"Ignoring God...But Why?"

How about this idea?  “If I ignore the police officer that lights me up, then he or she will not exist or at least will go away.”  Oh, really?  What kind of thinking is that? 

The arguments against God are not uncommon and in fact are tired old arguments which have been bandied about if not foisted upon mankind over and over again.  The old adage “Repeat a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”[1] comes into play.  Over and over again evidence is provided that would seem to militate against there being a God.  It is often presented as new and novel, however it is the same time warned theories over and over again.

Yes, in reality these arguments are just theories--ideas that can neither be proven nor disproved.  However, there is a more serious and fundamental question that most who claim the mantel of “atheist” or at least “agnostic” cannot bring themselves to answer.

Before beginning the discussion of that notion, and as written in a previous blog, no one can conclusively prove the existence of God—No one!  While there is ample if not overwhelming evidence from science, from rationalism, from empiricism, and even existentialism, there is nothing that can be conclusively proven.  The best one can tender is evidence that points one toward there being a God.

What then is one left within this debate?  Simply, one is left with the matter of one’s opinion.  Of course then it is quite obvious that opinions vary widely!  Whatever system of evidence one chooses to accept, whatever philosophical system one acknowledges, or whatever theology one embraces, opinions run the gamut within that system.

What we do know is that presented with evidence one assumes an opinion and every one of those opinions is a matter of choice.  On one hand some make the choice to believe in God.  Meanwhile others choose to not to believe in God.  One must then ask and answer “Why?”  Why do some choose to believe and some choose not to believe?

In a debate at Oxford University, UK Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchens posited another question with several observations.[2]  This may be the answer to the question just tendered.  Roughly speaking the question was as follows.

Just why is it that the atheist wants there to be no god?  Why do atheists expend great and even illogical effort into this notion?  Why when confronted with questions such as first causes do they resort to the extreme theoretical notions?  Why do men of such intellect as Richard Dawkins suggest alien seeding as the beginning of what would lead to human life on earth?

Does it not seem that for their own reasons these folks will go to any measure to not have to deal with the inconvenience of there being a God—a supreme benevolent adjudicator of justice?  The One to which all are accountable both in this life and the next![3]

Maybe that is it.  These are those who simply believe that by ignoring Him, He will cease to exist or at least go away.  Can they really believe that it is more convenient to ignore the evidence than to tempt the possibility of accountability?  Do they really believe in such things?   

Well then they must believe that by ignoring the police officer who seeks to pull them over for speeding they can hinder and avert their own accountability for breaking the law!

---

[1] This quote is often attributed to Hitler, Goebbels, and has been used by others.

[2] Remarks available at http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc

[3] Hebrews 9:27-28 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.  NASU

Law Assumes a Lawgiver - Part 2

Continuing then from Part 1

Matter + Time + Chance = Universe

Now back to the Hubble.  No one with a modicum of sense would argue that the physical laws that govern light do not exist.  Nor could one plausibly argue that they simply are a product of matter plus time plus chance.  There is too much precision and complexity involved for such to be so.   

However, neither can one argue that these laws were historically consistent.  There is no historical data from millions and billions of years ago which would allow one to reliably validate such to be so.  Most certainly there are tree rings, rock strata, and ice strata etc. but again the assumption is that botanic, geological, and atmospheric laws are historically consistent.

Once again there is that most troubling word, “assumptions” and what one is prepared to accept.  Those assumptions become the foundation upon which one then builds a truth paradigm.  That truth paradigm then influences how one views other data and experience.  Yes, assumptions are not without great implications for what we believe and how we live.

In my view there are four catastrophic events that possibly could have changed even the physical laws that govern such things as light and matter.  Yes, these are assumptive in nature and couched in the form of questions!

First, there are the events that are described in Genesis 1:2.  The question is this.  Why did the earth become formless and void with darkness covering the face of the deep?  In order for there to be formlessness, there first had to be form, etc.  Could whatever brought about this catastrophic scene have changed the physical laws?  One can speculate and formulate this answer or that but no one can really know for sure.

Second, beginning is the next verse is the creation account.  When mention is made of various elements of creation the question becomes, what changes if any took place in and among the physical laws?  Were new laws established or at least changed in the renewed creation?    Again one can speculate and formulate this answer or that but no one can really know.

Third, in Genesis 3 there is the story of the Fall of Man.  When judgment is pronounced could there have been change to the physical laws?  Certainly there was change in man’s makeup.  There is some mention made of changes in nature.  How were physical laws influenced by such as happened?  Once again one can speculate and formulate this answer or that but no one can really know.

Fourth, is the event known as Noah’s flood.   The aquifers opened and gushed forth their water, the water in the atmosphere descended upon the earth, and the earth was covered with water.  Again one is faced with the question.  Were physical laws changed? And once again no one knows for sure.

Summary

To reiterate, the basis of what one believes in these and other matter is based in the “assumptions” one is prepared to accept.  Those assumptions become the foundation upon which one then builds a truth paradigm.  That truth paradigm then influences how one views other data and experience.  Incomplete or erroneous assumptions lead to the possibility of faulty perceptions and conclusions.  Complete and correct assumptions lead to the possibility of correct perceptions and conclusion.

Law Assumes a Lawgiver - Part 1

As of 2010 the Hubble Space Telescope was able to discern an object 13.2 billion light years distant.  What that means is that the light emitted by what is believed to be a constellation traveling outward from that constellation at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second) would take 13,200,000,000 years to make it journey through the vastness of space and finally arrive at Hubble.

