|
Print
We are Without Excuse
Romans
1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 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,
NKJV
God
expects all mankind to recognize His existence through observation of what
He created. Inspiration says that His existence and eternal power has
been clearly evident since the beginning of the creation. Defining the
creation as the world in which we live contained within the observable
universe. In other words, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the
sky, etc, etc. God simply said "the things that are made".
We are going to call this the universe. God said that his existence has been so evident that all those who
refuse to acknowledge this and find themselves standing in shame before the
judgment seat will be unable to plead a case based on ignorance of
God because He has clearly shown His eternal existence, nature and power in
His creation. God says he will not accept that as an excuse.
Now when
we peel all the layers off of this and get right down to the core issue,
do Christians have objective or subjective faith? Is our faith
objective, based on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or, is our
faith subjective, based on feelings, attitudes, opinions and whimsical
hopes? Jesse Ventura, governor of Minnesota, made a statement in an interview once where he
said "religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people".
God says this is not true. God says that faith in His existence is
something clearly proclaimed throughout His creation and that people like
Mr. Ventura are going to have no excuse. Everybody has faith in
something. Mr. Ventura has faith but it clearly isn't in God.
The atheists have faith that everything in the observable universe came
about as a result of naturalistic processes which brought about the creation
of everything in the universe.
So then who's faith is really based on observable fact (objective) and who's
is really based on feelings, attitudes, opinions and whimsical hopes
(subjective)?
I will
submit for consideration that the faith based on observable facts is the
faith we should build our hopes on and not faith based on feelings,
attitudes and opinions. The purpose of this lesson is to consider some
of the basic most fundamental facts that support our faith in God and to see
who's faith really is based in fact and who's is only a crutch for the
weak-minded. To do this we need to keep in mind that these observable
facts have been built into God's creation since the beginning. The
first people who ever walked on the earth were expected to be able to see
this and draw the conclusion that God existed. One would think that
with all the passing millennia and with all the technological advancements
we have and with all of our accumulated scientific knowledge that something as
apparent as God and His eternal power, that was said to have been clearly
evident since the beginning would be all the more easy to see today.
One would certainly think that. But obviously it is not the
case. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
To the
question of whether or not God exists we need to examine all the options
available to answer this question. When you narrow all the variables
down until nothing is left but the key options on which the answer depends
then one can usually determine the truth from eliminating the impossible
options until only one is left. When the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains
must be the truth. In this instance there are fewer
options available than one would expect. To answer the question of
whether or not God exists we need to look to the origins of the observable
universe to determine the most key options. Eliminate evolution
for now which is a serious hurdle to be sure, but before there can be any
evolution, there must first be the universe. Because without the universe there can be no evolution.
So lets go all the way back to the existence of the universe and look at the options
we have to explain that, which must operate within known natural laws in order to be of any value in a factual
examination.
There
are laws of nature which govern the behavior of all things. Everything
in existence is subject to these laws of nature. Some examples of these
are gravity, the laws of motion and others. What makes a law of nature
a law is that there are no known exceptions. A law is an absolute
rule. If something which were governed by the laws of nature were
somehow found to operate outside these laws then it would be by definition a
unnatural or supernatural occurrence.
If one
is having a debate with an atheist over creation vs evolution and they make
a statement along the lines that the physical laws we know today were not in
effect then, well.... You just won the debate... Atheists argue
evolution from a purely naturalistic position and if they have to go outside
the laws of nature in order to make it work then they have admitted to
something unnatural, or supernatural. Once we set aside the laws of
nature in an examination of this issue, we have just crossed the line from a
faith based on reason to a faith based on feelings.
So with
that said, let's take a look at the only three
options we have available to answer the
question of whether there is a God or not based on the "things which are
made", defined as "the universe". First off, let's start with a
basic premise that states, if the universe was created then there must be a
creator.
The
available options to answer this question are:
1)
The universe is eternal.
2) The universe was created.
3) The universe created itself out of nothing.
Lets
look at option number 1, Is the
universe eternal? This is a question with only two possible answers,
either yes, or no.
If the universe is not eternal then it had to have a beginning which implies
some sort of act of creation in some fashion. If the universe is not
eternal then option 1 is eliminated leaving us with only option 2 and 3 to
answer the question.
