Answers to Questions Christians Cannot Answer

"The 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer" (from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer) as with most declarative statements/questions is steeped in an abundance of assumptions.  One does well to ask, what are the assumptions necessary in order for the particular question to have legitimacy. 

The first assumption is that some Christian some place on this earth or who lived in some time period could not legitimately answer these questions.  Such is quite an assumption.  Maybe these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner but that in no way validates the assumption underlying the questions presented.

Consider the first question, "If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why did he take six days to create everything? Why not speak everything into existence all at once?"  Assume for the sake of discussion that the questioner is not taking "pot shots" at the Bible and really does want to know the answers. 

Of interest and importance to the discussion are several matters to include the existence of God and as well the veracity of the Scriptural text.  Further the questioner seems to assume that the text is to be taken literally.  If such was not so the very asking of the question would be negated. 

Another point is that the question must be understood within the time and culture of the activity to which it refers.  Thus there is a necessary adjustment to the question.

The Scripture points out that God's creative week was not six days but seven.  What difference does that make?  A modicum of study reveals that in that day and culture numbers were significant.  In the case of seven, it is found throughout the Hebrew and for that matter the Christian Bible.  It is the number of completion or perfection. 

Another assumption necessary to the question is found in "If God is omnipotent (all-powerful),..."  Here one arrives at something of a problem.  How does the finite comprehend the all-powerful infinite?  One can in degree conceptually grasp the notion of "omnipotent" but to get one's "mental arms" around the notion is a tall order beyond the capacity of most people.

Consider the following.  How Much Power Does the Sun Produce?

The Sun's output is 3.8 x 10³³ ergs/second, or about 5 x 10²³ horsepower. How much is that? It is enough energy to melt a bridge of ice 2 miles wide, 1 mile thick, and extending the entire way from the Earth to the Sun, in one second.

Dr. Louis Barbier (available at http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html)

Imagine then that the sun according to some estimates is 4.5 billions of years in age (this assumption is purely for the purposes of argument).  That means that in those years the energy from the sun alone would melt 1.4 X 10¹⁷ (141,261,570 with 9 more zeros) ice bridges.  Consider then that each ice bridge is 185,912,100 cubic miles in volume. Imagine the immense power necessary for such a bridge to be melted.  Most would agree that the numbers involved are beyond comprehension. 

Now move a step further and consider that the created is never greater than the Creator and thus considering just the energy spawned by the sun one can in some degree begin to see something of omnipotent.  Factor in that some astronomers estimate that there are a million such suns in the universe.  However, that does nothing to answer the question except for there to be one other factor included.

A God that vast could be impersonal and thus outside of man's consciousness and capacity to comprehend.  Again consider Hebrew culture and the names for God.  The creation account over and over uses the name Eloheim--the majestically powerful God.  After man is created another name appears in the text--Yahweh, the relational name for God*.  Bear in mind that the infinite God reduce the view of Himself so as to be available to finite man.  To be sure such a view is at best a very limited view no matter the capacities of the man involved.  Too it must be noted that it is a view that is never exhausted.  As long as man lives, there will always be more to learn of the infinite majestic God.

The final assumptive point to be made is this.  How does one know that God did or did not take the full 24 hours as referenced in the creation narrative.  If God is as omnipotent as the question suggests, is He not powerful enough to create as He pleases, 24 nanoseconds, 24 seconds, 24 minutes, 24 hours, 24 days...etc.? 

Hopefully these few thoughts germinate other thoughts which then might further flesh out the discussion on this and other questions.   

_________________________________

*The names are rough transliterations of the original names.

Unintended Messages

Often when one looks beyond what appears as the obvious, there is another message--truth to be discovered.  It can be both unintended and at variance with the initial statement.  In fact, it allows for another story quite different from the first.  So it is with the following.

If a god knew what the creatures that it makes would "freely choose" and it makes them anyway and punishes them for such choices...that's not only evil...it's insane. 

Name withheld

What can one make of such a statement?  A place to begin is with the tone and tenor of the statement.  One can certainly wonder at some things--two of several are as follows.  First, why is it that "a god" is valued in the negative?  Couldn't the question  be asked if not the positive, at least in the neutral?  Second, what "choices" are available and what are the implications based in there being "choices?"

First, the values present.  Keep in mind that when there is a negative, of necessity there must be a previous positive.  In other words, if one observes that God is "not good," there must be an antecedent "good" by which to make the "not good" observation.   

Therefore, for the writer's "evil" and "insane" to exist, there is an assumption that the opposite positive exists.  Such brings about another question.  What is the origin of that "good?"  Did this notion of "good" evolve?  Is it just a rational social construct?  Did it just happen by some random chance?  This is perhaps the major unintended messages of the statement.  There are more!

Consider the "freely choose" thought.  The notion of free choice means that the possibility of there not being free choice exists.  In this case the created is vested with a certain capacity to make choices.  If that capacity did not exist then there would be no choice and thus a whole host of other elements would not be present.   There is for example, the matter of opportunity which is present when there is choice.  Said another way, remove choice and opportunity is removed.

One of the opportunities present is that of relationship.  Choice is necessary for there to be relationship.  Thus the created was vested not just with the opportunity of choice but also the opportunity to be blessed with relationships from those choices.

Then there is the matter of responsibility.  The initial statement is based in the notion that the created is held accountable for poor decisions that grow out of the previously reference free will.  If one accepts that there is responsibility, then one must assume that there is a standard by which to divide responsible from irresponsible.  That being so, the writer must assume that the creator did not make clear the dividing line.  Quite an assumption! 

As with any number of choices, there is an outcome.  Notice the assumption is that the outcome of choice is punishment.  Again the unintended message is that if there is the possibility of "punishment" there then must be the possibility of "blessing."  Thus, the choices one makes may be dire in outcome or could result in opportunity, responsibility, relationship, and blessing.   

