The first question I and anyone considering any serious inquiry of religion should pose would be "is there a creator?" At this point I am not going to be looking for who that creator may be, but simply if reason would lead me to the conclusion that there is a creator of all the physical universe. According to the Bible, which is the ultimate truth, we are without excuse to believe in God and all of creation shall praise him. If this is to be trusted then we should be able to reach a conclusion using science. This science should consist of only the facts, and not of theories. It should be based on evidence, not on anyone's interpretation of the evidence, but let it lead me to my own conclusions.
Fact: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. --- First Law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Metric expansion of space, an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself).
Now, ponder what the metric expansion of space means. Space is ever growing, at a prescribed rate. Now reverse engineer that. You would mathematically be able to arrive at a point where you have all space contained in an infinitely small space, and then arrive to a point where actually nothing exist. I have been taught in my public school instruction that it was at this point that the "Big Bang" occurred, but where did the energy come from to cause this explosion? According to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy had to be introduced into this system, it could not have been created of itself by any natural means. If this energy could not have come from within this system it must have been added by an outside source.
Furthermore, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe is ever-nearing equilibrium, a state of lifelessness. It must have begun at its most perfect state of being and the entropy of the universe must increase overall. Now, applying this law to the previous information we find that it is impossible for the universe to have began with "nothing."
We now know that the universe had a beginning, because we are traveling away from that beginning state. We know that energy had to be inserted into this system (the universe), since it could not have produced energy of its own. We know that at the beginning of the universe the universe must have been at its most perfect state ever, because of entropy.
So, where does that leave us? What are we to believe? Me, I am lead to believe that there must be a power beyond the natural that designed the universe and created it in it's most perfect form. I am further inclined to believe that for there to be laws, there must be a lawgiver. I am also inclined to believe that for a law to be constant, there must be a law keeper. Since I know that there are many laws governing nature, that these same laws are forever constant, then I am forced to the conclusion that there was a lawgiver in the past and there is also a force that continues to maintain these laws through the present. Who was this creator, lawgiver and law keeper? This will be the topic of a future post.
I love the blog, this great, Thanks!
ReplyDeleteray-sheeth el-o-heem baw-raw
“In the beginning” “God” “Created”
Hebrew word "baw-raw", is one of three words which refer to God's creative activity. The other similar words used in Scripture are "aw-sawh" and "yttsehr". "Baw-raw" and "aw-sawh" mean essentially the same thing, to do or make, except, that in proper context, "baw-raw" means to make from something that never existed, hence to create. "Aw-sawh" means only to make from what was preexistent.
When God created [baw-raw] the heavens and the earth, He also made [baw-raw] the elements, which did not previously exist in physical form, and from which everything else can be made [aw-sawh], thus God "made" [aw-sawh] the animals from what had previously been "created" [baw-raw].
I have received correction on a matter, that all truth comes from the Bible, and I have known this and was applying this hear, just without expressing such. When I said "To reach a conclusion I find it inappropriate to use any religious thought or teaching in my reasoning, but one should use science," I may seem as if I am implying that I am using reasoning outside of the one true source of truth, but I beg to differ. According to Romans 1:19-21,
ReplyDelete"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
I am standing on this passage to use the Laws of Nature, in which His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.