First
lets define the word eternal to be something that has always been in
existence and will always be in existence. An important element to
consider in answering the question of whether or not the universe is eternal is found
within the words "things that were made". Paul used those
words by inspiration of God for a reason. Things that are made all
possess one common characteristic for which we know of no exception.
Things that are made are temporary. Mankind cannot identify one single
thing in the universe that is not temporary. Things which are
not temporary are eternal, meaning, they have no beginning or ending.
We do not know of any material thing in our universe that is eternal in existence. The
sun and the stars are all burning balls of gas which will some time in the
future be exhausted. Their fuel supplies will eventually be exhausted
and their fires will eventually go out. Our sun gives us life.
Without it, we would perish from the earth in a very short period of time.
Our sun is not permanent. It is using its own resources every day to
sustain itself in its present state and that fuel is not being replenished.
When that fuel runs out, it's over.
Our sun cannot have been always in existence or the fuel which sustains it
would have been long since exhausted. Our scientists know this.
This is not something that is a secret to our astronomers. We all
know that the sun and the earth we live with are not permanent. They had
a beginning and they will have an ending. We are focusing on this from the perspective of
someone living thousands of years ago, however looking at this from a scientific
standpoint only reinforces the notion that if those who lived in the
beginning had no excuse, we certainly don't either.
In
science we have three laws called the laws of thermodynamics. Science likes to use
long fancy
words but the meaning for this is very elementary. thermo means heat,
and dynamic means power. So the laws of thermodynamics are the laws of
heat power. As far as science can tell, these Laws are absolute.
All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of
heat power with no known exceptions. We will be using the
first 2 laws in our examination of this subject.
The
First Law of heat power, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of
Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in nature.
The total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. It can change
from one form to another, for example, heat can change from motion to
electricity to light, but the total amount of energy in the universe remains
constant. There is a similar law called the Law of Conservation of
Matter which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed in a closed
system, although it may be rearranged by the application of energy.
Einstein gave us the famous formula E=mc2, which tells us that matter can be
converted into energy and vice versa at a fixed exchange rate. The First Law
of heat power should therefore be combined with the Law of Conservation of
Matter to state that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe
remains constant. Matter and energy are interchangeable which brings us to
the second law of heat power.
The
Second Law of heat power is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or
isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and
unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Simply
stated, useable energy is constantly becoming less and less available in a
closed system and will eventually run out. To
illustrate this, think of the gas that powers our cars. The fuel burns
and that energy is used. Once the fuel is burned, part of it is
converted into unusable energy. All matter has energy. However,
all energy is not useable. Once the usable energy has been exhausted,
none remains. In the future, there will be no more gas for our cars,
there will be no more coal to burn, there will be no more natural gas and,
eventually there will be no more sunlight. All of the useable energy
in the universe will have been exhausted. This is known as the law of
increased entropy.
What
these laws teach us is that we live in a universe that had a
beginning. It had a moment in time from which all that we can observe
had to be set in place and started. Modern science does not dispute
this fact at all. It is accepted throughout the scientific community
that our universe is not eternal. They know this and it makes them
very uncomfortable. Why? Because we have eliminated option #1.
The universe is not eternal
and there is no way to get around it. What we have left is option 2
and option 3. Since the universe is not eternal then it either had to
have been created or it created itself out of nothing. There are no other
options to answer the question of the existence of God. This shouldn't
be a surprise to anyone. God expected people who lived at the
beginning of the creation to be able to figure this out on their own.
One does not have to be a 21st century rocket scientist to see this.
What
about option 3? The universe created itself out of nothing. At
face value one would think that could be answered easily. We would have
eliminated it and have only one option left. But science, eager to
explain away the existence of God has come up with numerous theories on how
the universe might have been able to create itself out of nothing. And every single one of
them have fallen by the way side because of one inescapable fact. None
of them can occur without violating the natural laws which govern the
physics of the universe we live in today and scientists have to prove a
completely naturalistic origin of the universe.
In addition to the laws of
of heat power we have the law of cause and effect.
This law states that all material effects
must have an adequate and preceding cause. A fly by itself
landing on a book is not an adequate cause to effect the
falling of that book from a table. The cause must be adequate to
accomplish the effect. And the cause must have preceded the
effect in time. There is no such thing as a retroactive cause to an
effect. We have already determined from a scientific perspective that
our universe had a beginning so then what caused it to come into existence?
