacy will fade. As well all persons that enjoy his legacy will die and not consciously remember Trump or experience his impact. The only way I can see life being any more than slightly meaningful is for there to be a God who provides everlasting life, and sadly everlasting punishment. The Bible portrays this reality and it describes a meaningful existence.

    Cheers,

    Russ

    ReplyDelete