God and Science

Prologue

History has often shown a rift between deity and science. This is commonly seen in mythology and folklore. Many throughout time have chosen their sides and stood by their perspectives at all cost. Those that believe in myths often overlook or refuse to accept scientific fact. In contrast, the more analytically minded scientists may choose to overlook or refuse to accept anything that can not be proven conclusively through scientific procedure. Typically though, most people fall somewhere in between. They accept myth that may appear feasible or make it fit in to scientific probability, or they add unrealistic or improvable theory to fill in the gaps in science. This has led to many disagreements and divisions among both myth and science. One side condemns the other for proposing concepts that can not be proven as support for their theory, and the other side condemns the other for the same. But just because something can not be proven does not make it “un-scientific” or untrue. It may very well be a valid reality. Sometimes, science must be supported with theory since the amount of information, facts or data may be limited or lacking. So it is the task of science to analyze each theory to see which ones hold merit (are feasible) and pursue after those that could be valid.

Myth, on the other hand, can be divided into two main categories; Deity and Folklore. Folklore is typically a story or concept that is associated with an existing object or entity. An example would be that snakes do not die until sunset. This is obviously untrue and science has proven that although the animal is dead, its muscles may contract for sometime afterward. Deity deals with beings that are considered gods or God. Obviously this category could be broadly defined by any group of people. So it will be broken down into two subgroups called Deios and Mythos. Mythos deals with gods that are superior to humans technologically and/or physically and may have special powers and abilities (including immortality). Deios refers to a supreme being, God, Who is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. He created all things and rules and reigns over the cosmos (the cosmos is everything; our universe is part of the cosmos). A comparison would be Zeus throwing lightning bolts from mount Olympus, which is a poor equivalent to God; therefore he would be relegated to Mythos. In this paper Deity will refer to God only. The reason for this is that gods are not equivalent to God. Another point is that there is little controversy between the scientific community and Mythos.

When considering the scope of this controversy, it is necessary to have a starting point. Since everything seems to have a beginning or point of creation, it would only be right to begin with subjects orientated towards creation.

NOTE: This document is not for those who prefer the wading end of the pool. The author has tried to keep it as simple as possible for the sake of any who may wish to read it. But please understand that some of the things presented are very deep in concept.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 1: Fundamental Differences in Creation and Evolutionary Theory

Since the beginnings of science to the present time, the origins of creation have been a hotly debated subject. Initial concepts were often shrouded in myth and folklore until science unveiled the actual truths behind many things. Over the past one hundred and fifty years or so, two concepts have struggled at the forefront of the creation debate. They are Evolution and Creation theory (for the sake of discussion, Intelligent Design will not be included in this chapter since it may incorporate opposing viewpoints). In order to better understand each theory, it is necessary to evaluate the basic concept of each.

Beginning with Evolution, it is based upon the theory that all life began from inorganic matter, which formed into simple cellular life forms, which “evolved” into more complex and more “advanced” forms reaching their apex at the various types we see today. Creation, in contrast, states that all things were designed and given life by a Creator (typically referred to as God). In its most fundamental form, Creation does not accept Evolution as a valid theory, although there are some creationists that incorporate the concept in their theories. It considers all life to have been created after its own “kind” (i.e. cats and dogs are different kinds).

If we go a step farther, we can examine some of the basic concepts that each uses to support themselves;

Fossil Evidence:Evolution – Claims there are many transitional forms that have been found, thereby supporting evolutionary

change.Creation – Claims there are no transitional forms and that many of the kinds considered transitional have

simply been mis-classified.The Facts - All fossil evidence suggests is that there was a wide variety of creatures which are now extinct

(as well as evidence of living representatives of long dead relatives). No evidence of anything changing into another can be proven. The problem with fossil evidence is that it is based predominantly on osteology (the study of bones). Bones may be a good basic means of determining similitude, but it is not the ultimate defining factor. To actually show that something has progressed in an upward (evolutionary) path DNA must be evaluated and it must be shown how the cells transitioned from one form to another. Microevolution, Genetic Variation and DNA Inheritance:

Evolution – Claims that genetic variation (i.e. subspecies, such as various types of dogs or cats) is a form of evolution termed Microevolution. As the organism propagates (reproduces) it passes DNA through its offspring causing more evolution through DNA Inheritance. By claiming this, evolutionists have tried to changed its definition to any genetic change is an evolutionary change.

Creation – Claims that microevolution does not exist and that genetic variation is simply a specific kind losing genetic information, thereby causing certain traits to become prominent. It also states that DNA inheritance supports this concept of genetic information loss.

The Facts: Evolution, from its beginnings, has always been portrayed as an upward genetic advancement (such as a modification or gain of information that would benefit the organism). You can not go from a simple celled organism to a complex multi-cellular organism by genetic variation, DNA inheritance or loss of genetic information. Albeit, evolutionists claim that is macroevolution and not microevolution, but either way, they are evolution. So far it has yet to be proven that any new information has actually been acquired by any organism. It has been shown that over time the loss of genetic information has led to deformities and mutations.2 nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Evolution – Some claim that this law supports that; as time progresses in a closed system, everything becomes chaotic. Once things become chaotic, evolution occurs.

Creation – Claim that this law undermines evolution because evolution is based on genetic advancements over time, where this law states that all things reach a basal or disorderly state over time (no advancement).

The Facts: Actually, the law began as a reference to heat transfer. Heat can only be transferred to a colder source; it can not be transferred from a colder source to a warmer one. Therefore, “heat” energy in a closed system will eventually reach a basal state in which it is equivalent to the basal cold state as the energy is transferred (and subsequently lost). In essence, this does not support an advancing evolutionary theory (if it were applied to genetics). There are some that have suggested that the universe is a closed system and that other universes could work quite differently. Clearly, that is not a realistic perspective, since the cosmos (everything) is the closed system, not the universe. So, all the universes are included within this closed system, the cosmos.

As we can see, things are not always as they are portrayed. It is important that both schools of thought remain true to the laws that were originally proven to be valid scientifically. If they do, then in the end there may be little difference in the concepts they propose.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 2: An Ideal World

What is an “ideal world”? How is it created? Most people have their own concept of what an ideal world would entail. It may be that they live in a luxurious setting with servants to obey their every whim, or it may be a tropical paradise where there are no problems, rules or restraints. No matter what the scenario consists of, we all have our own personal concept based on what we would like.

Imagine for a moment what it would be like to be omnipotent. What if we could shape the cosmos as we would like, how would we design it? Would each solar system have unique physical laws governing it? That would only bring about chaos. Perhaps we would prefer that the earth have the sun shine only on one side. Then the other would be barren unless other laws were created. Aside from that, everyone would not have the benefit of a partial day of sunlight with beautiful sunrises and sunsets. Without other laws to compensate, it would be a vast waste of space. What about gravity? Does the earth’s motion contribute to the force that restrains us to this globe? So another law would need to be made. So no matter the configuration, the present general design of things appears to be an ideal concept, or does it?

Based upon Biblical history (since most other concepts lack a clear definition of an ideal world), the earth (and the cosmos) was created perfect. By the term “perfect”, it means without flaw. There was no death, no disease, everything prospered. That is the way we would all prefer it to be in our ideal world. But mankind rebelled against God and death and disease entered into the world as a consequence. Eventually, mankind rebelled even more and God judged the world with a global flood. Based upon these events, some of the environmental issues we see today can be attributed to the results of either the initial fall or the great flood. Many of those issues could be because the earth was re-formed at the time of the flood of Noah. Earthquakes and other natural disasters appear to be a by-product of the re-shaping that occurred. So in the ideal world, there would be no earthquakes, no floods, no tsunamis, no droughts, just a constant consistent pleasant environment for all life to exist within.

What about some of the environmental issues that are not based upon the natural world? Things like starvation, crime and war? But wait! Starvation, like many of the ills of mankind, is due to man himself. The earth has more than enough capacity to feed all the people that are on it. What keeps that from happening is based upon either mankinds lust for power, money or sheer laziness. The same motivations along with self-gratification fuel the instances of crime and war that plague the world. In some cases, it may be considered that the laws imposed upon people may be unrealistic or over restrictive. That can cause some who would be normally considered benefits to society as criminals. So in an ideal world, we would all work together to eradicated starvation. Laws that only benefit society and the individuals within it would be enacted. Crimes would not be committed and no one would go to war. There would be a constant peace where everyone could work together for the benefit of society and each other and enjoy their own personal pursuits as well.

Let’s step back into reality. If a human were given the ability to be omnipotent (not a good idea), they could form the cosmos so that it worked by any type of laws they chose. Clearly, they would eventually come up with an ideal solution, even if it were by trial and error. Even then, they would struggle with the self-gratifying motivations that plague us all. God, on the other hand, Who is omniscient, knows what works the best automatically (I know if you were omnipotent you’d want to be omniscient as well). Also, God’s motivations are not like ours. If you base God upon the Biblical perspective, He is the only example of deity that is willing to suffer and die such a horrible death to allow His creation to be restored to fellowship with Him. Most gods just destroy those that oppose them with no opportunity of reconciliation. According to the Bible, one day God will destroy this cosmos and create a new one (as noted in the book of Revelation). Based upon that concept, that will be the ideal world. No more pain, suffering, death, sorrow, disease and all the maladies that plague humanity and cause it grief. So can we create the ideal world? Only in our imagination but not by our own ability, and trying to restructure the present one to such a condition is often

fruitless. So we are left to either hope in a God that will one day save us from ourselves and/or the ambition to strive to make the most of this present world with what we have available, or the mindset of hopelessness that afflicts many.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 3: Creation (The Basics)

So what is the basic reason for creation? Some have suggested that if God exists, He made the cosmos as a “big petri dish” in which to conduct His experiments. Obviously, this is not “God” in His truest form, because that being is omniscient. An omniscient being has no need for random tests to determine the result. They know what will happen. Based on their foreknowledge, they can design the best example of what their mind conceives. No random tests and fruitless results to process, just a perfect example from their endeavors.

Then you might wonder; if this ultimate being created a vast cosmos, wouldn’t it be more economical to create more life bearing planets than just one? If you consider that it would require more energy to create more life, obviously the math does not correlate. It would be more expensive. Should the being doing the creating be omnipotent, that part of the equation is irrelevant, because either way, they would remain all powerful (even though it would be less economical based on an expenditure basis). Now if the Creator’s plan did not require all those extra life forms, then motivation becomes a key element. What were the Creator’s motivations if His initial plan was to only populate one planet? Perhaps, the reason for this vast cosmos with the possibility of life on only one planet is simply to show the immense power of the Creator to His creation. If He truly is omnipotent, it would be but a little thing for Him to create such a vast array of astronomical bodies. It could be that the motivation is simply to show His creation that He can take care of them. The Bible states that “the heavens declare the glory of the Lord”. So what greater glory would there be than to have ones own creation look to the stars and ponder such a magnificent God.

Another concept is that the earth is a “discarded petri dish” to God. This is in reference to Alexander Fleming who had a discarded petri dish in which he discovered penicillin. Once again the omniscience of God plays a role. An omnipotent, omniscient God would know before hand what would occur and therefore would not find something new in a “discarded petri dish”. If He set His creation aside for a time, it may be to allow it to mature to the point He desired. I know, you say “Why not just create it at that point and be done with it?” Consider this, if you had eternity to accomplish whatever you chose, would time really matter? This would also deny the benefit of the creation experiencing the results and consequences of their own existence. This and other points will be addressed in later chapters. In contrast, the Biblical God created all things with a purpose rather than finding it in a piece of discarded creation.

