Logic Times
Comment Page
Page Two
First Cause
3: truth seeker
October 24, 2004 03:46pm EST
I would like to submit that attempts to use science (or man's knowledge generally) to authenticate the existence or nature of God are essentially futile, and if anything, put one's faith at risk.
{Aslan: I agree that it is futile to try and prove the existence of God. The nature of God is something else - this we can apprehend. The purpose of the First Cause thesis is to point out the folly of the atheistic claim that the existence of God can be refuted. One can demonstrate, as I have done, that to disprove God is an equally untenable position. And that, using their tenets of investigation, the theistic belief is curiously reinforced.}
The essential premise is that we are an unknown distance from actually understanding the nature of the universe, and whether or not there is more to "physical" reality beyond that. The pattern of human kind is to believe we are close to answers, only to be stunned at how far from the truth we must truly be. Newton's findings were accepted as fact for a long time, but in fundamental respects he was apparently wrong. One scientist famously predicted (around the turn of the last century I believe) that we were close to knowing all there was to know about science. More recently, and I paraphrase, a physicist observed that any fundamental theory that has more than 40 fundamental particles is suspect.
The point to all of that is that it's impossible to know how far we are from knowing the real truth behind the nature of time, the universe, and other concepts, and whether or not those are even useful constructs. We're like a praying mantis on the edge of a cornfield debate the possible existence of a being called the farmer. It's interesting, science can absolutely better mankind, but if any element of faith or justification of God is based on science, religion is in real trouble.
{Aslan: Here I disagree. Science is not opposed to faith or separate from it. Indeed, science is an aspect of creation, an angle from which we regard this created universe. Science, I would suggest, is Man's systematic attempt to classify God's creation. That God's creation can, at times, be systematically organized speaks volumes about His design. There is no question that we are like that praying mantis - we are overwhelmingly ignorant - but what we can and do know, being part of creation, should be in harmony with theology, not discordant with it.}
The bottom line is that personal faith, combined with human oral and written tradition and the statements of faith by others, is the real path to driving spirituality in our lives. We by definition cannot know the nature of God unless he tells us. In the past, when he wants to tell us something, he isn't subtle. Barring God having an interest in knowing more, we should stick with executing his will. Jesus laid that out in terms a child can understand, and so the key is execution of his will, not debating it or the source of it's authority.
{Aslan: There is wisdom in your words here. If the theses on Logic Times were intended to be the backbone of any spirituality, it would be an utter failure. Science can and does reinforce spirituality, for some more than others.
However, from experience I have seen that today's secular scientific world has placed a filter between God's revelation and some of His creatures. That filter rejects "unscientific" claims to revelation. However, it is my assertion that since science is just another part of His creation, it should be an ally in the evangelical effort, not an enemy. Accurate science can never contradict sound theology.
And do not discount the role of science in spreading God's majesty. Romans 1:19: "19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (emphasis added)}
4: Ansel
October 27, 2004 11:23am EST
You have provided an age-old argument for the existence of a Creator...but thus far, your argument can be applied to any monotheistic religion with a Creator-God. You have failed to show how the possibility for a Creator necessarily leads to a Christian God, you just go straight into quoting scripture... where's the logic in that?
{Aslan: An excellent point. However, you will notice that my original post made no mention of the Christian God, just of a Creator. So you are correct that this applies to “any monotheistic religion with a Creator-God.” My response to truth seeker was specific to him, and, since he referenced Jesus (granting the Christian concession in our little debate), I responded in kind.
In other words, you are right – there is no logic in connecting my original post to a Christian God. I do have a slew of Christian apologetics, but I think Logic Times is not the place for that, at least at this time.}
5: Stephen Loftin
November 5, 2004 4:36pm EST
I applaud your response to Truth Seeker’s comments on the role of science in proving God. The point is not to derive our theology or our relationship with God from science but to use science as the tool that it is.
In fact, Dr. Jay Richards with the Discovery Institute argues (I believe in Privileged Planet) that the Earth is the perfect platform from which to make scientific discoveries about our universe due to its position within the galaxy and solar system, the moon’s 1:1 ratio in terms of its size vs. distance to the sun (the reason we are able to have complete solar eclipses), etc. He then argues that the chances of the one known habitable planet in the universe also being the best place from which to make observations about the universe are so miniscule that this must be another proof that points to Intelligent Design and a Creator. He is a fascinating lecturer and well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.
Psalm 19:1-2 also speaks to the role of science (or observation) in knowing God:
1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
Your series on Theology does a good job in explaining two of the three impossible hurdles (creation of time and space and the awareness of man) for an atheistic/scientific explanation of the universe and man. The third impossible hurdle (actually the second if you order them by progression) is the existence of life on our planet with no apparent cause. The creation of our universe, the advent of life on Earth and the jump from instinct to Understanding and Awareness are the three most critical moments in the history of man and science has no rational theories to explain how these critical changes occurred (unless you’re inclined to believe in multiple planes of existence or extraterrestrial seeding, which are just forms of "it’s turtles all the way down").
I thoroughly enjoy your website. Keep it up!
{Aslan: Thank you, Stephen. No question science reinforces faith, it does not diminish it.}
6: Paul5388
November 6, 2004 11:45pm EST
Many times cause and effect is the same as saying, there is a sequence of events that indicates/necessitates the passage of time. The proponents of Open Theism come to mind in this regard, trying to "prove" God doesn't know all of the future before it happens, because He is captive to His creation. Since God communed with Adam, walking with him and talking with him in the garden, that sequence of events, among others, shows God is in time, not outside of time. Of course, that position does violence to the clear statement that time is meaningless to God (that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. II Peter 3.8).
It is very difficult for finite man to understand the infinite. Our reference points always stem from our material existence. Dr. Irwin Moon, in one of the Moody Science Classics, came very close to giving us an understanding of the difference between the material world and the place of God's infinite existence. Given a basic understanding that molecules have more empty space than particles filling space, the only thing that prevents us, or anything else, from passing through a "solid" substance, without damage to either, is timing and/or the principle of like particles repelling each other (the electrons in the orbital shells are the first thing encountered for both substances). With enough velocity, timing can be somewhat offset, as seen in the winds of a tornado sticking a broom straw through the majority of a telephone pole. Velocity isn't the factor involved in Jesus' appearance in the midst of a room, even though the entrances were closed (John 20.26). As an infinite being, He isn't constrained/hindered by the same laws of the material world that we are. Therefore, He appeared, without benefit of doors or other conventional means of entering a room, and yet was touched/handled by Thomas.
We are made in the image of God, not an exact duplication of Him.
{Aslan: Excellent, Paul. You raise several good points. However, I happen to be somewhat intrigued with the Open Theism theory of ontological time. Intrigued, not convinced. The important aspect of ontological time to appreciate is that it is voluntary and therefore the Creator retains all powers and abilities as it relates to His ability to transcend time. I have a post that I will make on the aspects of this theory that I find compelling.}
(more comments here)