Consider then that in a given year (60 seconds X 60 minutes X 24 hours X 365 day X Speed/Light) gives the distance in miles that light travels in one year.  Continuing then multiply that number by the 13.2 billion light years from that most distant object. The numbers looks something like this: 

Light travels 5,875,882,128,000 miles in one (1) year (5.8 X 10¹²)

X 13,200,000,000 light years distant from object (13.2 X 10⁹)

77,561,644,089,600,000,000,000 miles to object (77.5 X 10²¹)

Assume for a moment that the constellation is in a fixed location (that it is not moving outward from the earth).  With that in mind consider that such light as is emitted is traveling in all directions at that same speed.  That is to say that were the Hubble to be moved 26.4 billion light years diagonally from this side to the opposite side of the constellation its light would be there.

For that to be true what assumptions have to be made?  There is the assumption that Hubble would find light at that location.  There is the assumption that known physical laws are the same and operate in the same fashion 26.4 billion light years away.  

One can only assume it to be so because of science’s assumptions about the consistency of physical laws that govern light.  There again is that most troubling word, “assume!”  Think about what we take as reliable because of assumptions.  However, there is another word that is equally troubling.  It is the word, “laws.”

Consider this illustration.  No one enters a law library and assumes that the laws contained therein just happened.  While there may have been change due to case law, no one assumes that laws came about without some kind of an entity external to those laws. 

Letters + Time + Chance = Law Library – What?

Neither would anyone assume that letters plus time plus chance would result in the millions and millions of words that formed into some kind of order which then result in a meaningful system.   An orderly system that then evolved and gained the title of law.  No, not at all—there had to be an entity external to the Library.

So too with the physical laws which govern science and so too with ethical laws that are meant to govern conduct.  The Theist  believes that these laws came from God.  The Naturalist believes they evolved.  Now what makes more sense?  Which is more plausible given the order of the Universe?  Is it not more plausible that One who is external to these and other laws is God!   

 

More to follow.

“Truth Detour - Road Closed”

“Truth Detour - Road Closed”

Recently while driving there appeared a sign, “Detour Ahead.”  Soon another appeared “Detour Ahead” and then a sign that read, “Road Closed.”  Not being familiar with the area did not help matters.  As you might suppose the road was indeed closed and with such being so, a fair amount of back tracking became necessary.

In the course of seeking genuine reality/truth one travels many roads.  However, what is most disconcerting is to encounter someone who claims a willingness to travel any road necessary but soon erects “Road Closed” signs. 

How can such be so?  It seems that if one is a genuine seeker of ultimate truth, that person would be willing to take any road necessary and then follow that road wherever necessary.  Sadly such is not so!

There are those who fall within the Reverend George McDonald* observation,

“To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.” 

How does one know if they are dealing with one who will seek truth no matter where the road leads and no matter the costs involved?  You can most often identify those who are in such honest pursuit as they exhibit certain qualities.  At this point it must be said that no one possess or is possessed of perfect integrity—all are fallible.

THE ROADBLOCKS TO REALITY

The pseudo-seekers of reality share several qualities, among them are the following.

Dismissive:  To immediately dismiss a potential threat to one’s truth paradigm is often counterproductive.  The person who would seek genuine truth is one who submits all to careful examination no matter the outcome.

Existential superiority:  In a recent interaction a significant body of information was dismissed based upon one’s experience.  The notion of personal experience trumping the veracity of a truth claim is dangerous for reasons that will be explain below.

Explicitness:  Any profitable interchange deals in specific subject matter.  To cast generalities back and forth serves little in the pursuit of truth as both the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins amply demonstrate.

Fair exchange:  There is a great difference between argument and attack.  It is one thing to question the foundation, logic, and conclusion of an argument and it is something else to argue with innuendo, misstatement, projection, and misrepresentation.  Such interactions are nothing other than attack as opposed to sincere quest for truth.

Vulnerability:  Because at times truth is illusive there are those who will take a chance, pass a “Road Closed” sign, travel that new road, think a new thought, come to a new conclusion, be faced by a new finding, and most of all they are willing to challenge and have their conclusions challenged.

THE EXAMINATION OF GENUINE TRUTH

The genuine seekers of reality share several qualities, among them are the following.

Foundation:  Sound conclusions are built upon sound presuppositions.  When one encounters a new truth paradigm, it is well to ask, “What is necessary for such to be true?”  If the foundation is faulty then there is a very strong possibility that the structure of the argument is going to be faulty.

Logical consistency:  If truth is genuine, the pathway to that truth has a certain logical consistency.  In that vein, one is wise to carefully insure that a seeming illogical argument is not dismissed for other than logical fallacy.

The Comparative Measure:  To verify a truth claim, it must be compared to, based upon, and in sync with a known and verifiable truth.  All else is theory until proven otherwise.  This very often is where the one claiming an existential foundation for truth runs into difficulties for such is without connection to verifiable and proven realtiy.

So here is the question.  Passing all of the signs along the roadway to truth, how have your beliefs fared.  Did they stand up to the test or do they need to be re-examined?

_____________

*The Scottish Reverend George MacDonald was an accomplished author, poet, and writer of fantasy literature.  It is said that Lewis Carroll was influenced by his writings and thus wrote the wonderful, “Alice in Wonderland.”  Others fell under his influence to include C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.