Text Size
   
Oct 18
Wednesday
English Croatian Serbian Slovak Slovenian

Did God Allow Noah To Eat Meat?

The passage of Genesis 9:2-4 was the subject of great debate and controversy. After years of study and research and virtually leaving no stone unturned on the subject, to date I have not read a commentary on the passage which is worthy of a serious consideration. Generally it is argued that here we have the first biblical passage where God explicitly told Noah that he may kill any animal he wanted to in order to eat its flesh. Even vegetarians who abhor meat eating and who practice vegetarianism on ethical grounds admit that here we are faced with a biblical text which clearly sanctions the killing of animals and eating of their flesh. All they can say is that due to the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity God gave a “concession” concerning meat diet but it was not His ideal as in Genesis 1:30 where God ideally prescribed a completely vegetarian diet. But nothing can be further from the truth.
 

Main Menu

Who's Online

We have 35 guests and 1 member online

Did Jesus Eat Fish?

 There is only one passage in the whole of the New Testament where it is explicitly and specifically said that Jesus actually ate meat. If this text is true and genuine and in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that Jesus was not and could not have been a vegetarian. But if on the other hand it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this passage in Luke 24 is actually a forgery, then it follows that Jesus must have been a vegetarian, since a lying hand felt a need to insert a lying passage in order to portray Jesus as a carnivorous being.

Does God Exist? Part 2 of 3 PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Friday, 01 May 2009 00:58

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY


 

- Necessitates God’s Existence -




The Law of Causality, otherwise known as the Law of Cause and Effect - a universal and unquestionable law - states that “every effect must have a cause.” This law is so profound that it is often called “the foundation of all other laws.” The definition of effect is “something brought about by some cause or agency.” Brian Tracey, a leading authority on the development of human potential and personal effectiveness, who is also the president of the Institute for Executive Development, in an article “The Great Law” writes:

“The first of the mental laws is the Socratic law of causality, otherwise called the Law of Cause and Effect. It is so profound and powerful that it is often referred to as the “iron law” of human destiny…In its simplest terms, the Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect in your life, there is a specific cause or causes. What this means is that, if there is anything that you want to see in your life or see more of it, and you can define it clearly, you can attain it by tracing it back to the things that cause it and by implementing those causes…This is a law, not a theory or an opinion. It is an immutable principle of the human experience. The reverse of the Law of Cause of Effect says that if you do not implement the same causes as those people who are getting the effects that you desire, you will not get those effects. If you don’t do what other successful people are doing, you won’t get the results that other successful people are getting.”


Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA rejected the idea that anything can occur without a cause using some strong words:

“…An effect without a cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish” [quoted by Dr. Bert Thompson in his article ‘The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Cause and Effect].

Professor W.T. Stace, in his classical work A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, stated:

“Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate cannon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed” [p. 6].

The Law of Causality thus necessitates that every effect must have its antecedent cause. Every effect, necessarily, must have a cause. The Law of Causality of course does not disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law does not dictate that energy must have a cause. Since energy “can neither be created nor destroyed” it is self existent and eternal and therefore it is not and by definition cannot be an effect. Since it is not an effect it therefore does not need a cause. The Law of Causality does not say that “everything” in an absolute sense must have a cause. If it did then it would certainly contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Causality states that every “effect,” that is, anything and everything which is the product of something must have its antecedent cause. Since energy [God as Spirit] is eternal and therefore always in existence it does not and obviously cannot have a cause or a point in time when it was caused - that is, brought into being. Something which has no beginning cannot have a cause. Thus the Law of Causality does not only dictate that every effect must have been caused, it at the same time necessitates the First Cause. Since there can only be one true First Cause - one true original - it is evident therefore that this original First Cause exists in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy therefore which is in reality God’s Spirit has always existed and will always exist. God alone qualifies as the First Cause and He alone could have caused everything that is in existence. God alone is alive, and therefore a living being, and an intelligent being Who is able to rationally think and make decisions and design and plan and cause things to function in accordance with His blueprint in order to achieve His ultimate goal and purpose.

