FOREWORD: I understand that this a priori evidence is certainly not sufficient enough in order to convince one that Christianity is philosophically robust, nor is it sufficient enough to convince one that there is a God - but it provides a valid scientific grounding to monotheism (by definition God exists outwith general relativity therefore God can never be subjet to scientific scrutiny, if God could be put into - say - a test tube then this aforementioned test tube subject can not be God). I recognise that an atheist can refute what evidence I give them by saying "it's just God of the gaps", but what I ask of the atheist whom stands by such a claim is "what do you propose there is in lieu of God?" Perhaps the reason as to why so many people are reluctant to accepting the philosophical evidence of God derives from their desire to indulge their sinful natures - without an eternal consequence. What I say to you is "are you willing to risk the fate of your eternal life for a philosophical stance that can not give you any decent, sensible answers to how we came to be, what purpose we serve and if, at all, we have free will and even morality?" Think about it please. On this blog I employ no attempts to deceive you of the truth nor do I advocate that Christianity is correct.
My personal belief lies within monotheism and Christ the messiah, however I understand that the old Confucian saying "everything has beauty but only some of us are aware of it" can remain true hence why I view what I type as "potentially refutable." This, however, is the beauty of philosophy crystalised within the void between theology and science, we're human and we don't have all of the answers. True philosophy is enlightening yet should leave you with more questions than answers, the kind of questions that make you ponder and admit "wow, so that is possibly how it goes." If I provoke any kind of intellectual response from you, as the reader, then I can take confidence in knowing that my work here is done.
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang (if there was then the big bang cannot be the start of causality and time, as that would mean that the universe would be and not be at the same time - that, I'm afraid, is a contradiction); the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent, but if the universe was really around for infinite time, with no beginning, then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. The classic paradox that comes from infinite regression can be represented by the following analogy: say I wanted to greet you, but I only could once I asked the person seated behind me for permission. Then this aforementioned person says "wait, I've to ask the person sitting behind me for permission to give you permission to greet the reader of this article. Say this went on for a infinite number of times, would I ever get to greet you? No, of course not so how can we reach this point in time if there is infinite regress on the chain of causality But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause (and it is perfectly acceptable to state such a priori, or through reason alone). However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning (the Higgs-boson particle is affirmative to this, as it is like steps in the snow that trace back to a point of literal nothing a finite time ago - but whether or not this sub-atomically regarded theory is the truth I do not know!), but God exists external to the bounds of time and space, ergo God is a non-contingent being (only contingent beings need a cause in order for their existence to be accountable).
My personal belief lies within monotheism and Christ the messiah, however I understand that the old Confucian saying "everything has beauty but only some of us are aware of it" can remain true hence why I view what I type as "potentially refutable." This, however, is the beauty of philosophy crystalised within the void between theology and science, we're human and we don't have all of the answers. True philosophy is enlightening yet should leave you with more questions than answers, the kind of questions that make you ponder and admit "wow, so that is possibly how it goes." If I provoke any kind of intellectual response from you, as the reader, then I can take confidence in knowing that my work here is done.
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang (if there was then the big bang cannot be the start of causality and time, as that would mean that the universe would be and not be at the same time - that, I'm afraid, is a contradiction); the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent, but if the universe was really around for infinite time, with no beginning, then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. The classic paradox that comes from infinite regression can be represented by the following analogy: say I wanted to greet you, but I only could once I asked the person seated behind me for permission. Then this aforementioned person says "wait, I've to ask the person sitting behind me for permission to give you permission to greet the reader of this article. Say this went on for a infinite number of times, would I ever get to greet you? No, of course not so how can we reach this point in time if there is infinite regress on the chain of causality But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause (and it is perfectly acceptable to state such a priori, or through reason alone). However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning (the Higgs-boson particle is affirmative to this, as it is like steps in the snow that trace back to a point of literal nothing a finite time ago - but whether or not this sub-atomically regarded theory is the truth I do not know!), but God exists external to the bounds of time and space, ergo God is a non-contingent being (only contingent beings need a cause in order for their existence to be accountable).
The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation, as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10). As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."
However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists. For the notion of free will to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect, chemicals react because they do not reason (our will must be independant of the interlocked system of nature if we truly are able to cognate), and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so) then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?). Evolution states that everything within our bodies happened by chance, but for that to be true the chances must be of infinite quantity; I'd be skeptical of accepting that there would have been an infinite amount of past time before now or a universe that oscillates for infinite time...
Nevertheless, your current perception is that of the particles in their current hinge, the past has dwindled away into the bottomless pit and the future remains for discovery and change. The truth can die among men or men can die for the truth but to accept the Christian God is to accept Jesus as the messiah. Read the first four gospels of the New Testament if you desire your historical proof. Or how about a Latin Vulgate as translated by St Jerome translated verbatim into English if you believe the translation you have is flawed by theological bias - I think you'll find that the diverse, historical accounts of Christ still remain to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment