Tweet
Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7
A necessary digression.
Book report for those who like stimulating and controversal reasoning.
What we are really dealing with here is the issue of origins.
CEW I will get to Genesis 6, just had to get this up. P.S you must PM me the instructions for that "source" linking.
A necessary digression.
Book report for those who like stimulating and controversal reasoning.
What we are really dealing with here is the issue of origins.
Origin of the Universe
The question of origins is often thought of as a difficult issue with no easy answers. In all reality the question turns out to be fairly straightforward when broken down into three simple questions. The three questions we must ask to determine the origin of the universe are as follows:
1. Did the universe have a beginning?
2. If the universe had a beginning, did it have a cause?
3. If the universe is caused, was that cause personal or impersonal?
The real issue is time and Eternity.
Time consists of a series of nows. These nows, when added together equal seconds, minutes, years, etc. We arrive at the future by passing through a series of nows. Likewise we conceive of the past by subtracting a certain series of nows from the standpoint of the present.
Thomas Aquinas made a categorical distinction between eternityand forever. Eternity, he said, is timelessness; forever is endless time. The former is not rooted within a temporal framework whereas the latter is.
"Eternity is a now; time has a now and then."
Eternity cannot be divided whereas time can be.
If we cannot arrive at an eternal past by subtracting moments from the present, the universe cannot be eternal. It had to come into being at a certain point in time, and have been in existence for a certain, measurable amount of time.
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community is convinced that the universe had a beginning. They believe in what is called the Big Bang theory of origins.
In essence the Big Bang theory states that there was a point in time at which nothing existed, including matter, space, and time.
Then, without any prior cause, an explosion of matter occurred (from non-matter), bringing matter, space, and time into existence simultaneously for the first time (referred to as the point of singularity), fully charged with energy.
The one who wishes to claim that the universe is the result of a causeless effect is making a statement of pure faith, not of science, because there is no scientific or philosophic support in its behalf.
We cannot even comprehend the concept of a causeless effect.
To say that the universe is the result of a causeless effect implies a prior cause from which the result followed.
There can be no question that the universe has a productive cause, but what was that prior productive cause?
Some would attribute the cause of the universe to the Big Bang,or lately the big crunch - two universes colliding with each other providing the matter for our current universe.
But the Big Bang/crunch is not the cause of the universe; it is itself an effect.
To argue that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe only pushes the problem back one step farther because we would still have to ask What caused the Big Bang?
It does not help to argue that the Big Bang was its own cause because a cause must precede the effect.
Something cannot be its own cause.
The only other option is to argue that the Big Bang was without a cause.
But how can there be an effect without a cause?
Furthermore, how can something come from nothing, time come from timelessness, and space from spacelessness?
There must be a First Cause that is itself uncaused in order to account for the origin of the universe.
Others may argue that an infinite amount of causes preceded the effects we see today, and thus there need not be a first cause at all.
But an infinite amount of causes is impossible for the same reason it is impossible to count to infinity, or to have an infinite past.
Today's effects would be the result of all previous causes, and thus today would be the terminus of all previous causes. Because infinity has no terminus, it would be impossible to have an infinite amount of causes before today.
There must be a First Cause that is itself uncaused, that caused all the effects we see today. What we must seek to discover is who or what that First Cause is.
A universe bound to time is temporal, and that which is temporal cannot be eternal, and cannot cause itself. It had to be caused by something non-temporal, for it would be a contradiction to think of a temporal something creating time when it is itself temporal.
It is impossible to bring into existence something that already exists.
This contradiction aside, if the universe was caused by a temporal something we would only remove the problem of origins back one step, for we would still have to ask What was the cause of the cause that brought the universe into existence?
I find it interesting that people are willing to believe matter is eternal (in contradiction to known laws of science such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in contradiction to logic) rather than caused, and yet find it foolish to believe in an eternal God.
It takes more faith to believe that the universe is eternal and/or uncaused than it does to believe in an eternal and uncaused divine being who caused the existence of the universe, because a divine being is personal and intelligent.
The cause of something is always greater than the effect.
If the universe shows traces of personality and intelligence, it must follow that the cause of the universe possesses personality and intelligence as well.
Not only must the cause have personality and intelligence, but it must have more personality and intelligence than that of the effect because the cause must be greater than the effect.