Some have said that God really is not omniscient because He needed to create the cosmos first before making mankind. This is a mute point. If He is omniscient He can choose to create however He chooses. So it does not prove a point either way. Actually it tries to undermine what an omniscient God may be trying to say. Was there a plan or parable behind His methodology? It clearly is not “written in stone”, but it could be that His reasoning was that; we are a part of His creation, Creation did not come from us, it came from God. When looking at it in this perspective, we can clearly see that the point may have been to curb our prideful nature which may have caused mankind to think that they were the source of all that exists.

Probably one of the most ridiculous concepts suggested though has been the idea that God could have been produced in a lab. How can you create an omnipotent being? If the being is truly omnipotent, that would mean that what created Him would need to be more powerful. That is unrealistic. It may work in science fiction, but in the real world it is definitely something that is impossible. Further more, if He fine tunes the cosmos in contrast to allowing random events, it does not undermine His existence. A being such as God allows what He wills and can alter anything in any manner He so desires. His “fine tuning” as some call it, may not be due to the failure of Him to produce a perfect creation, but the result of the creations action amid His creation. In a sense it is like a parent cleaning up after a child. The parent did not create the mess, but their actions correct the situation.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 4: The Beginning of Everything

People often make assumptions when developing theories in science. This can be good or bad depending on how far the concept deviates from a realistic scientific approach and/or how it fits in to known science. In this chapter the concept of whether something had a beginning will be evaluated. Did it have a beginning and if so when did it occur? Each section will be broken down according to an accepted principle in the scientific community.

Principle: Time had a BeginningTime, by definition, is a scale in which the sequential progression of all events occurs. Based upon

this concept, prior to the first day of creation, there would not have been any need for time because there were no events occurring. Nothing was performing an action, nothing was in a static or at rest state, and nothing was doing anything. In the Biblical tense, there was nothing at this point anyway, except for God. God was still God, but nothing was happening and He was not doing anything of note. So until something occurred (i.e. the creation of the heavens and earth) there would not have been any need for time. In the book of Genesis it also notes that God set the heavenly bodies (stars, planets, etc.) in the sky so that times and seasons could be measured. So even though it may not specifically cite “time began”, it does imply that time did not have a beginning. If time did have a beginning, then how could eternity be included?Principle: The Universe had a Beginning

Everyone generally assumes that the universe had a beginning. Whether you are a believer in the “Big Bang” or a Creation scientist, everyone thinks it started at some point in time. Some think it developed over time to its present state, while others believe an omnipotent being created it in a week. Either way, it had to have had a beginning. Something needed to get everything moving, and obviously, there was a need for something to ignite the suns and generate the energy needed to actuate all the heavenly bodies as well as give life to the things on the earth. This all agrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything strives for a state of equilibrium (which is typically a static state, i.e. cold, dead), it only makes sense that something had to ignite the fuse that started everything.

Principle: The Universe was Created from the InvisibleThis is not a scientific principle, but has been included here for the sake of analysis. In the scientific

realm, there are only a few things that can not be seen (some require visual aids such as microscopes, etc.) that can be scientifically proven to exist. A good example is the wind. So from a scientific standpoint, it is not possible to validate such a claim at this point. In the Biblical sense, Hebrews 11:3 speaks of how the worlds (cosmos) were created by the Word of God out of what is not visible. This verse actually can be interpreted with a dual meaning. Obviously, those meanings are in contrast. As far as hidden dimensions, they are not clarified. The presumption by some is that an invisible substance was used to create everything. This is not the only option though. It is clear that before creation the one thing that existed was God. Therefore, it may be deduced that the cosmos was created from nothing. This can be further supported by the point that God created the cosmos through His Word. So He spoke it into existence. Nothing is said that He used some magical invisible substance to accomplish this feat. He simply spoke, and it existed. In this scientific oriented culture, that seems unrealistic since all things must come from something else. It is not possible for us to create something from nothing, nor does anything appear from nothing. We also lack the ability to speak something into existence by sheer will and vocal ability. There is always a source. So at the very least, we could say that God created the universe from Himself (since He appears to have been the only thing in existence). At the most, it may be deduced that He created it from nothing.

Principle: The Dimensions of the Universe were CreatedThis is a rhetorical statement and is supported and explained in the previous principles. A good note is

that time is a dimension, just as height, width and depth. It is clear that these scalar dimensions existed since

forever, the point at which they were actually defined is unclear. Does this mean that God did not create them? First we must understand that the term “dimension” is a reference to a form of measurement. It is a definition. Just as the word “God” refers to the ultimate supreme deity, dimensions are simply definitions of a type of measurement. The real contrast is what is being defined. God is a being and has substance. Dimensions do not have substance and are used to further analyze and/or define other things. So actually, dimensions do not exist as an entity but simply as a defining term. Therefore, they are not a created object or an eternal object, but defining terms to describe either. So if a defining term to describe God at this pre-historical point were used, it would not supercede or equal God as the originator of everything.

Principle: The Universe is ExpandingTypically the Bible and popular science have been considered to be in agreement on this concept that the

universe is expanding (although some recent studies have suggested this may be invalid). In the Bible, Isaiah 42:5 makes the point that God stretched out the heavens (this may explain why things which would take a very long time to occur may have been created instantaneously). Traditional scientific theories support the expansion theory by measuring spectral shifts. New theories have suggested that spectral shifts may not be an accurate way of measuring whether things are really expanding. In either case, the Bible does not specifically say the universe is expanding, only that initially God stretched out the heavens. So either scientific theory may be valid and more research will hopefully clear up which is more accurate.

Principle: Light Existed Before All Other Created ThingsAlthough this principle is Biblically based and not scientifically propagated, it was necessary to include it

here because of various viewpoints to the contrary. According to the Bible, the sun and moon were created after light. Clearly, darkness did not need to be created because it is an absence of light, so the Genesis account of dark being created simply must imply that God gave it a descriptive value at this point. Unfortunately, science can not prove when light was created. Aside from the fact it needs a source to generate it, there is no scientific evidence to support when the original event occurred. So the Biblical theory could be valid, from a scientific standpoint, because light would need a source (God) to begin. It is of note that light does not require the sun or any other astronomical object to be generated. Lightning produces light, as do luminescent objects. So when light began in relation to other things is left quite open. Clearly though, it needed to have a beginning (a source to generate it).

Some have suggested that a Biblical Genesis day was thousands if not millions of years. Not only would this be counterproductive to evolutionary theory (birds created before dinosaurs), but it does not hold weight when the passages are examined. So as far as a day taking years, it clearly states that the evening and morning were a specific day. This was written to a bunch of farmers. There are no hidden interpretations. A day is a day. Therefore, all plant life would have only need to wait a day before the sun was created in order for them to generate photosynthesis. Ironically, plants grow just fine under artificial light. So the sun is actually not required for them to grow. Obviously, we can not scientifically prove what that source may have been. From a Biblical aspect, it may have been God.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 5: The Magical Words of God

Some have suggested that God used “magical words” to create the cosmos. This is clearly speculation, since no one was there at the time this occurred (in a Biblical sense). It is of note that from a Biblical perspective, this is untrue. If magical words were used, it would mean that those “words” actually had power unto themselves. In essence it could be said that they had power that God lacked so He needed to use them. This would undermine the concept that God is an omnipotent being. So clearly, for Him to remain omnipotent there needed to be a different methodology. The Bible clearly says that “God said let there be…” and there was. No magical words, just an exclamation of fact based on faith. It was not “magical words” that created everything but God’s power enacted by His faith.

So whether God created everything from nothing through the power of His might enacted by His spoken Word, or if all things were created from God, since there was nothing before Him, or that He created all things from part of His original creation, it does not change the result. All things were originally created by Him, according to the Bible. This is once again something that can not be supported scientifically. No one was there when it occurred to validate God did it. There is no evidence of a specific methodology that can cause it either. So science can not support this theory nor can it disprove it. It is not possible for us to make God into anything other than what He exists as. We may make false impressions of what we think God to be, but they are not God. So by saying that we do not know how God intricately created everything does not invalidate the possibility that He did. By speaking God enacted His faith to make it come to pass. Just thinking a concept does not necessarily require faith, because faith requires that the believer act upon their belief. Therefore faith requires action and the ability to bring it to pass.

If we look at things from a Biblical perspective, it is interesting how some people often want to know how God does things as if that may lessen His position and allow them to attain a higher one. Sometimes it is just curiosity. In any case, we can not become God. There is only one God (omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, original creator of all based on Biblical theory), and the most we could hope to gain is to learn His ways of doing things so that we can at best be imitators of Him. Even then, we can not be equal to God.

As far as how God created the universe, the Bible says that one day God will destroy this heaven and earth and create a new one. Guess who will be there to watch? All those that believed the Bibles claim about God. This follows perfectly well with the theme of the book. God created mankind. Mankind doubted God and rebelled. God judged mankind. God provided a way of atonement so that mankind could be reconciled with God. God offered mankind a second chance. Some will believe and some will not. Those who do will exist with God in paradise forever, while those who do not will be separated from Him and be in torment.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 6: Multiverses

Multiverse theory is unknown to a large part of the population. The basics of it are; that our universe is one in a collection of universes that comprise the cosmos. Each of these universes came into existence via their own means (i.e. “Big Bang”) and has a unique set of physical constants. Based upon this perspective, it solves the problem of life beginning from inanimate matter and evolving into its present forms. Obviously, a more advanced form of life may have transported life here, under these circumstances. The problem actually is this a valid theory or just good science fiction?

The feasibility of there being multiple universes is not unrealistic. There could be a countless number of them. Is it possible that an omnipotent being created them all? If that being is truly omnipotent, it would not be a problem. Should that not be the case, they would need to be so powerful compared to us that they might appear omnipotent. Either case is not provable though, so although they may be valid, there is no way to support either concept scientifically. In contrast, to suggest that each one “Big Banged” itself into existence with its own set of physical laws is unrealistic. Although each would have its own point of creation, to propose each developing its own physical laws can not be supported. One could say that the omnipotent being created them all different. That would obviously be feasible. The problem would be why would they do so if He created the ideal model to begin with? On the contrary, physical laws are standards that are applicable across the cosmos (the cosmos is everything). So even if another universe “big banged” itself, it would still maintain the same physical laws that are standard throughout the cosmos.

A theory some use to support the concept of a “Big Bang” is the Scalar Field Theory. It cites that the basic material that forms the cosmos exists as a scalar energy field. This field operates the same was as an electrical field. These “vacuum fields” fill the universe and react like electricity when a field of low vacuum contacts one of higher vacuum (similar to ground and a potential source). When this occurs, an explosion is created (i.e. “Big Bang”). Although this may be a valid way of creating an explosion, it does not hold that it constantly and randomly creates “big bangs” that create new universes. Actually, from most appearances, it seems that space is predominantly a high vacuum field and low vacuum fields tend to be those that surround planets or other large astral bodies. So what keeps all these astral bodies from exploding and making their own “big bang” and why aren’t all these astral bodies sucked into the vacuum of space? If this were true we would be seeing everything “big banging” itself into oblivion. In reality, the gravity of most astral bodies seems to be what holds it and its atmosphere together. Therefore, I am not totally convinced that this theory is as valid as projected.

Another theory that is based on scalar fields is the Chaotic Inflation Theory. It has the same issues as noted with Scalar Field Theory, and will not be evaluated here.

Creation Concepts

Chapter 7: Heaven

One of the most popular concepts throughout history has been heaven. Heaven is typically referred to as a place where there is no more death, pain or suffering and only eternal bliss and enjoyment. It is a place that only the best people are allowed to enter (in some religions). Others have an open door policy for all but the worst offenders. In reality, is the possibility of heaven feasible?