If there was nothing in existence before the universe was caused then what
caused it? In order for there to be a cause something had to exist
before the universe did. This something was greater than the universe,
possessed more power than the sum total of all matter and energy which made
up the universe and from looking at the way the universe is ordered,
possessed considerable intent and purpose in so doing.
In a
nutshell, if option number 3 is true then the universe and everything in it
had to have come from nothing without an adequate cause. Scientists
know that and they don't like it. They know that nothing creates
nothing but nothingness.
They know that if our universe came about naturally that at some point in
time nothing had to create something without cause. Option
number 3 is eliminated. Why? Because it's impossible. And it
shouldn't take a scientist to know this either. And when we eliminate
the impossible whatever remains must be the truth.
Option
1, the universe is eternal, has been eliminated. Option 3, the
universe created itself from absolutely nothing with no cause has been
eliminated because it's impossible. There is only one left.
Option 2, the universe was created. That's the only one of
the original three options left. So, then the next question in our search
for the truth of the existence of God is, who or what created the universe?
That's the only two options available to answer that as well. The universe
was created so it was either created by a "who" or a "what";
a "someone" or a "something".
Let's
look at "what" may have created the universe. We have
already determined that nothing can create something with no apparent cause.
But what about those who say "the universe was in another form prior to this
one". Ok, then what caused it to change forms and what caused it to
come into existence? Because if it had to change forms then it had an
ending, so it was temporary just like our universe is. Therefore it
had to have a beginning just like our universe did and in order to have that
beginning it had to have an adequate cause. We can go on and on and on
back through as many hypothetical forms of universes as we want but in the
end, if the universe was created by something, then there has to be a first creation from nothing with nothing with no
cause. That is an inescapable fact because every material thing in our
universe now is temporary and had a beginning somewhere, sometime.
Our
universe could not have been created by a "what" or a "something" and remain within the
natural laws that govern the behavior of all material things. So what
about the "who"? If the universe could not have been created by
something material and we have eliminated that as one of two options then
what remains must be the truth. It has to be "Who". So now we
have to determine the characteristics of "who". The "who" that created
the universe had to have certain characteristics in order to qualify.
First,
whoever created the universe had to be greater than the universe and
powerful enough to cause it to come into existence and intelligent enough to
accomplish it.
Second,
whoever created the universe has to have pre-existed all matter. The
implications of this are that whoever created the universe cannot be a
material being made of matter. He has to exist without form or
substance and he has to be able to exist outside of our closed system
universe.
Third
and last, whoever created the universe has to be an eternal being. In
order to have created anything temporary within eternity, someone has to
have lived who never had a beginning. In order for anything temporary
to exist, someone eternal has to have existed forever.
Now it's
important to keep in mind that if someone who possessed all these
characteristics did not exist, then it would be impossible for anything else
to exist. In order for anything material to exist, something must
exist with the intelligence, power and the ability to create it.
There is
an unconfirmed story that Sir Isaac Newton had an atheist friend with whom he used to
debate the existence of God with. They were great friends and spent
some time together. At one point in Newton's life he acquired one of
those models of our solar system that is set up with a complex machinery
that causes all the planets and their moons to rotate in their orbits around
the sun which is in the center. Isaac Newton was quite proud of this
acquisition and when his atheist friend came over for a visit, Newton
invited him in to see his working model of the solar system. Upon
seeing the model in action, Newton's friend was quite enthusiastic about it
and he asked Newton who built it for him. Isaac Newton always ready to
make a point to his atheistic friend in favor of the existence of God told
him, "nobody built it for me. It just happened naturally."
This
story, whether true or not, teaches us the basic concept that with
intelligent design there is understood the existence of an intelligent
designer. When there is order, there is understood the existence of an
organizer. If
something is created, then there must be a creator.
There is
another story that is told to illustrate a point we need to consider.