An intelligent, personal, and eternal being can explain how the universe came to be, why it shows evidence of design, and why elements of creation are personal and possess intelligence.
An eternal universe that is impersonal and random (i.e. without intelligence), however, cannot account for the organization and design of the universe, nor the personality and intellect we find in the universe.
It takes more faith to believe in an eternal universe than it does to believe in an eternal God.
We have already established that there must be a First Cause, but not the nature of this First Cause.
What is required of the First Cause for it to truly be the First Cause of all other effects?
A First Cause must itself be uncaused.
While it is the cause of all else, it is itself not caused by anything.
All temporal things must have a cause, so the First Cause cannot be temporal (being uncaused), but must be eternal (whatever is eternal never came to be).
And what is eternal is necessary, for it must exist, and must be what it is; it cannot not exist, and cannot be anything else other than what it is.
This is why philosophers refer to God as a Necessary Being.
His existence is not derived from, nor dependent on any prior cause.
He gives existence to all others, but He Himself receives existence from nothing nor anyone. A being of this sort simply is.
The First Cause must also possess Pure Actuality. Being is divided up into two categories: actual (it truly exists), potential (it has the potential to exist).22 A being who is eternal and necessary is a being of Pure Existence, or Pure Actuality, possessing no potentiality to become anything other than what it is.
If God is that First Cause, we would have to ask Who caused God to become?
This sends us off searching for the First Cause once again.
Because there cannot be an infinite regress of causation, the First Cause must possess Pure Actuality, having no potentiality of His own to be actualized by a prior cause.
The First Cause is the one who actualizes (causes) all other potentials (ability to become), but has no potential of His own to be actualized by another actualizer.
We conclude, then, that the First Cause must be uncaused, eternal, necessary, intelligent, personal, immaterial, and non-spatial.
Thus far the necessary qualifications of the First Cause have perfectly described the God of Christianity.
While there are further steps necessary to fully identify the First Cause as the God of Christianity, nevertheless, the qualifications for the First Cause that we have established thus far can only be satisfied by a divine, personal being.
This would rule out any naturalistic explanation of the universe, such as Darwinian evolution.
The same can be said of all views that propose a non-personal entity or force as the First Cause, such as is found in Christian Science, New Age beliefs, and Hinduism.
Likewise any religion that does not believe in an eternal God cannot be true because a God bound to time is a God who must have been created as well, and cannot explain the origin of a temporal universe (Mormonism).
The question of origins is often thought of as a difficult issue with no easy answers. In all reality the question turns out to be fairly straightforward when broken down into three simple questions. The three questions we must ask to determine the origin of the universe are as follows:
1. Did the universe have a beginning?
2. If the universe had a beginning, did it have a cause?
3. If the universe is caused, was that cause personal or impersonal?
The real issue is time and Eternity.
Time consists of a series of nows. These nows, when added together equal seconds, minutes, years, etc. We arrive at the future by passing through a series of nows. Likewise we conceive of the past by subtracting a certain series of nows from the standpoint of the present.
Thomas Aquinas made a categorical distinction between eternityand forever. Eternity, he said, is timelessness; forever is endless time. The former is not rooted within a temporal framework whereas the latter is.
"Eternity is a now; time has a now and then."
Eternity cannot be divided whereas time can be.
If we cannot arrive at an eternal past by subtracting moments from the present, the universe cannot be eternal. It had to come into being at a certain point in time, and have been in existence for a certain, measurable amount of time.
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community is convinced that the universe had a beginning. They believe in what is called the Big Bang theory of origins.
In essence the Big Bang theory states that there was a point in time at which nothing existed, including matter, space, and time.
Then, without any prior cause, an explosion of matter occurred (from non-matter), bringing matter, space, and time into existence simultaneously for the first time (referred to as the point of singularity), fully charged with energy.
The one who wishes to claim that the universe is the result of a causeless effect is making a statement of pure faith, not of science, because there is no scientific or philosophic support in its behalf.
We cannot even comprehend the concept of a causeless effect.
To say that the universe is the result of a causeless effect implies a prior cause from which the result followed.
There can be no question that the universe has a productive cause, but what was that prior productive cause?
Some would attribute the cause of the universe to the Big Bang,or lately the big crunch - two universes colliding with each other providing the matter for our current universe.
But the Big Bang/crunch is not the cause of the universe; it is itself an effect.
To argue that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe only pushes the problem back one step farther because we would still have to ask What caused the Big Bang?