No matter what religion you choose, heaven is a place that is not found on this earthly realm. It is typically considered a spiritual place set apart from temporal existence. The real issue with this is validating it scientifically. Scientific methods of testing lack a way of examining things that may belong in a “spiritual” realm. The best that science can provide is analyzing interactions and results with such a place and this temporal existence. This is obviously problematic and can lead to misleading data and invalid conclusions. Some people actually have a problem accepting the possibility that heaven is a spiritual realm and not a physical/material realm. Their primary argument is that since there is a lack of evidence it is not feasible. This is clearly not a valid argument. If we were to say that present evidence does not support such a theory, then it could be used to annul non-scientifically valid theories, but that is not the case here. Just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean that something does not exist in a form or state we have yet to define. Obviously from a scientific standpoint, it is necessary to determine if such a concept is even feasible before suggesting it as a possible theory though.

So is it possible that such a place exists? If we consider that in a spiritual realm, as defined by many religions, a temporal body (like the one we live within) does not exist. Therefore, all that exists would need to be in another form (typically referred to as ethereal or spiritual). Is this possible? Clearly, there is no evidence to counter that possibility. Scientific evidence as a whole has been focused more on defining and examining this temporal existence. At this point, it is unclear that any temporal measuring devices could be made that would allow us to peer into such a realm. That being the case, is it impossible that such a place actually exists? Clearly not, so at this point, the possibility is that such a place may exist (from a scientific perspective), but that the only evidence to support it are texts written by people (i.e. the Holy Bible) and projected theory. Although it may make the more analytically minded suspicious, it does not invalidate the possibility that those who wrote these things were telling the truth. So although the possibility of Heaven remains unproven scientifically, it does not make it impossible.

God Concepts

Chapter 8: What Created God?

Many wonder if the cosmos had a beginning, then did God have one. Is there a source that created God? It is difficult for us to conceive the idea that eternity goes in both directions. Everything we know has a beginning. So why did not God have a source? This path leads us to other questions which we will examine.

Some believe that the universe must have begun with an initial cause which lacked a cause. If it did not, then there would have been an infinite regression of cause and effect. Perhaps an obstacle to this concept of infinite regression is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (examined in Chapter 1). Since everything tends to equalize over time, everything eventually would be equalized and lack a means of causation. To avoid this scenario, a catalyst must be injected into the equation that causes even when things have equalized. So from an eternal aspect, there would need to have been a constant causation from a source to keep everything going. So this leads us back to where the initial cause started.

This same concept can be applied when considering the possibility that an eternal being (that had no beginning) created everything. If this being did exist forever before the moment of creation, then wouldn’t there be an infinite regression of memories? The answer to this is quite simple; if nothing existed before creation other than God, there would be nothing else to remember. That being could have been in an aware state and not thought about anything until the moment they decided to conceive the cosmos. So there would not have been a regression of memories because there would not have been anything to remember.

Another theory some have suggested is that God may have evolved. It is an interesting contrast that many that believe this also believe that; anything which has evolved from another source can not be the source that created all things and so could not be God. In fact, by believing this way they have disproved their own theory. This theory can easily be disproved anyway when one of the key elements of God is taken into account. If God is omnipotent, then He would require an omnipotent source to evolve from. So if the source is omnipotent, then the by-product could not be otherwise they would be equal, and it is impossible to have two omnipotent sources. Either one is omnipotent or the other, but not both. Also, how could this ability even be transferred? Actually, it could not. Omnipotence is an absolute state. It denotes a level of perfection and completion that can not be equated and therefore can not be transferred. If something is omnipotent, it was originally in that state because it could not be attained; therefore it could not have been created.

This brings us to the concept of self-existence. To be self-existent, the object must be able to sustain itself in its natural form irregardless of other influences and must be solely supported by its own power and ability. Obviously, nothing we know of in this physical realm has such an ability. Therefore, God is perhaps the only being written about in a factual sense that has such power. Some have suggested that if items are found that suggest intelligence (typically due to their complexity) then they must have been created by an intelligent source. Based upon this premise, some have suggested that; due to God’s complexity He would need to have a creator or intelligent source. This is untrue. God as defined (the ultimate supreme being) could not have had a creator or source simply due to His omnipotent nature (as previously pointed out). The point about suggesting an intelligent source does hold true with everything else in creation, as the Bible points out that creation points to a Creator. It appears quite obvious that the issue isn’t the feasibility of such a being existing, but rather the acceptance that such a one really does exist. Therefore, how can it be explained that a self-existent being has always existed and will always exist? Why does there need to be an explanation of what created God if God has always existed? How can such a thing be proven anyway? Beyond the analysis of feasibility, there really is no way to prove that something has always existed if nothing was there to measure or validate that fact. So even though it is possible that God has always existed, there is no way to prove it. Therefore, the inability to prove something does not make it untrue as long as the possibility that such could be valid. Some have tried to counter this concept by dancing around with semantics (the meaning of things). Even if there wasn’t a language on the

entire planet that could explain such a concept, it does not negate the possibility that it exists. So the possibility that there is a self-existent being referred to as God is quite possible.

So what is God made of? There is no scientific evidence to support what God’s normal form is made from. According to the Bible, God is a spirit. Since a spirit lacks the material aspects that are commonly attributed to this physical form, and according to the Bible God created everything, it would be safe to postulate that a non-physical form has the ability to create physical forms. How this is done is beyond our understanding at this time. But just because we do not understand it does not mean it is impossible. In any case though, to measure, evaluate and catalog spiritual things is beyond our ability at this time. So we are left with a feasible theory, but no way to validate it presently.

This brings us to the real point of the initial question; did God need to be created? Some have gone to great extremes to try and figure out a valid theory for how God came into existence. There have even been those that have suggested He began from an atemporal quantum singularity. The entire point really is; why did God have to be created? If He never had a beginning (has always existed), He therefore obviously wasn’t created. Some have suggested that since the complexity of the eye points to a creator, so the complexity of God should also point to His creator. As noted above the problem here is solved if we consider God in the Biblical sense is omnipotent. In order for something to be omnipotent, it must be all powerful. If a being were all powerful, it could not create another being of such magnitude because then it would be all powerful. Therefore, the omnipotent God does not point to a creator, but to the fact that there is no way He could have been created.

God Concepts

Chapter 9: Multi-dimensional God?

Does God exist in multiple dimensions? Some have suggested that this is possible. Actually, it is a fact. God would exist in all four of the dimensions we commonly are aware of; height, width (length), depth, time. Obviously this is not what they have in mind, but it is an accurate assessment. The Bible does not support claims to a multi-dimensional God, but it does give some interesting contrasts. How Ezekiel (Eze 1), Isaiah (Isa 6) and John (Rev 4) saw God was different. This has implications that will be explained later, but may be nothing more than how He desired to present Himself to each person. First we need to examine a complex theory that supposedly suggests that multiple dimensions exist; String Theory.

String theory is typically considered too overwhelming to understand for the average person. This is mainly due to the fact that “String theory is a work in progress, so trying to pin down exactly what the science is, or what its fundamental elements are can be kind of tricky.” (2009 Jones & Robbins) Some scientists consider it more a case of “fuzzy math” than actual science. Basically, this is how it supposedly works. Everything in our universe is composed of strings which are 1-dimensional vibrating linear objects. Another basic object is called a brane, which is typically considered a flat planar sheet of energy. Strings attach themselves to branes. Stepping even farther into quantum physics, the particles that comprise all things in the universe are either bosons or fermions. It is a mathematical requirement that you must have one of each because they can not exist independently.

If we consider what is stated as fact concerning String theory, we realize that something is wrong. The primary issue with string theory is that it assumes strings are 1-dimensional objects. This is unrealistic. All objects, no matter the size, have a height, width, depth and time measurement. The problem seems to be more in the size is of the measuring units. If you take a line (an example of a string) on a piece of paper, it is considered a 1-dimensional object. In reality, the mark that comprises the line has all the typical characteristics of a four dimensional object. It has length, height, depth and exists within a time frame. Therefore, it is only a 1-dimensional object in theory, not fact. The same applies to strings. Whether the object is a singular point or a string, they both have all four dimensions.

There is also the assumption that for string theory to work, there must be more than four dimensions. Typically six more dimensions are suggested. The claim is that we can not see them because they are too small for us to view. Obviously, if we can not observe them it is difficult to assess their validity. The point that strings are not 1-dimensional objects (as noted above) suggests that these additional dimensions may not be necessary. Even then, it is unrealistic to propose that dimensions reside within dimensions without have properties that pertain to the present “super dimensions” (height, width, depth, time). Therefore, it may be that “sub-dimensions” exist, but they are not defined at this time and most likely have little bearing on the status of “super-dimensions”. It is of note that these extra dimensions are sometimes referred to as points, possibly at the end of the present dimensions. So there would be a point at the end of length (at both ends), height (at both ends), depth (at both ends) and time (at both ends). That actually adds up to twelve dimensions, but to say that a point at the end of a dimension is a dimension lacks credibility. The point is either one part of or more than one part of the present dimensions, not a dimension unto itself. A note posted on Wikipedia summarizes the amount of scientific evidence in support of other dimensions; “…to date, no experimental or observational evidence is available to confirm the existence of these extra dimensions.”

This brings us to a different concept. Let’s call it Gem Theory. Unlike String theory that assumes multiple dimensions, Gem theory utilizes the presently known dimensions but incorporates a different perspective. It would say that the cosmos is like a gem. It has many facets. Each facet may be connected and visible to the others or it may not be, but they are all part of one gem. Unlike the facets of a typical cut gem, this cosmic gem may have facets that project beyond what would be considered the primary gem facet boundaries (project outward away from the gem or through the gem and intersect with facets on the other side). So facets are not

always visible to one another or from other facets but they would still exist and are all part of the same gem. This may explain why spiritual things (in a Biblical sense) are not necessarily discernable to this natural world. Although those things exist within the present four dimensions, they are on a different facet. Based on this concept, the actual shape of the gem may also be rather unconventional as well.

Utilizing the Gem theory, each facet could be considered a different plane of existence or a different material plane. A “plane of existence” would be when/where things actually exist or are real but lack the properties found on other planes. Properties are things such as physical, chemical and biological laws; the laws of nature, etc. In contrast, a “material plane” is based upon the type of materials that comprise all objects that exist within that plane, so different facets could have things that consist of different materials. It is quite possible that these planes may utilize the same items as other planes or that the planes overlap and have a symbiotic relationship. Utilizing this theory, it would be possible for things of different planes to actually exist within another plane and not be visible or detectable. These are all things that would need to be explored and evaluated further.

So is God a multi-dimensional being? Clearly we have established that He must reside within the four basic dimensions. The area that remains unclear is, based on Gem theory, which facet or facets He resides upon and how He interacts with the others.

God Concepts

Chapter 10: Eternal God

It is often cited that using the eternal God scenario is a cop out to how God began. This creates a dilemma in how to explain His existence. If God truly has existed since forever (as the Bible refers to Him as the Self-Existent One), therefore, He never had a beginning but always had existed, how do you explain it any other way? By labeling it a cop out, some have used a typical argument to try and nullify a possible fact because it goes beyond our realm of popular reasoning. This is a common tactic when certain things are beyond explainable (there isn’t enough scientific evidence to support or deny it) and there are proponents to the concept. To make charges of illogic is easier than trying to explain why such can not be realistic and it appears easier to try and disregard the possibility than to accept that it could actually be a fact. Irregardless of personal opinion though, the possibility does remain that God is an eternal being. If this being were omnipotent, it would be a requirement that He would also be eternal. Omnipotence is an attribute that for all practical reasons requires an eternal nature. It can not just appear from nowhere and it can not be attained or transferred. So the only way that God could be omnipotent, is if He had existed since forever.