The universe is governed by myriads of laws which are part of one eternal and unified Law. God is the Law and the establisher of all laws. Nothing just “pops up” out of nothing. Every design has a designer and architect behind it. Just to think of the enormity of the universe is enough to make your head spin. The universe is comprised of different solar systems and each solar system is comprised of galaxies. Our own galaxy, called the Milky Way, is known to contain 100 billion stars. Some scientists postulate that there are as many as five to ten trillion stars. The diameter of our galaxy is 960 quadrillion kilometres. Can you truly comprehend this awesome number? Put another way, if you could travel with the speed of light [298,051 kilometres a second] it would take you 100,000 years to cross it. It would take you only one second to reach the moon if you were to travel as fast as the speed of light. It would still take you 100,000 years less a second to reach the other end of the Milky Way. The concept is just mind boggling even if the numbers are actually drastically exaggerated. But our galaxy is just the beginning of what is in the outer space. Astronomers estimate that there are some 100 billion galaxies only in the observable universe. There are many more which are beyond the reach of the present day telescopes. Now each galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars. But that is not all. All these galaxies are not just scattered in space without a design and intelligence - as should be the case if everything came into existence randomly. The galaxies are arranged in groups called clusters. One of our neighbouring galaxy called Andromeda can be observed by the naked eye on a clear night. It is said to be 2,000,000 light years away from the Earth.  The precision and perfect arrangement of the universe is implied by the word “cosmos” which is used as a synonym for the universe. It means “an orderly harmonious systematic universe.” Order, harmony and any organised system is the result of the Law. And the Law is the result of the Lawgiver.

Just take a look at our solar system. It is superbly arranged and it functions in accordance with the physical laws. If the Earth was just a fraction closer to the sun we would all be burnt to death. If it was just a fraction further from the sun we would all freeze to death. Another thing is significant. If it wasn’t for this designed purpose then the Earth could not sustain life. All the planets  follow a precise order and pattern so that we can use any of the planets for our precise time keeping. We can accurately predict when each planet would complete its orbit  and in fact we can accurately predict their position at any given time of the future. The Discover magazine commented concerning this amazing order of the universe:

“We perceived the order in surprise, and our cosmologists and physicists continue to find new astonishing aspects of the order…We used to say it was a miracle, and we still permit ourselves to refer to the whole universe as a marvel” [View from the Corner of the Eye, by Lewis Thomas, April 1981, p. 69].

A physicist Stephen Hawking said:

“The more we examine the universe, we find IT IS NOT ARBITRARY AT ALL but obeys certain well defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law” [The New York Time Magazine, The Universe and Dr. Hawking, by Michael Harwood, January 23, 1983, p. 53].

After pointing the complex order of the universe and its specific laws, Science News observed:

“Contemplation of these things disturbs cosmologists because it seems as if such particular and precise conditions COULD HARDLY HAVE ARISEN AT RANDOM. One way to deal with the question is to say the whole thing was contrived and lay it on Divine Providence” [The Universe: Chaotic or Bioselective?, by Dirtrick E. Thomsen, August 24 and 31, 1972, p. 124]. 

It takes less faith to accept the existence of an intelligent God than to accept random selection as the First Cause and the originator of the marvellous laws and precise design in the universe. If the sheer size of the universe and its complex laws are difficult to explain by random selection, what shall be said of life itself? Life is so complex that even the very first pre-requisite for it cannot be explained on the basis of a blind chance. In Darwin’s day very little was known about actual life and it was supposed that a single cell organism could be formed quite simply. But today we know that the complexity of the single cell is more complex than all the telecommunicative systems of the world put together. All living organisms are made up of cells. Even a single cell itself is self sufficient. It can manufacture its own food, move, and communicate with other cells. The cell, even a single protein is quite astonishing and is a wonder of design. Within the cell there are power stations, advanced and complex factories, a stupendous data bank, storage systems, and sophisticated refineries. Charles Darwin had no idea of these things since at that time next to nothing was known about cells and their complexity. The scientific advancement of the 20th century, however, revealed that the system of a cell is so complex that the human mind cannot even comprehend it.