It does not help to argue that the Big Bang was its own cause because a cause must precede the effect.
Something cannot be its own cause.
The only other option is to argue that the Big Bang was without a cause.
But how can there be an effect without a cause?
Furthermore, how can something come from nothing, time come from timelessness, and space from spacelessness?
There must be a First Cause that is itself uncaused in order to account for the origin of the universe.
Others may argue that an infinite amount of causes preceded the effects we see today, and thus there need not be a first cause at all.
But an infinite amount of causes is impossible for the same reason it is impossible to count to infinity, or to have an infinite past.
Today's effects would be the result of all previous causes, and thus today would be the terminus of all previous causes. Because infinity has no terminus, it would be impossible to have an infinite amount of causes before today.
There must be a First Cause that is itself uncaused, that caused all the effects we see today. What we must seek to discover is who or what that First Cause is.
A universe bound to time is temporal, and that which is temporal cannot be eternal, and cannot cause itself. It had to be caused by something non-temporal, for it would be a contradiction to think of a temporal something creating time when it is itself temporal.
It is impossible to bring into existence something that already exists.
This contradiction aside, if the universe was caused by a temporal something we would only remove the problem of origins back one step, for we would still have to ask What was the cause of the cause that brought the universe into existence?
I find it interesting that people are willing to believe matter is eternal (in contradiction to known laws of science such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in contradiction to logic) rather than caused, and yet find it foolish to believe in an eternal God.
It takes more faith to believe that the universe is eternal and/or uncaused than it does to believe in an eternal and uncaused divine being who caused the existence of the universe, because a divine being is personal and intelligent.
The cause of something is always greater than the effect.
If the universe shows traces of personality and intelligence, it must follow that the cause of the universe possesses personality and intelligence as well.
Not only must the cause have personality and intelligence, but it must have more personality and intelligence than that of the effect because the cause must be greater than the effect.
An intelligent, personal, and eternal being can explain how the universe came to be, why it shows evidence of design, and why elements of creation are personal and possess intelligence.
An eternal universe that is impersonal and random (i.e. without intelligence), however, cannot account for the organization and design of the universe, nor the personality and intellect we find in the universe.
It takes more faith to believe in an eternal universe than it does to believe in an eternal God.
We have already established that there must be a First Cause, but not the nature of this First Cause.
What is required of the First Cause for it to truly be the First Cause of all other effects?
A First Cause must itself be uncaused.
While it is the cause of all else, it is itself not caused by anything.
All temporal things must have a cause, so the First Cause cannot be temporal (being uncaused), but must be eternal (whatever is eternal never came to be).
And what is eternal is necessary, for it must exist, and must be what it is; it cannot not exist, and cannot be anything else other than what it is.
This is why philosophers refer to God as a Necessary Being.
His existence is not derived from, nor dependent on any prior cause.
He gives existence to all others, but He Himself receives existence from nothing nor anyone. A being of this sort simply is.
The First Cause must also possess Pure Actuality. Being is divided up into two categories: actual (it truly exists), potential (it has the potential to exist).22 A being who is eternal and necessary is a being of Pure Existence, or Pure Actuality, possessing no potentiality to become anything other than what it is.
If God is that First Cause, we would have to ask Who caused God to become?
This sends us off searching for the First Cause once again.
Because there cannot be an infinite regress of causation, the First Cause must possess Pure Actuality, having no potentiality of His own to be actualized by a prior cause.
The First Cause is the one who actualizes (causes) all other potentials (ability to become), but has no potential of His own to be actualized by another actualizer.
We conclude, then, that the First Cause must be uncaused, eternal, necessary, intelligent, personal, immaterial, and non-spatial.
Thus far the necessary qualifications of the First Cause have perfectly described the God of Christianity.
While there are further steps necessary to fully identify the First Cause as the God of Christianity, nevertheless, the qualifications for the First Cause that we have established thus far can only be satisfied by a divine, personal being.
This would rule out any naturalistic explanation of the universe, such as Darwinian evolution.
The same can be said of all views that propose a non-personal entity or force as the First Cause, such as is found in Christian Science, New Age beliefs, and Hinduism.
Likewise any religion that does not believe in an eternal God cannot be true because a God bound to time is a God who must have been created as well, and cannot explain the origin of a temporal universe (Mormonism).
Comment