So what makes a being eternal? As previously noted, omnipotence would be a requirement for a being that has always existed. To exist after having a beginning would require a source that would allow that being to be in perfect condition or maintain that being in a perfect state eternally. If that being were omnipotent, it would be rather simple to say that they would be able to exist as they always had eternally. So once again we are pointed to the perspective that God must be an omnipotent being otherwise He would be dependent upon something else to maintain His existence, therefore He would not be omnipotent but the source would.

God Concepts

Chapter 11: God and Time

God & TimeThe concept of the almighty God being a time-traveler and thereby not being omnipotent has been suggested

by some. There has also been the concept that it is impossible to travel in time, therefore even an omnipotent being could not accomplish that feat. As we all know, time travels in one direction; forward. Time is a period of existence that is measured from a specific starting point to a specific ending point. Events occur within this period of existence and are often defined as occurring at a specific date or “time” (or a more specific term referring to hours, minutes, seconds, etc.). Since time only travels in one direction, how could an omnipotent being ever overcome the inability to travel backwards in time problem? The problem is more our perspective rather than inability. If we use the God of the Bible as an example; He has always existed since before the classification of time, which started at the moment of creation. Obviously if there was nothing before creation but God, what good is time? Are you going to say from a specific point to a specific point something happened? What happened? God happened. You see the dilemma. Prior to creation, time as a defining factor was irrelevant. Some claim that the Bible also says that one day time will be no more (Rev 10:6). This is a mis-interpretation of the Scripture. It actually means that the time of judgment will not wait any longer. To say that one day time will no longer exist may be accurate though if certain points are taken into perspective. Events will occur through any specific period of existence for eternity. That is a fact. The point is that at what “time” does it become irrelevant to catalogue or maintain time? If a being were eternal and lived forever, what purpose does keeping time serve? Nothing, it becomes irrelevant. So time may cease not because of its specific definition, but due to lack of usage. Although it is of note that times and seasons will be kept in regard for the sake of feasts and times of worship.

Back to the point at hand, if God is omnipotent, why can’t He travel back in time? If for the sake of argument we say that God is omniscient (knows everything that has happened, happens and will happen), and that God is perfect (never makes a mistake or error). Then we can conclude that with His foreknowledge of what will happen He could perfectly execute or permit every event to occur that has happened, happens or will happen. Since He has this ability, why would He want to travel back in time? He was there when it originally happened, so He didn’t miss it. His ability to remember would far exceed ours so He could recall it perfectly at any time. He executed His will perfectly at that point in time so there would not be a need to go back and correct it. So how does this make Him less omnipotent? Once again our perspective is the stumbling block. As an omnipotent being, God does not need to travel backward in time because He was already there.

Some have tried to say that God would need to make “tweaks” to history in order for it to work. As previously mentioned, His foreknowledge would have allowed Him the ability to perfectly execute things as they should have been done, therefore the need for “tweaking” the past does not exist. So, there is no final draft, just one draft. God has no need to travel back in time, He was already there. Since, God was already there, and performed His part perfectly, why would there be a need to go back? Keeping this in mind, there is no need for “alternate timelines”. Therefore I can not agree with the concept of multiple timelines or alternate universes. They make for interesting science fiction, but lack substantial support in the real cosmos.

There is also the claim that a planets mass warps time so that time runs a tiny bit slower on earth’s surface than a satellite in orbit (it has also been noted that the difference is too small to notice). Albert Einstein came up with a theory that he termed “general variance” but popular media has renamed it “General Relativity”. It deals with how gravity affects light, and according to some, time. One part of the theory is that if a person was traveling at a high rate of speed and bounced a beam of light from one part of their vessel to another (in sight of a stationary individual) the beam would appear differently than it would to the static person (stationary individual). This is a valid theory. Everything would look different to both individuals. Another part of the

theory deals with what some have referred to as “time dilation”. If light goes toward a high gravity source it is shifted to the blue spectrum, but if it goes away from that source it is shifted to the red. This theory is also true and well proven. These theories have also been attributed with time altering abilities as well. Since light (time?) would appear to travel slower for the static individual or slower for those closer to the gravity source, there would be “time dilation”. To validate this, atomic clocks have been used. An atomic clock is one that “uses an electronic transition frequency…as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element”. (Wikipedia) If we consider the first perspective, we notice that time was not altered. The same amount of time passed, but the events that occurred during that space of time appeared differently to the individuals in differing situations. It is of note that the theories and math of “General Variance” works great at calculating the variance of light from any object to determine its true position. The point being that it does not cause time as an absolute to alter. Considering the second part, atomic clocks have shown variance at different elevations. The fact that an atomic clock is based upon an electronic frequency for its accuracy would mean that these clocks could be altered by gravitational fields just as light and not maintain a consistent cosmic time (time that the events of the cosmos are based upon) but retain a valid light altered observed time. Just because the frequency of light is affected by gravity does not mean that time is as well. So although the warping of space affects distance, trajectory and the amount of time involved (time it takes for something to transition), it does not alter time as a cosmic constant. Einstein is right it would appear that since light is affected by gravity, events that occur within time would appear differently to different individuals dependent on position. The difference is that some believe that time is altered, even though everything passes through time as a whole at the same rate.

Ironically, time appears to be absolute and linear across the dimension of the cosmos. This may be where people stumble at the understanding of time, they assume that by having a man made time scale, all things in the universe must work by it. In contrast, the cosmic time scale is not governed by what man has determined the time zones to be here on earth. So even though it may be 3:00 pm in one location and 10:00 pm in another, as far as the cosmos is concerned, it is the same time everywhere. We have simply created a convenient time so that we can better utilize the amount of daylight available on this planet. Since this appears to be the case it is not unreasonable to suggest that our evaluation of time (in a cosmic sense) is also faulty. Therefore, our man made time may be giving us implications that are not be valid throughout the cosmos.

God Concepts

Chapter 12: Lazy God?

We all get lazy, right? As humans, our bodies require a time to rest and rejuvenate. That tends to be a normal cycle among all living things. Everything needs some down time. The question remains though; does God get lazy? Once again it is necessary to fall back on the Biblical perspective of God. As noted, everything needs a time to rejuvenate and re-energize. If God is omnipotent, then there would not be a need to rest, rejuvenate or re-energize, because He would always have enough power available. To the contrary, if He needed to “recharge his batteries”, so to speak, how does He regain His omnipotence? Where is the source of His power if it does not originate from Himself? Clearly, for God to be omnipotent, He must be limitless in resource and therefore would have no reason to be tired, or become lazy.

So why did God designate a day of rest? It could have been for the benefit of His creation, since we all could use a day of rest. But an alternate motivation is so that rather than continually working, building, constructing the cosmos, He saw that it would be good to stop for a moment and enjoy what He had done. Is this laziness? Not actually. To be lazy, one must choose to avoid work, exertion or anything that might overtax themselves as a way of life, or as a lifestyle. If someone chooses to take a break from work and enjoy some time away (which can often be more exertive and stressful than work) or doing something they enjoy, it is not a sign of laziness. In reality it points more to the complex nature of our being. As the saying goes; “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”.

God Concepts

Chapter 13: Prove God’s Existence

From a Christian perspective, it would be nice to prove God’s existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wouldn’t it be perfect if we could have a box with a label on it called “God” and we could open it up and show everyone? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Even though God is not as shallow as to be defined by simplistic means, does not mean that he does not exist. Actually, to be as complex a God as is written about in the Holy Bible, He would need to be the most complicated being in existence, and some of his attributes would border on indefinable by typical human communication. A good example is eternal. He always has been and will always exist. Although we have the words infinity and eternal to describe such traits, it is very difficult for us to wrap our minds around this concept as a reality. The reason is most likely due to the fact there is nothing in this material existence to compare it too.

There are those that think it is a “cop out” to say that God is beyond definition or can not be proven, so therefore He could exist. Obviously, if something can not be proven either for or against, and there is not enough evidence to suggest either way, it is not unrealistic to state that it is possible even though there is not enough evidence to validate it. In contrast, there are many things that suggest such a being must exist. The fact that all things require a source to begin their existence is highly suggestive of an omnipotent, intelligent creator. If the sheer complexity and design features of all things are taken into consideration as well, there is even more evidence that such a being must exist. As previously noted, intelligent design points to a creator, but an intelligent creator can not have a creator if they are omnipotent. So it is not necessary for God to have a creator just because He is a complex being.

There are those that have suggested that a game could not exist without its actual components. The point being made is that the components need to exist before the game can actually exist. This is actually untrue. All that is required for a game is a set of rules on how to play it (by a rule giver). Then the individual parts can be designed and created. So having a game does not require that it has always existed. Some consider this life to be a game. In contrast, according to Biblical perspectives, life is not a game. There are eternal consequences associated with our actions and beliefs. So when it comes to real life, it is important to know what really is at stake (from a Biblical perspective).

God Concepts

Chapter 14: Hidden God

So where is God? Why does He remain hidden to us? There are some who say God randomly performs miracles (or the appearance of randomness) and that this lack of Him presenting Himself in person to perform them for all to observe equates into a lack of God altogether. Once again we must fall back on what the Bible says concerning this concept. Therefore, the actual reason God remains hidden is a three-fold answer.

First of all, if God would reveal Himself as He is, we would be consumed. The Bible notes that one of the characteristics of God is that He is a consuming fire. His normal supernatural state is far more than our mortal bodies can withstand, so to protect us, He remains hidden.

Secondly, if He would reveal Himself in our presence as God (in His divine state; He would need to destroy us because of our sinfulness. To understand this better, we must consider that the Biblical God created everything. He has full authority over all things and all things exist because of Him. Sure, His creation makes things from the things He has created, but He is still the root cause of those things even existing. So, all creation must fall into step with His plans for the cosmos. Anything that rebels against His plans must suffer the consequences of that rebellion, which eventually equates into eternal punishment. Some might consider this cruel and unrighteous (it would not be realistic to say inhumane since God is not human, but He is God and humanity is not always righteous, but it is human). If we consider that God is omnipotent and omniscient (by Biblical standards), then He would know the best way that things would operate and have the ability to make them work in such a manner. Therefore, His desire for us to live “righteously” is not a punishment or just personal preference as much as it is the ideal way for us to exist. So anything that does not fall into this scenario or submit to this scenario must be removed from it.

Thirdly, the first time mankind rebelled against God was in the Garden of Eden (per the Bible). This is our second chance to acknowledge God and His authority. Although God sometimes uses miracles or direct intervention in our lives to open our awareness to His presence, He is in no way obligated to do it. The misconception is that God owes us anything. He does not owe us, but we owe Him. He gave us an existence and blessed us with the opportunity to accept His will for our lives above our own, which in the end will mean an eternal existence in paradise. So His “hiding” in this case can be for the benefit of allowing us to choose to believe Him this time or choose to reject Him again (as our original ancestors did).

Some say that He “suspends” the laws of physics to work His miracles. This may be true or it may not (we do not have concrete evidence to support either claim). It is possible that He is just aware of a methodology to work around His present design structure of the cosmos. If not, then it would simply point to His authority over all His creation (whether the laws of physics or whatever). No matter what the point though, to be hidden does not mean you do not exist.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 15: Majority Rule

The argument is often made that, “a majority of scientists believe” or “do not believe”, as a statement of validation. This may or may not lead to an accurate conclusion. We know that science is not based on popular vote. It either works that way or it doesn’t. At one time the leading “scientists” of the day thought all kinds of bizarre theories (typically before the 1800s). So, popular vote was clearly not accurate in those instances. Science has always based itself on proof or disproof. Objective facts are the most valid, but subjective facts can be substituted (at least temporarily) to suggest things that do not have enough objective facts to support them. The problem begins when subjective facts that fly in the face of objective facts are accepted as more valid. So even if a popular vote was taken and everyone liked one subjective concept over another, or over an objective one, it would not make it true.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 16: What is Actually Impossible?