You need protein if you want a cell to exist. Evolutionists and those who deny the existence of an infinite Being cannot even explain how did the first protein originate. In order to have a single cell you must have protein which is  material or a building block for the cell. Even the simplest cell has some 2,000 different types of proteins. Proteins are made of molecules, called “amino acids” which are manufactured by the diverse combinations consisting of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms. There are between 500 and 1,000 amino acids in an average protein. Although some proteins are much larger. A blueprint is stored in the DNA of the cell and, in accordance with it, the proteins are manufactured. Evolutionists and those who believe that life originated by “chance” claim that the first protein was formed at random by a pure ”chance.” But the probabilistic computation, however, demonstrates that this is by no means possible. [There exists a fundamental misconception when we speak of “chance” and what it is and what it can or cannot do. A complete chapter will be devoted to this subject]. Evolutionists themselves concede that the probability of the amino acid sequence of a protein comprised of only 500 amino acids being in the correct order is 10950. The number is incomprehensible. It is 1 followed by 950 zeros. But mathematicians dismiss any probability which has 1 in 1050 as absurd and virtually impossible. Abdul Majid, assistant professor of Zoology, Government Post Graduate College, Mansehra, NWFP, Pakistan, summarises this absurdity in a terrific way in his article entitled Origin of Life: Scientific and Religious Perspective:


“Even, if we take it for granted that matter in a crude form spontaneously originated in the universe, and that a chain of voluntary action and reaction is responsible for creation [although such assumption is baseless]. We have no adequate explanation for the existence of the universe and life. The chance occurrence of a single protein molecules would require that amount of matter to be shaken together millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. In his book, Human Destiny, Le Compte Du Nouy had made an excellent, detailed analysis of the problem: ‘The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is BEYOND ALL IMAGINATION. It would be that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 1082 years to cover this distance. The volume is INCOMPERABLY GREATER THAN THAT OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE INCLUDING THE FARTHEST GALAXIES, whose light takes only 2 x 106 [two million] years to reach us. In brief we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.’

The probability for a single molecule of high symmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nil. Indeed if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second [5 x 1014], which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency, we find that the TIME NEEDED TO FORM, ON AN AVERAGE, ONE SUCH MOLECULE IN A MATERIAL VOLUME EQUAL TO GLOBE IS ABOUT 10243 BILLIONS OF YEARS [1 followed by 243 zeros]. But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for 4-5 billion years, and that life appeared about 2-3 billion year ago. Here life itself is not in question but MERELY ONE OF THE SUBSTANCES, WHICH CONSTITUTE LIVING BEINGS. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much more figures to explain the appearance of a series of similar molecules, IMPROBABILITY INCREASING SIGNIFICANLY. When a period of trillions and trillions of years would be required for a single non-living proteinaceous molecule to develop in a purely random way, we have to ask ourselves, how more than 20 lacs [2 million] species  of plants and animals with fully developed bodies could have originated upon the surface of the earth within relatively short period of 2-3 billion years. And how was it that innumerable members of each species reproduce themselves and became widespread throughout the land and the oceans? It is REALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT WITHIN SUCH A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, a superior and the most advanced and intelligent creature like ‘Man’ could have evolved from inferior living organisms, and all just by the MEREST CHANCE. Whereas evolutionary theory is based upon a certain incidence of chance mutations - accidental variations - among different species, but even supposing rare mutations conferring a 1 percent advantage did occasionally occur, just how rapidly could they be accumulated in a species. Prof. Patau, in his ‘Mathematical Analysis of the Evolutionary Theory’ has shown that it would take about 1000,000 [10 lacks] generations to effect a population breeding true for this new mutation. According to Dr. Haluke Noor Baqi, about 39 x 1020 changes are required in the genetic code to evolve an insect from amoeba. Similarly about 3 x 10520 alterations are necessary for the evolution on Man from a monkey, which requires time that cannot be expressed in figures. But keep this fact in mind that first monkey appeared about 3 million years ago and the modern man Homo sapiens Sapiens appeared about 35 thousand years ago. This detailed analysis has been made here simply to expose the absurdity of the “chance occurrence” theory. Neither an atom, nor a molecule, nor the mind, which applies itself to how the universe originated, COULD HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE BY PURE “chance.” No how long a period may be considered for it, the theory of A CHANCE OCCURRENCE is IMPOSSIBLE, not only from the mathematical point of view, but also from the standpoint of common sense. As a theory, IT JUST DOES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT.”