God and a man were talking one day and God says to the man, "I made you, I
created you from the dust of the earth". The man says, "that's no big
deal, I can do that too", so he stoops down and takes a handfull of dust and
God says "Wait..... You have to use your own dust". Hebrews 3:4
reads "For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all
things is God"
Our
universe was created. There is no doubt about it and scientists know
it. They are still struggling with whether it was created by something
or someone and the only real reason they are doing so is because they don't
want to admit it. Now to be fair to science in general, there have
been several renowned scientists who have come forth and admitted that
something is very wrong with the naturalist theories of the origin of the
universe. Big gun scientists who literally wrote some of the textbooks
which outline many of the scientific theories used today have jumped ship
because they have realized that there is no other possible logical
conclusion, other than a creator, that can be drawn from the facts. For this they are ostracized
from the scientific community, rejected as scholars and treated like
superstitious idiots. Their once famous names fade from memory and
have been replaced by new naturalist champions who tell the people what they
want to hear. Once one admits there is a creator, what naturally
follows is, what does this creator expect of me? People don't like
expectations because that implies following someone else's will or
direction. People don't want to accept the fact that there is a
creator because they are uncomfortable with the concept of doing His will,
living by His direction and ordering their lives around His expectations.
We
stated earlier that if some material thing which had a beginning exists now,
that something which does not have a beginning and is not material in the
sense we know it must have existed forever. If something is not
material, then it must be immaterial or, spiritual. Everything in the
universe can be placed in one of two categories. Matter and energy are
interchangeable so we can put them all together into one category. On
the other side, we have all that is not material or made of matter.
What is that? The answer is.... "Mind". Everything in the
universe can be categorized as either mind or matter. Does the mind
exist outside of or independent of matter and energy? Does the mind
obey the laws of heat power and the other physical laws of nature upon which
the behavior of everything we know depend?
A
scientist by the name of John Eccles believed that our minds were
independent of our material bodies. During his life, he set out to
prove or disprove this theory. During his studies and experimentations
he was able to determine that the human mind can display intent, purpose and
perception without ever showing a hint of brain activity. He was able
to establish a dual existence within man's brain and he called it man's
mind. Basically our minds operates within our brains similar to how a
librarian operates within a library. Our minds use our brains like a
librarian uses a library. It exists, works inside and uses the brain
but it is not the brain. as one would imagine there is a lot of
controversy over his findings, however it should be noted that John Eccles
received the Nobel prize for science which lends a great deal of credibility
to his findings. That means he's hard to argue with on the matter.
He wrote a book about it too. It's called "How the Self Controls its
Brain." What this means to us is that there is some credible
researched scientific evidence out there which points to the reality of a
mind operating independently within a person's brain.
God says
man was created in His image (Genesis 1:27). This was never said of
the animals. God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and
man became a living soul, (Genesis 2:7). Again, this was never said of
the animals. There is a dual existence within man. Mankind
possesses something given to him by God which is different than anything any
animal on earth received and at the same time is similar to something that
is inherent with God or in His image. What is that? Something
with the capacity to hope, to have compassion, to aspire, to understand
morality, know right from wrong, to reason and to live forever. we
have a mind. God is a spiritual entity existing outside our natural
boundaries. There is nothing about Him that is material.
Therefore if He gave us something in His image it cannot be a material
thing. It has to be immaterial. We have something, given to us
by God, that exists independently of our natural boundaries.
Something material exists today that is not eternal. In order for
anything temporary to exist, something has to have existed forever that is
not material. What is it? Mind? That great, eternal, all
powerful, all knowing, mind. Bigger than the universe, older than time
itself, intelligent and powerful enough to create what we see around us from
nothing, possessing
compassion, love, aspiration, knowing right from wrong and possessing the
ability to reason.
What some would call that great mind, I prefer to call, my God and Creator.
We share
something in common with the Atheists. We have faith in something.
We all know that in order for something to exist now, the laws of nature
which every known thing obeys had to be set aside. The Atheists
believe in creation outside the normal laws of nature with no explanation
for cause. Christians believe in creation outside the normal laws of
nature with the only possible explanation for the cause. Now, who's
faith is based on logical facts and not influenced by personal feelings.
And who's faith is really subjective, or based on feelings, attitudes,
opinions and whimsical hopes? Who's faith is really a sham and a
crutch for the weak minded? Certainly not our faith in God.
God
exists, and His existence is proclaimed loudly and plainly in the things
which are made. The Psalmist wrote, "The fool hath said in his
heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1). "The heavens declare the glory
of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1), and
indeed it does. For all who will accept it and respond to the call.
|