It is a noted fact that using mathematical methodology, there is a certain point that the probability of something occurring is so small that it actually falls into the category of impossible. In recent years some have cited that by using the “anthropic principle” it would increase the possibility of the impossible to a realistic level. Unfortunately, this is circular reasoning. Unlike the negatives in math, if you take two things that are impossible and add them together, it does not make them possible. Even if you take something that is impossible and pair it with something that is possible, it does not necessarily make the impossible possible. This is because with some things each item is evaluated individually upon its own merit and not as a combined unit. Obviously there are many cases where only a combination of factors can make something actually work. Although this is factual, it does not nullify the point that sometimes things are just not possible in the natural realm by known science. It is a good note to add that the lack of evidence does not validate the possibility of something actually happening. Although it may be feasible, it does not make it true.

Concerning the omnipotent God; if God is omnipotent, as the Bible says, then He should be able to accomplish what many would consider impossible. Here in lies the problem with our concept of the impossible. If we look at it through the lens of some popular sayings it may become clearer. Some have said that “God can do all things”. That has lead to a very thought provoking question. “Can God create a rock that even He can’t lift?” If God is omnipotent, then why couldn’t He do that? The problem is that if He could create such a rock, then it would be greater than Him, which is not possible because if He is omnipotent He can not transfer that ability (which it would require). Omnipotence is a state of being. This does not mean He is no longer omnipotent or able to do everything. If nothing can be greater than God, then everything is beneath Him or within His ability. Therefore, He can do anything.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 17: The Suspension of Natural Laws by God

Some have argued a position called “Logical positivism”. This is a normal scientific procedure. In science it is necessary before accepting a concept as valid, that there must be enough evidence to support the claim. So no matter what you choose to believe, most people require some sort of sustainable evidence to support their belief. Some claim that Christians lack this perspective. Obviously this is untrue. Undoubtedly, there are things about “God” that can not be validated. How can it be proven that He is omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent, as the Bible claims? Although this is the case, it does not make those possibilities any less feasible. What it does do is create a lot of trouble for those that require clear indisputable proof before accepting a concept as valid. Obviously, it is not possible to clear up this type of dilemma due to the nature of it. So we are left with faith that God is Who the Bible says He is, or perhaps that He is a different being altogether. There are other religions that suggest an omnipotent God or He could be none of those and someone else. These are all concepts that must be evaluated based on science and an analysis of life principles (morality, purpose, history, social functionality). Once these are all taken into account, only then can a “most true” candidate for God be presented.

An additional sideline to the “Logical positivism” perspective is that; some people have a problem with the possibility that God suspends the laws of nature whenever He pleases. If God is omnipotent, He has authority over all things and can do at His own discretion whatever He chooses. He can use His authority to supercede any design in nature to accomplish whatever purpose He so chooses. Does this mean the laws of physics no longer exist? Obviously not, but God has a broader knowledge of how things work and could possibly use a method we do not know or understand to accomplish the task (if He so chooses). So just because it may appear that He “suspends” the laws of nature, does not mean that He actually does. He may just utilize a methodology we are very poor at implementing, do not understand or doubt its true power. Perhaps that method is faith.

Editor’s note: Social functionality is what makes a society flourish and prosper.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 18: Morality

Some have stated that the Euthyphro dilemma has destroyed the concept of God defining morality. This concept, in its modified form says; “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”(Wikipedia) The argument is that if it is morally good aside from God it supercedes God’s authority. If it is only morally good because God commanded it, then morality is based only on what God desires. Obviously, if something is beneficial, it is going to be good irregardless of who chooses to bless it. So what is morally good, right or beneficial would be so irregardless of who commanded it. Since some things are good/beneficial irregardless; does it mean that they supercede God as a defining moral agent? No they do not. Although something may be good, it does not have the authority to enforce blessing or punishment based upon individual actions. Only God can do that. So morality without God has no consequences or blessings aside from what would randomly occur naturally. Therefore, God has the ability to define morality because He is the only one with supreme authority over all things.

Concerning the Levitical Law; the covenant God made with the Israelites had a two fold purpose. First, it bonded the people with God so that as long as they obeyed the covenant they were under God’s blessing and protection. Secondly, it showed the world what God considered sin. Although it was a very basic template, the purpose of the Law was to define sin and the consequences of it. There are some that have a problem with working on the Sabbath (because it is part of the Law). Jesus stated that the Sabbath was made for man (because he needs a day of rest) not man for the Sabbath. This is a point that has many confused when it comes to the Law. Although there are many things that may cause those who are politically correct to gasp, it does not make those practices wrong. Actually, they may benefit society as a whole when taken in the correct perspective and applied in the proper way. As a whole, the Law often dealt with the acts of sin and what the consequences should be, this did not mean that it endorsed any type of sin, but that the consequences for some sins were not as severe as others. As is noted many times in the Law, another purpose was to remove wickedness from the people. By doing so, society would prosper and not ensnare itself with non-productive practices.

Some have said that the first four of the Ten Commandments are more about puffing up God’s ego than anything else. This is incorrect. The purpose of the first four Laws are so the people recognize that God has authority over all things. Since He created everything, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask. The remaining commandments deal with interpersonal relations. Such as do not murder (murder is shedding innocent blood, although it is typically written kill the actual meaning is murder), do not steal, etc. Everyone can benefit from these practices since they only build up and strengthen a society.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 19: Randomness of Life

There are those that quote the apparent randomness of life as evidence that there is no God. Some use quantum mechanics as evidence to support this theory. Although quantum mechanics may be random (it is unclear at this point if that is a valid statement) let us analyze the scenario from a bigger picture. If we were to monitor a one millimeter square of atmosphere and observe the particles that float through it, we could say it appears random. But, if we broaden our horizon, we can see that wind currents cause these particles to flow in the directions they follow. The same perspective could be applied to quantum physics. We just do not know what the “wind” is that directs these minute objects.

In the same way, many things that happen “randomly” in this life could be caused or allowed by a higher being (i.e. God). So even though something may appear as random, it is quite possible that a being knew what was going to happen before it did and allowed it or actually caused something to happen. So even though life may appear random at times, there can very well be a real purpose behind every little thing that occurs.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 20: Prayer

People often say things like “I’ll pray for you” or “you’re in my prayers”, but what exactly is prayer? Prayer in its most basic form is when a request is made to God or something that is held in a position of worship. How this is enacted varies, but typically the one making the request will bow or bend over and close their eyes. Some even prostrate themselves upon the ground. Then the focus of the requestor is upon the object of worship. From a scientific viewpoint, how does this affect anything? If the one praying interacts with a source that can cause something to happen, then it can have an affect on things. Obviously it would depend on how the source responds to the prayer. Some even suggest that prayer by faith has a power unto itself. From a scientific perspective, this can not be proven at this time. It would require that the person praying either have an ability to affect their request or their interaction is not dependent on the sources validation or acceptance. Considering the second option, if the source has authority and passes on certain aspects of that authority to the praying individual, then the one praying may in fact be able to alter something based simply upon their faith. This is simply conjecture though and although could be factual, can not be proven at this time.

The same can be said of God and prayer. This omnipotent being would be able to grant the request of any praying individual or endow them with the ability to bring it to pass (either by faith or natural ability). It is well known that prayer does have an affect on things. There are well documented cases of people having diseases that were cured for no other apparent reason. At this time though, the exact methodology of the process is vague at best and not scientifically provable. This could very well be due to the interaction of a higher being (i.e. God) that can cause or allow at their own discretion whatever they please. This also would explain why there are verses in the Bible that say “Ask and it will given unto you” and there are times when requests are not answered, sometimes quite often. To say that our motives are the sole reason our requests are not answered is not necessarily the fact. An omnipotent being could give some requestors whatever they seek and deny others at their own discretion. Obviously, God (the omnipotent being that created it all) does not owe anyone anything. All creation is in His debt just for their existence. Therefore, He does not owe us an explanation as to why He did not answer our prayer, why it took so long to answer or why He answered another’s prayer and not ours.

Concerning answering prayers to things God will already bring to pass or allow; if a being is omniscient, they know all things. So if they know what will happen, and someone prays and it comes to pass, it does not make the prayer irrelevant. The one who is praying does not know the outcome and it causes them to recognize their dependency on God. So even though He would bring it to pass anyway, the act of prayer would be more of a catalyst to cause the one who has faith in God to express and build their faith. The problem with an omniscient being is that they will always know what will happen and may have decided what will be allowed and what will not. Even in cases where it is cited that “God repented” in the Bible (or decided not to judge those He was going to), if He truly is omniscient, He knew He would change His mind and why. According to the Bible, prayers are like incense to God. They have a sweet aroma that He enjoys. If we consider how a sweet aroma in a room affects us, it is easier to understand why God would like us to pray. Unfortunately, as with many things that are spiritual, it is difficult or impossible to validate this is the reason scientifically.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 21: The Mind of Man

Some have made the argument that; if the spirit is in control of the mind, why does lethal damage to the head affect the mind if the soul is actually what controls the body? This is a very good argument. Therefore, many concepts will be examined and evaluated to present a more complete perspective.

There is a theory, called Ockham’s Razor, that says, “among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false”(Wikipedia) This theory is often used to explain away many things, but has also been used in this case to try and explain away any concept of mind and soul unity. Unfortunately simplification without presumption often leaves the analyzer with nothing. Actually, simplification in and of itself does not guarantee that the condensed formulations are accurate, even though they may appear factual. So although it may be accurate most of the time, it is not always a valid method of evaluation.

Another area that appears problematic scientifically is the symbiotic relationship with the mind and body. Some assert that this creates energy conservation issues since there is no known physical correlation between the mind and brain. It is something that can not be validated through scientific means and thereby must not be valid. Once again the stumbling block that just because something can not be proven makes it invalid surfaces. And this is once again not a valid argument. From a more scientific perspective, some have argued that if the soul interacts with our metabolism, then it would require nourishment. Since spiritual things are not the same as material, according to the Bible, I am unsure how they come to this conclusion. The spirit may not be fed by matter but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God, as noted in the Bible. If in fact the soul can starve, it may be due to the lack of God’s Word in the beings life. How the spirit is nourished this way is obviously unclear and not scientifically provable. And according to the Bible, one day we will receive a physical body that will not die, even though this one will be gone. So is the conscious mind of mankind a simple chemical controlled lump of flesh? Not according to the Bible. We are bound in this body for a time until that time is complete and then we will receive an eternal form. So even though this body appears to be in control, it may be our soul/spirit/mind that is really who we are.