Interesting that the whole notion of the created making right choices and being blessed is ignored.  The focus is upon the consequences of wrong choices.   This of course is a reflection of the writer's view of the "creator" and as well the "created."

The final observation is this.  Quite right, the writer observes that the created has a propensity for failing and that points to another element of the discussion.  If such is so, then would it not seem logical that the creator would create a solution to the need of the created?  Well such would not be apparent to one who takes a dim view of the Creator!

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever, believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.  For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."  John 3:16-17

Graphic from "...Why does God Need Me?" Part IV

...Why Does God Need Me? - Part IV

Noted in the last post was that Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias develops the ramifications of Divine love in the following manner.

The greatest love leads to freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice leads to the possibility of sin and evil.

Sin and evil leads to the possibility of a savior

A savior leads to the possibility of redemption.

(see previous post for citation)

The following is an adaptation of those four thoughts. Think for a moment what those four statements mean in the context of epic conflict between good and evil.   For there to be genuine love there must be the freedom of choice which allows a man to accept or to reject that love.  God is love and as previously noted "God's love Expressed" is a portion of but not the totality of "God is Love."

Note:  See next Blog for larger image of graphic

God was under no obligation to express that love but He did and did so in two ways.  "Man was vested with the choice/capacity to receive God's Love" is the first action to be considered.  Therefore, because of God's grace and mercy, man has the opportunity to choose.  He can choose to accept or rejected that God's Love Expressed.  The second will be considered in a moment.

The point is that where there is choice, there is conflict. What conflict? There is the conflict between good and bad, the right and the wrong, the God way and the man way etc. 

The Scripture tells us that there is one who opposes God.  He is Satan or Lucifer as he is sometimes called. He is the antithesis of God in concept and purpose but not in power.  This conflict with God is of proportions beyond what we sense, know, and for that matter, understand.  That being the case the second part of the initial question, "...why does God need me?" has to do with this conflict. 

It does not end there but finite man, once he accepts "God's Love Expressed" comes to a most difficult place.  It is here that "Man understands that he is sinful and evil."  Left to his own ends, as previously noted, man will wreak havoc upon man, culture, and nature.  However the one who genuinely understands that he is sinful is faced with a choice.  Deny and excuse away the sinfulness or take action.

What action?  Another choice.  It is at this point that, "Man acknowledges the need for a Savior."  No matter how well intentioned or strong of will a man might be there comes a point where his needs outdistance his capacities.  The outcome is that he then is presented with the opportunity to look beyond himself.

Digress for a moment to consider a second outcome of "God's Love Expressed." It is in "God provides a Savior."  God made the choice to do what man could not do.  God provided a way for man to reconnect with God and find a solution for his sin and selfishness.

God by choosing to provide a Savior arranged it so, "Man is redeemed from sin and has fellowship with God."  Again, what man could not do God did.

Yes, in all of this there are choices tantamount to stepping off into the unknown for there is a degree of mystery.  To remove the mystical/spiritual and unknowns from faith is to remove the revelatory nature of faith and thus reduce it down to some kind of Judeo-Christian rationalism.

God vested man with the power to make choices.  However, that is where it ends for man try as he will cannot control the outcome of those choices.  On one hand there are the choices that lead to forgiveness for sin and a connection with God.  On the other hand, "Man remains selfish, sinful, and separated from God."  Indeed it is all a matter of one's choices.   

...Why Does God Need Me? - Part III

Now to the third point, "...why does God need me?"

Before tackling the question, it is well to bring a previous thought to the fore.  Since need indicates an inadequacy, insufficiency, or lack one might dismiss the question based upon the supposition that God is perfect in person and power and therefore, experiences none of these thing. 

Therefore, one might rephrase the question to be in terms of "want."  In doing so that "want" must be in light of the previous statement.  Why God "wants" us in large part is what the historic church has termed a "mystery."  Simply stated there are some things that about the infinite that the finite will never understand.

Examples are insufficient but try this one.  Imagine Albert Einstein trying to explain relativity to a toddler.  There is simply not enough capacity for conceptual understanding and therefore there is no effective explanation.   Now suppose that Einstein reduces it down to the toddler level.  In the process of that reduction certain elements would be lost.  Such does not mean those do not exist, only that they are "mysteries" to the toddler.

So it is as the infinite God seeks to make Himself available (accommodates Himself) to be understood by finite man.  Just because there are certain things not conceptually grasped by the finite does not mean that those mysteries do not exist and function. As previously noted, these are often referred to as "mystical" or "spiritual" elements of faith. 

As a part of the discussion of "mystical" and "spiritual," there is a principle that underpins one's insight into these things.  It has been expressed in various ways but reduced down it simply means that there are some things that must be believed to be seen.  Stated else wise, some things need to be believed to be understood.  More later.

In order to grasp the Judeo-Christian faith system on some level (Einstein level down to toddler level) there is a necessary supposition.  It is that "God is love."  Two considerations.  First, the expression of God's love, whatever that looks like, fits within "God is love" but never exhausts the truth that gave the statement. 

Second, Divine love falls into one of the previously discussed notion of the finite understanding of the infinite God.   From the finite view the expression of that love may appear as other than love.  So what is the point of God being love and God expressing that love?

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias develops the ramifications of Divine love in the following manner.*

- The greatest love leads to the possibility of the freedom of choice.

- Freedom of choice leads to the possibility of there being sin and evil.

- Sin and evil leads to the possibility of there being a savior

- A savior leads to the possibility of there being redemption.

These will be further developed and discussed in Part IV.

_____________________

*adapted from discussion available in the series titled, "Conversations with Chuck:  Abraham" (7-11 November) at: http://www.insight.org/broadcast