There are those that say the link between the physical and spiritual does not exist because there is no way of proving it. This is clearly not a valid argument. If that link can not be measured by physical means, how can it be validated scientifically? Based upon the Biblical perspective; it is quite possible that as part of the initial curse (in Genesis) the soul/spirit are linked to this body in some manner until it ceases to function well enough to sustain life. Any calamity that affects this body affects the mind as well. By doing this, the person can feel and understand the effects of mortality much better than if they had this disconnected persona that controlled a physical form. That type of control is better defined as possession (i.e. demon possession) rather than individuality (a self-controlled self-aware state). It is not unusual for scientists to propose theories based upon possibility rather than proof. Sometimes it is necessary to start with possibilities until some proof can be obtained to support or disprove it. Unfortunately, when dealing with the spiritual realm, it is difficult if not impossible at this time to validate its existence beyond the level of awareness. Some scientists say that awareness is just a chemical by product of the way our brain functions. The real problem with awareness comes when trying to explain things like the self-ingrained morality all people have and the desire to find something to worship (or deify). These are things that no other thing that exists appears to cultivate at the same level as people and no other creature worships or seeks to worship anything. Some animals do have limited forms of morality, such as protection of young and family. There are also some the exhibit a limited amount of benevolence within their own group. But to step outside these boundaries is extremely rare in the animal kingdom, but common among people. People often love and care for things such as pets or plants. In contrast, many kinds of animals and all plants do not return this kind of affection. Actually, animals often are indifferent

but much more tolerant of a person who gives them something they want (i.e. food). So the level of morality exhibited by the animal kingdom (sans people) is rather limited. In any case though, to assume that chemical reactions are the only option in creating this perspective appears unrealistic.

An additional argument some make is that the “hidden soul” is not the “real you” and who you are would be lost in translation to another form. Once again there is an assumption that this physical form is the “real you” which can not be validated. Based upon the Biblical perspective, the soul/spirit/mind of man are eternal things that are trapped or imprisoned in this temporal body. When they are released from it, they (with their entire persona) will be transformed into an eternal form. So the statement that “the body is the mind” is not the only argument that can be made. It is of note that according to the Bible, there will be no marriage and gender differences in heaven. So, some argue that gender contributes to who we are as a person. To some extent, gender may play a role in our persona, but the key point being made is that there would not be male or female (lack of sexual organs). So the personal characteristics that make us who we are will remain, but the need to physically propagate ourselves as a species will no longer exist. God created man and woman at different times in different ways and therefore we were meant to complement each other so even if sex were removed as an option, our personalities would still complement each other by design.

Continuing on with this “real you” concept, some say that if a perfect duplicate were made of a person, then the original was destroyed. What remained would only be a duplicate and not part of the original. This goes back to the misconception that a persons persona is perfectly integrated solely within the body. In fact, the Bible suggests that this shell that houses our soul/spirit/mind will pass away and we will be translated into a new one. So the original soul/spirit/mind is not copied but transferred from one host form to another. Some may consider this parasitic, but a parasite feeds off of a host, where in our case, the soul/spirit/mind do not feed off of the body but enhance it so that it may be greater than just a lump of flesh. So in essence, it may be our soul/spirit/mind that feeds/supports/helps sustain our body and not the other way around. Or it could be that the two are just inseparable for the time being. In either case, there are other options than the one proposed that are retain the same level possibility.

Finally we come to the most magnificent concept of all, the mind of God. Some have a problem with God having a mind, especially if a physical body is required for one to exist. This point’s to the inadequacy of the theory proposed. According to the Bible, God in His natural form is a spirit. So what exactly is a spirit composed of? The dilemma is clearly evident. So although the mind is typically associated with the physical body, it may actually be a projection of the spiritual body. Some say that thinking is a chemical process of the brain and thereby requires a physical form. This is not necessarily the case (as noted before). Our spirit may be cursed, in a sense, to inhabit this physical form until it ceases to function well enough to maintain life. Therefore, the mind could be more a part of the spiritual form (which may be integrated with this body in some manner that is undetectable) than just chemical discharges of the brain. It could be suggested though that these discharges may be a result of the spiritual interaction of the soul with this body. A key issue with the concept of God having a mind without any physical form is how He actually created all that exists. What was the methodology? What was the catalyst? How was it cause and effected? Clearly, we do not have the answers to these questions. It may be that there is no real way to explain it other than God through faith spoke everything into existence. Since He is omnipotent, having the faith to accomplish such a task would be a minor issue and more an ability. Some say that minds just randomly think thoughts without any control or direction. This is definitely untrue. Although random thoughts may assault our minds throughout the day, our thoughts are controlled to some extent. If we need to decide on an issue or calculate the result of a problem, our brains are focused on that issue and controlled by the mind. Therefore, minds do more than just randomly think. Some also have said that God needs a way to physically interact within our material universe. This is in reference to the mind of God interacting with the physical cosmos. Since it is unclear how God actually created the cosmos, it is also unclear if a physical method is actually required. The Bible says He spoke it into existence, so clearly His words carry more weight than ours. If all that existed before creation was God, and according to the Bible He is a spirit, then it would be safe to theorize that He has the ability to interact with this material existence through the spirit realm without a physical method (if it required more than His Words the Bible would have noted it). Some may say that He created a physical method first so that He could interact with this cosmos. Although this could be true, it is not likely if we consider God to be omnipotent (as has been pointed out

throughout this paper). If He is truly omnipotent, there would not be a need to create this physical methodology tool, it would simply be done. So is a physical connection needed for God to think? Obviously not, since as a spirit God had thoughts (according to the Bible He decided to create all things prior to the creation of the cosmos). The problem is that when dealing with things that are spiritual, sometimes there is not a way to scientifically validate or explain it. Since the ability to do so escapes us, we are left with two options; denial that it is possible or acceptance that we do not have enough information to validate it one way or another. So just because we can’t explain something does not mean it does not work that way or exist.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 22: Spiritual Instillation

A very intriguing question that is rarely cited in scientific circles is; when is the spirit instilled in a person? From a scientific perspective, there is no way to validate this occurrence and therefore no way to accurately catalogue the moment it takes place. According to the Bible, it says that God knew us before we were formed in our mothers’ womb. This may allude solely to His omniscience, but it may also suggest the spirit is a part of a person at the moment they begin the journey to maturity (i.e. conception). Unfortunately, there is no way to validate such a concept and it must remain solely speculation. There are some that say evolution creates problems as to when God started adding souls to beings. This is not the case. It would not be unrealistic to say that any thing that is living may have a soul; therefore since the beginning of life all living things had souls. According to the Bible though, souls are definitely a part of humanity, and may be a part of animate life since it notes that they also are living souls (although why animals would have one if all things are going to be destroyed and recreated, aside from physically transformed humanity, is questionable). If we look at things from a different perspective and say that evolution is an invalid theory and all things began at the literal six day creation period, then the moment when God started instilling souls in mankind is clearer. It was when He created them. As far as other creatures receiving souls, it is a much debated subject among Christian groups. It would appear from the Hebrew texts that the term “living soul” may suggest that all animate life may have one. If that is the case they would probably end up in an eternal place of paradise also. This is based on the perspective that sin is a result of the rebellion of mankind against God and its affects have been communicated throughout creation (affecting how animals act and react). Therefore, the things they do which are not considered “good” are simply the reflections of the rebellion that initially occurred through man. In which case, they may not be held accountable in God’s eyes. This is speculation though.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 23: Death and Resurrection of Jesus

Although my main focus has been God and science, I have decided to interject this section concerning Jesus because the event has scientific implications. As is well known, the death and resurrection of Jesus has been probably one of the most contested events in history. After all, with out the resurrection, He is still dead. And if He did not die, then the entire account is nothing but a lie to mislead people. So here are some of the key points that validate this event;

1) Comatose people do not have a spear thrust in their side and expel water (a significant sign of death). To say that a Jesus impersonator came back afterward is possible, but not likely if the events that occurred actually happened as cited. It would take some impersonator to walk through solid objects or rise into heaven. Even then, the best impersonators do not look identical to the people they imitate, so he would have to be an identical clone. As far as the witnesses, the argument they were hallucinating or lying can be applied to any event that has occurred. There are many events through out history that can not be validated beyond eye witness reports. As far as the story being a complete fabrication, if you remove the credibility of the witnesses that saw the things that occurred, it could be considered fabricated. The assumption that just because so many people were willing to die for the cause is not a valid excuse either (people die for stupid reasons associated with belief all the time). Ironically, it is not those things that set Christianity apart from other religions. It is the fact that it is impossible for imperfect mankind to ever accomplish enough to appease the perfection required by a perfect God to merit His including them into His eternal kingdom. All other religions have a merit system. This makes logical sense. According to the Bible pride is a sin (pride is the self exalted mindset that caused Satan to rebel against God). Based on this information we can say that people tend to want to validate their value through a merit system, but this message is that it is impossible for us to achieve perfection aside from God helping us attain it. So the real heart of why Christianity can’t be a fabrication isn’t because of the witnesses, but because of the message. Although witnesses and evidence are required for scientific analysis, a message can also be analyzed based upon reasonable feasibility (could this be true) and logical application (does it work). Even if all the witnesses were blind lunatics and made everything up, but the message was true, the fact would remain that the message was true. It is a common practice to attack the messenger when the message is unpopular and holds a reasonable chance of validity.

2) No one else has a book which prophecies 400 things, including death and resurrection, which was fulfilled by one man. Also, people who have died and come back have not died in the manner that Christ did, and had their death validated by credible people (spear in the side). Even if this were the case though, none of them had the same message (His death was payment for our sins against God and His resurrection proved His power over death). There are those that consider this a minor act and actually suggest that this is rather insignificant if it is all that is required to be God. Although in the Bible, the death and resurrection is validation of His authority over death and payment for our sins before God, there is much more to it than this since He lived a perfect life (sinless in the Biblical sense). That is something people are not capable of doing. There is also more to His death and resurrection than is often presented. This is why many miss the point of what is God. God is not based upon actions; He is the self-existent one (I Am That I Am). No human has the ability to be self-existent. We can lose the control of this body at any moment through death (albeit the soul and spirit continue due to divine creation according to the Bible). But it is not within our power to raise it again by our own self-willed desire. That is what separates us from being God.

3) Some say that using the Bible to validate the resurrection is circular reasoning. This is a valid statement. You can not use the source to validate the source if seeking to assemble any dissenting information. This does not make the source invalid though. And although it is circular reasoning there may not be another way to

validate it if the source is the only means by which we can evaluate the object/event. If only one eye witness saw an event and they wrote it down accurately, it does not mean that it did not happen. So to say the Bible is untrue because the miracles can not be validated is inaccurate.

Moral and Eternal Concepts

Chapter 24: Afterlife

One of the most controversial subjects in history has been the afterlife. There are many versions of what happens after this body ceases to function. Some actually believe that this life is all that there is and physical death is the end of your existence. But, to say there is no afterlife with out proof that it does not exist, is dubious. At the same time it is virtually impossible to scientifically prove it exists. So there is no way to prove either side through scientific methodology at this time. That leaves us with speculation, hypothesis and theory to resolve what may lie beyond this existence.

So how is the afterlife accessed? Some mythologies have suggested a physical path or way to the afterlife. Most religions say that only upon physical death is the afterlife accessible. There is one exception to them and that is the Bible. According to the Bible, it mentions in some passages about this body being transformed into a glorious eternal body (in reference to the afterlife). So in that case, this body is changed into a different form. Most of the Bible refers to natural death of this body as the methodology to the afterlife though. As previously mentioned in other chapters, the soul/spirit/mind may very well be intertwined with this body for the time being. Only when this body has completed its course can they be freed to either their natural state or a transformed body. Based upon common definition of the term “afterlife” it is best to say that access is only possible after this life has ceased (this body ceases to function). Obviously there are those that may want to accelerate this process due to the pressures/problems of this life. The focus of this is not to suggest that as a valid method of resolving your issues. Actually, if you do not fully know what is on the other side, it may not be in your best interest to try to get there quicker. So the best suggestion would be; for those who do not believe in an afterlife, enjoy this one as much as possible until it comes to an end; for those that do, find the purpose which your life was meant for and focus on fulfilling it. Sometimes purpose changes with time and sometimes there may be more than one purpose, so it pays to be flexible.

So what bodily form does one take in the afterlife? Many religions suggest everything from an ether-like body to an indefinable spiritual form. In the Bible, it suggests that those that have proceeded to the afterlife have a form that can actually transition between a spiritual immaterial state and the physical at will. How this is accomplished is obviously unclear, but it does remain that such may be feasible. One thing is clear, this body must cease before the abilities of the afterlife form can become dominant.

How about scenarios, what is the afterlife like? What things happen in the afterlife? Many think that the afterlife is a place of eternal bliss for some and eternal punishment for others. This comes in a wide range of varieties. Some say the paradise side lives in luxury, in constant joy and their every whim is catered too. Others consider paradise a place of worship to God. Some even consider both to be the case. According to some, those in punishment are in constant suffering and may exist within their own groups/bands/tribes/nations that battle each other in this dark dominion. Others say that it is a place of isolation and constant punishment where those who are sentenced there have no peace or relief for eternity. Irregardless of the scenario, there typically would seem to be one of two places the spirit goes to in the afterlife. If we consider that there is an omnipotent being, God, that knows all, controls all or allows all, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this Being would also designate a place of paradise and punishment for those that progress on into eternity based on whatever criteria He had determined.

Then there are those that believe in reincarnation. This is the belief that every living thing that lives a perfect life in whatever form it exists will be reincarnated into a higher form upon death. So if a lizard is a perfect lizard, then it may be reincarnated as a bird or mammal, etc. If we examine the mechanics of such a concept, we know that as people, we can never live a perfect life. So if we can not live a perfect life, how could a lower form live one? Also, if we have attained this level of humanity and are not perfect but maintain a good balance of good works, do we just keep being reincarnated as people? At what point are we good enough to progress to the

next level and who decides? How do they merit the power to decide and how did they attain such a level? What is the level of good and bad and how much bad is acceptable to progress to the next level? How much energy is required to reincarnate from form to form?

These questions are thought provoking. If we consider the amount of energy required, if a being is omnipotent, the amount of energy would either be limited by all the power available or limitless because the source has the ability to produce as much as it desires. If there is a limited amount of power as some suggest, and it is transferred from life to life, how can a lower life form achieve a higher one since the amount of energy can not be increased? Therefore it would not be possible to obtain higher levels without the lower levels going extinct. As far as deserving the position of power, if the being is God, then the fact He created all that exists is merit alone. Concerning the balance of good and bad or progression between levels; the omnipotent being would most likely have either a set of rules or guidelines that could be followed. And if there is a balance, it would be possible to be stuck in a certain position. The real problem is that we know that as people we can not live a perfect life. So what merits us being allowed into paradise? Obviously a Being that is perfect would probably have a high standard to obtain. So the ability to achieve it would probably be unrealistic for us. Therefore we would be stuck in a redundant state for eternity. Isn’t this a rather fruitless scenario since no one is ever going to be perfect enough (based on God’s scale, one trespass makes one guilty of all according to the Bible)? According to the Bible, it is appointed unto mankind to die once and then the judgment. This suggests a single not reincarnated existence. If we consider the power limitations suggested above (most religions that believe in reincarnation also believe in a limited amount of power in the cosmos) and the fruitless nature of this scenario, it would not be unrealistic to suggest that it is unlikely that things are reincarnated.

Moral and Eternal Concepts

Chapter 25: God and Evil

If we believe that God created all things, then was evil created by God? This issue is best evaluated from a Biblical viewpoint. Some believe that evil is anything done in disobedience to God. This is untrue. That is the definition for sin. Evil in a general definition can be defined as when something morally offensive, destructive, counter-productive or non-beneficial occurs. This is obviously a broad definition and there are undoubtedly cases where things that were initially evil worked out for the benefit of those involved. Typically, Christians think of evil as things that are the moral opposite of God’s ways. That is why many think that is the definition of evil, but as pointed out above, it is not the entire definition. This is where the problem with declaring that God created everything comes in. Whether something is good or bad, blessed or evil, they are just words that define something that already exists. When God created all things, the fact that evil things could occur was quite possible. He did not create things in an evil way though. After things were created, He (God) defined what was good. He also did this when He gave the Levitical Law to Moses. Obviously everything that was not defined as good was not evil, but the opportunity for things to be evil remained. So although evil does not supercede God’s authority, the ability for it has been there since creation. So we can say that God did not create evil just as He did not create good. They are simply words that define the results of actions or events. Therefore it can be said that God did not create evil, but He did define it.

Some say that God creates people with the propensity for committing evil. From a Biblical standpoint this is untrue. Just as we inherit genetic traits from our ancestors, so we have inherited a propensity to commit evil from our ancestors that originally fell away from God. Some think that if He would not create people with the ability to do evil (or desire) then it would resolve all our issues. Once again, the issue is not how God created us but the path we have chosen for ourselves. Obviously, God created people knowing they would commit evil and rebel against Him. The point is that He did not create us that way we chose that path on our own. He gave us the freedom to choose and fully understood that not everyone would make the right choice. So if God had not created people in the first place, those that would decide to choose the right path would not have been created either. Therefore, God thought it better to let mankind choose than to not create mankind at all.

Does God commit evil? If we consider casting someone into hell for eternity to be an evil thing to do, it is actually very productive and beneficial to the cosmos as a whole, because it maintains the perfect nature of things as God desired them. Those that choose the path of evil will be removed from that which is good so that only the good can flourish and prosper. The fact God allows mankind the opportunity to choose which eternal scenario to accept just shows that He is a just judge and only inflicts evil on those that merit it.

This brings us to another perspective, what about evils that occur which are not due to the actions of a person? Obviously these “natural evils” can be summed up in the following types;

1) It is a natural cycle of things based on the events that have unfolded during time and God has allowed them to occur. This applies to natural disasters in some cases. It would have happened due to the events that have been set in motion during some time after creation.

2) It is the result of another person or person’s actions, which God has allowed to occur. This applies to things people do to or against other people. Although God may allow it, He does not necessarily incite one to do such to another.

This brings us to the duality of some situations. There are times when something evil occurs that will bring about something even better or something good. So to say that evil is ultimately a bad thing is untrue. In some cases it can actually become a blessing in disguise.

Moral and Eternal Concepts

Chapter 26: Fairness of Life and an Excuse to Sin

It is quite clear to any observer that life is not fair. It is not uncommon to see good people end up with a raw deal in life while those that, based on a Biblical definition, are wicked do not. Since we are comparing the scientific analysis of life with the Bible, where in the Bible does it say that we deserve a fair life? Life is unfair in many ways. Whether a person is wealthy or poor, healthy or ill, beautiful or ugly, each has its own measure of unfairness. The wealthy are badgered by those that seek to get their money; the poor are disdained because they have none. Just the same, the wealthy often have friends that are friends because of their wealth and the poor are lucky if they have friends they can trust as well. If you are healthy, more is expected out of you, where if you are ill the requirements are less (but you still suffer for it). Beauty causes jealousy among others. This can lead to many troublesome relations, including those who seek to abuse your beauty for their own selfish purposes. Ugliness accepts a different kind of abuse and either beautiful or ugly, both can be castaways. To take all these things and go a step farther by saying that “some people have genetic and neurological predispositions to commit sins” is not Biblical. The Bible says that “all people have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It is part of our fallen nature to sin. We seek after it to indulge ourselves in it even though it will one day kill us. To say it is outside our control does not agree with what the Bible states, that we are led away by our own desires and once those desires have blossomed, sin is born. So we are to struggle and strive to over come those desires and not be subject to them. Even then, we will fail and give in sometimes. This is where God Who is a fair God has gone the extra distance to reconcile us with Himself. For those that have a saving faith in Christ (based on a Biblical perspective) there is the knowledge that our sin is forgiven. In contrast, those that do not are awaiting a day of judgment with no intercessor. So for those that have faith, they are exhorted not to lay there and wallow in their sin, but encouraged to get up, clean themselves off and try again.

Someone might say, “If a person did not have faith they might as well live like the Devil”. Looking at everything based upon a Biblical perspective, we can say that is untrue. If a person’s future is eternal judgment, it only makes sense that to alleviate the extreme level of suffering they will endure it would be wise to do as little evil as possible. After all, if there is no atonement for your sins then only a fair God would judge a person according to their actions and motives. Since no one can live a perfect life, it is clear why it is necessary to have a substitute to pay the price; otherwise no one could ever go to heaven (according to the Bible).

Moral and Eternal Concepts

Chapter 27: Omniscience, Omnipotence and Freewill

The conflict between God’s omniscience and our freewill is often used to support the “puppet on a string” theory of our existence. This theory says that we do not actually have freewill, God has already determined what the outcome will be and we are either willing or unwilling pawns in His performance. Therefore, the duality of God’s plan and our freewill is considered by many to be hard to comprehend. It is actually very simple to understand when looking at it in the right perspective. God knows everything that has happened, happens and will happen. From this foreknowledge, He can pre-ordain or pre-destine (in essence to allow or cause to happen) the events of any person’s life. In essence, He knows what you will do before you do it and based on that knowledge He has determined an outcome or plan for your life. Of course His plans override ours so our freewill is limited to the choices He allows (based on our individual situations). So we are free to interact independently at will with in this existence and make whatever choices can be made. Unfortunately, our options to choose from are not always as broad as we would like. This doesn’t mean that we do not have a free will to choose, but that the menu we have to choose from is more limited. Obviously, everyone does not have the same menu to select from. That is how the events of history have played out by the choices of mankind and the predestined judgments of God. The point to remember is that God knew the choices you’d make before you made them and probably based some of His decisions upon those facts.

Free will is the ability of any thing, through independent thought, to choose its own path or actions. Obviously, free will is limited to the choices available, but that does not make it anything less than free will. The object still has the freedom to choose. Omniscience, on the other hand, deals with the ability to know everything. This is such an all encompassing concept it is difficult to fully grasp the enormity of it. Imagine if you knew and understood the most intricate workings of the cosmos (cosmos is everything where universe is just a part of the cosmos). There was nothing that was hidden from your awareness whether it was in the past or in the future. This knowledge would be a tremendous asset in assessing the proper course of action in any situation.Some consider God diabolical in nature and that He planned on those people that will go to hell going there. God is clearly not wicked or fiendish (diabolical). What other being would go to the extent of dying on a cross to pay for the sins of their fallen creation (based on a Biblical perspective)? To assume that He planned on people going to hell is partially true in the fact because He knew that is the choice they would make. His foreknowledge of this and preparing for it does not in any way implicate Him of injustice. He is simply preparing a place for them based on the choice of their free will. It does seem odd that God would use wicked people (i.e. Hitler) to accomplish His will. But, if we consider that without Hitler there probably would not be a state of Israel. That was God’s plan. To understand why the massive loss of life is not an issue with God, we must first understand His perspective. God is eternal. Although this body we exist within is temporal, we are eternal beings as well (albeit by His creation). Once this body ceases to exist (referred to as going to sleep in the New Testament), our soul and spirit continue on. God knew which people would be saved by their faith, and those that would not, so it does not make Him unjust to take them to their final level of existence when ever He so chooses. One key element to remember is this; God created everything. He does not owe anything to anything. Therefore, He can do as He pleases. If He pleases to do evil, He is free to do it. But we understand after reading the Bible that He does not choose to be evil, but rather that we all live in peace, full of joy and happiness. He only wishes the best for us, not the worst. But He gives us that choice, because wickedness does not lead to any of those benefits. Obviously there are those that use their free will to attempt to oppose God’s plan. Clearly their temporal struggling has little effect on the eternal out come of what will transpire.

There are some that say God can not allow us to have a free will and prevent us from committing evil acts against each other. This can not be answered correctly if we only look at this physical existence. In this plane of

reality, God has afforded us the freedom to do evil against each other (unless He deems otherwise which is determined on a case by case basis). There are cases where God has said, “If you continue or choose to do such…then this is the consequence you will bring on yourself.” So free will does have consequences assigned to it. If we choose to do evil, we will “reap” the rewards of doing evil. It may not seem that this is always the case, but we must remember that God looks at everything from an eternal perspective and not just a temporal one. So even though some appear to get away with doing evil all their lives they still must answer to God for their actions (done by exercising their free will) when this temporal state of life is over. The knowledge of those consequences, in and of themselves, may be a deterrent to some and a challenge to others (to their ultimate demise). So the knowledge of punishment for evil actions can act as a form of prevention. This agrees with the concept of reward for doing what God wants us to do, which does not nullify our ability to choose either. Does it always work? Obviously not, because even people who are trying to do good all the time still sin and do evil on occasion. This goes back to our sin nature issue that we inherited at the original fall of man. It is by this nature that we desire to do evil rather than good. Therefore, it is in our best interest to overcome this nature as much as possible and what can not be overcome must be brought under the blood of Jesus through repentance (according to the Bible). So can God prevent us from sinning against each other and still maintain absolute free will? No, unless our sin nature is removed from us. The problem is that our “original programming”, which is better described as our initial nature (tendency to act in certain ways), is in conflict with the choice that was made to rebel against God (by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as noted in the Bible). By nature we originally sought to do what is good, but by choice we have accepted to do evil as well. The key point to keep in mind is we do have free will to choose either way. The fact God knows what our choice will be before we make it does not relinquish the fact that it is still our choice.

Another point to be made is that free will is not necessary for happiness. Happiness is a state of mind. We can choose to be happy even though our circumstances may not be ideal. It is not uncommon to see people happy when their circumstances were dismal and people miserable when their circumstances were ideal. So happiness is not something that is based on our situation but on our perspective.

Some say that God can’t predict our actions, or can’t prevent them, or won’t prevent them. Obviously He must know or be able to predict the evil we will do and certainly could prevent it, but His unwillingness to always prevent it does not make Him “omni-benevolent” (which the Bible never says He is anyway). He blesses the good and the wicked, but does not always restrain the actions of either. In that way they maintain their free will (at least to a certain extent).

Moral and Eternal Concepts

Chapter 28: The Meaning of Life

Everyone has wondered at some time about the purpose or meaning of life. Why are we here? What is the purpose of our life? These questions have led to various answers by many people. Some of these concepts will be evaluated in this section. We will begin with the idea that God created the cosmos as a test. Since this is based upon a Biblical God, it is only reasonable to evaluate it in that perspective. According to the Bible, creation as a whole was made to glorify God. Mankind therefore could look and say, “See the wonderful things God has made!” We could awe in their complexity and the soundness of the designs, their beauty or marvel at the abstract uniqueness of an object. So the actual purpose according to the Bible is for God’s glory.

Some believe that life is purely a test. It’s a pass or fail scenario, although some believe there are ways to get a redo or obtain bonus points (like grading on a curve). There are those that think this life is a waste because God already knows who will pass and who will fail. Obviously we do not though. Therefore, it would be more accurate to consider life to be a journey for our sake. From a Biblical perspective, this life is the time we have to accept God’s plan of salvation and prepare ourselves for eternity. Obviously, those that do not will be condemned to an eternity of punishment. So the purpose of this journey is for us to come to a place of enlightenment and acceptance concerning God and His will or a place of rejection and rebellion concerning Him. That way when our final sentence is given we will have no excuse to blame God.

There are those that think it would be better if God instilled fake memories in our conscious minds and did not have us go through this time of decision. If He instilled all those memories in us, but we did not live the life, it would be a false journey that never took place. There would be those that may feel God deceived them. So it is important that we live life until its culmination. That way when the journey is done, we will have grown and matured through time, not by an instantaneous indoctrination. If we consider that this life is but one step on the pathway of eternity, time becomes less relevant and the process more important.

If God had chosen other methods, some presume, there would have been a greater success rate of those that would have believed. Ironically, we must understand that God is omniscient. If He does know everything, then He would have selected the best possible solution to the problem. There, we must realize that even if God had written it across the stars there would still be those that do not believe (based on the assumption that God has not been clear enough to them).

What about the “Grand Experiment Theory? There are those that say God is just experimenting and determining the best outcome and that is the one He will keep. First of all, we must realize that an experiment is used to determine results or facts; God already knows the results based on His omniscience. So it would be unrealistic to say that God had already run the experiment, because He knows what will happen. Therefore, with His foreknowledge, there is no experiment, just a one time performance that has eternal consequences for all the participants.

Another concept on the meaning of life is that if God did not exist, there would not be any meaning to life. This is an interesting concept. If we consider a counter point that life is purely to indulge ourselves and others, it becomes increasing plausible that the God scenario is not foolishness. According to the Bible, we were created by God and given the purposes He has laid out for us to achieve. That is a very notable concept and points to a real meaning to life rather than random indulgence. There is an author named Sam Harris who has written that if God were replaced by an inanimate object as the subject of worship, the result would be the same. Actually this is false. If one would assume that the one choosing the object to worship would select the same moral grounds as God has lain out, it might be feasible. History has proven that to be false though. Pagan cultures that worship animals typically fall into increasing levels of ungodliness until they collapse. The greater issue is that it would be unrealistic to substitute a natural or manmade object as God. When you strip away His deity, His creatorship, His authority, His power and all His other attributes, it is much easier to make such a foolish argument. In

reality, God is far more valuable than anything that has been created and nothing can compare to Him. He is the only thing that merits that position. Therefore, to reduce Him to such an abysmal state and consider it a valid argument is without merit.

Some say that atheism is when a doctrine or belief is not adopted by a person. This is false. Everyone has a doctrine or belief. Some just have a doctrine of unbelief. No matter how we try, we all believe something whether we believe to doubt, disbelieve or believe in one way or another. So atheism is a doctrine and belief system that in its purest form denies that there is a God.

A common Atheistic argument is that religion only offers illusions. This is inaccurate. Here is a listing of some arguments against Christianity and there counterpoints.

A: Christianity only offers illusions.C: Christians typically live a life of sober reality. The things that are gained are often not material, such as peace, joy, love and hope.A: Christianity makes us feel guilty for being human.C: Although some people use accusations and guilt to further their legalistic agendas, the fundamentals of Christianity has always been to help the mankind (who is separated from fellowship with God) see the errors of sin, repent, accept God’s method of atonement and come back to fellowship with Him.A: Christianity offers an afterlife that will never come.C: There is not enough proof to validate that statement and enough to suggest that an afterlife actually does exist. Christians choose to believe the Biblical version of the afterlife. Only time will be able to validate this as the correct answer since there are many things that can not be analyzed and validated through scientific methodology.A: The constraints of Christianity need to be removed from society.C: Removing moral standards in our schools and society as a whole would only cause chaos as everyone would do what they considered right in their own eyes rather than what is beneficial to everyone. This would not create a better society but destroy many of the good things we try to maintain as a people.

So what is the meaning of life? Based upon a Biblical perspective, to know God is the meaning of life. He created everything and maintains it. All that lives is dependent on Him or His creations. Therefore we are exhorted to complete whatever He would have us do in this life as a form of worship and then step into eternity with Him.

Note: Based upon Biblical theology, the first step in knowing God is to acknowledge your sin condition to God, ask for forgiveness and accept His method of atonement (Jesus Christ). Then seek to live your life as a form of worship to Him.

Science and Spiritual Concepts

Chapter 29: Science and Christianity

It is clear in society that there are some who can not accept that science and Christianity work well together. They sometimes assert that Christians “fix” their beliefs using science. Although this may be true in some cases, it is hardly the case across the entire spectrum of Christianity and science. Good science is when knowledge is sought through experimentation and examination using accurate and valid methods and using the review and analysis of data to support or disavow concepts and theories. Obviously, those seeking the knowledge, whether they are the researchers or those who are examining their work and results, must be willing to accept the results without allowing personal bias and opinion to over-ride the facts. In the same way, it is not unreasonable for some to take opposing views in order to substantiate all possible solutions and facts. There clearly are problems/objects/natural laws though that can not be tested or examined with our present technological abilities. This does not make then invalid though. That is where the rift between science and Christianity seems to be the greatest. There are some things that are claimed by Christianity that can not be validated scientifically. As noted before, this does not make them invalid, but should inspire researchers to seek for methods in which they could be validated, even though that may not be possible. Some think that Christianity is unreasonable and therefore not scientific. If we go back to the basis of science, that is not the case. Science is the search for knowledge. Christianity is also a search for knowledge. The difference is the focus of the search. Science typically is aimed at the natural world. Christianity is the search for God. The beginning of which is based upon the concept that mankind needs reconciliation with God and how it is accomplished. The Bible, which is the primary source of Christian knowledge, is also filled with other information including many historical facts, prophetic statements and moral concepts. So, the two actually can co-exist since science can accept, validate and utilize any of these items. From a scientific view, the validation of Biblical facts actually supports the possibility that the book is really what it claims.

There are some that say Christians start with the Bible and make science fit. This is not necessarily the case. First of all, there is nothing wrong with starting with the Bible. All scientific analysis must have a starting point. So if we begin with a Biblical concept, scientific methodology can be utilized to validate or annul the possibility of it being true. As long as scientific methods are strictly adhered too, there is no reason to say the results are unrealistic. Obviously, if facts or concepts are distorted to give a false substantiation of the truth, it is a problem. But if the facts support the concept or can support it, then the truth can be validated.

So science and Christianity can exist quite well together. They are not enemies as some say, but actually separate pieces to a larger puzzle. When those pieces are placed together properly, they give a better view of what is really going on and what really is at stake.

So if we look back at all the concepts examined it becomes clear that although science has answers for many of the things in our material existence, there are limits to its abilities. These limitations do not make the things we can not examine imaginary or impossible, but they do point to the fact that science is not the answer. It can not solve every problem or answer every question. Science is not God. Here in lies the truth. Even though science can not explain it, there are many things that obviously exist based upon either observation or deduction? Both of these methodologies are utilized in science, but have often been focused more at attempting to disprove concepts that may support spiritual things (i.e. the Bible) than sorting through to what is actually the most valid. This does not make all science bad, but those who practice it must learn to analyze with an open mind and willingness to accept that some things may not be provable through it and still remain feasible. So can science and God co-exist? They obviously can since He created it.

Copyright 2012 Vince R. Ward

Resources

Holy Bible (various translations)Guijosa,Alberto. 2004. What is String Theory? 2011. <http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html>Andrew Zimmerman Jones & Robbins, Daniel. 2009. The Basic Elements of String Theory. String Theory for Dummies. 2011.

<http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-basic-elements-of-string-theory.html>Andrew Zimmerman Jones & Robbins, Daniel. 2009. String Theory Features. String Theory for Dummies. 2011. <http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-theory-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html>Andrew Jones and Robbins, Daniel. . Einstein’s General Relativity Theory: Gravity as Geometry. 2012. General Relativity for

Dummies. <http://www.dummies.com/hot-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html> <http://www.dummies.com/hot-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html>

Wikipedia. 2012. <http://www.wikipedia.org/>Calvyn in Blog “M Theory for Dummies” on “The Skeptics Guide To The Universe”

<http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=22373.0>