It is impossible to conceive that a cell was formed randomly by “chance.” But we did not even touch upon the genetic structure of a cell. The nucleus of each of the trillions of cells comprising the human body includes a data bank large enough to fill a 900 volume encyclopaedia. DNA is an enormous molecule secreted in the nucleus of every living cell. All physical characteristics of a being are coded in this helical molecule. Complete information about our bodies, from the colour of our eyes to the structure of our internal organs and the form and function of our cells, are encoded in sections called genes in DNA. All the information of the living specie is stored in this databank. If all the information contained in the databank of the DNA code was to be written it would take up about a million pages. This is equivalent to an encyclopaedia forty times larger than the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is one of the greatest sources of accumulated information. But all this incredible information is compressed in a tiny nucleus of our cells measuring about a thousandth of a millimetre in size. It has been computed that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. A well known Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, states:

“To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a PURELY RANDOM PROCESS is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence.”

“Chance” cannot even account for the most basic pre-requisite of life let alone all the complexities we have covered so far. But what should we say about the mind? Human mind is an incredible miracle. By miracle I mean “something to wonder at.” The wonder of the brain begins in the womb. Three weeks after conception the brain cells begin to form. They expand in spurts - at times up to 250,000 cells a minute. The book Universe Within points out that the brain of a human infant, unlike any other animal, triples in size during its first year [by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 44]. By the time an infant reaches adulthood, some 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons, are condensed in a brain which represents only 2 percent of the body’s weight. Researchers believe that the billions upon billions of nerve cells in the human brain make perhaps as many as quadrillion connections. Carl Sagen points out that the brain could hold information that would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest library.  It does not take much to realise that such a stupendous and marvellous mechanism as the human brain has to be the result of someone who possesses infinite intelligence. But evolutionists and sceptics ascribe its origin to a blind “chance,” which for them is capable of doing everything an omnipotent being can do - albeit with no intellect, conscious will and purpose.

What most people don’t realise is the fact that many scientists, especially the bio-chemists in fact vigorously argue that life could not have just “happened” or that it could have evolved simply by “chance.” A prominent evolutionist Loren Eisely in her book The Immense Journey, on p. 199, categorically states:

“After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”

Professor Chandra Wicramasinghe, confessed:

“From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it…For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe - and finding it…There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale” [Daily Express, London: ‘There Must Be A God,’ by Geoffrey Levy, August 14, 1981, p. 28].

Physicist H.S. Lipson, said:

“The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we don’t like if the experimental evidence supports it…evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it”  [Physics Bulletin, ‘A Physicist Looks At Evolution,’ by H.S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138].

Biologist Edwin Conkin said:

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” [Reader’s Digest, January 1963, p. 92].

The British New Scientist pointed out:

“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…MANY OF THE CRITICS HAVE THE HIGHEST INTELECTUAL CREDENTIALS” [The Scientist, Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science, by Michael Ruse, June 25, 1981, p. 828].

Perry Reeves, a Professor of Chemistry, said:

“When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task” [J.D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, Abilene TX, ACU Press, 1988, pp. 81-82].

Renowned British mathematician and astronomer Professor Fred Hoyle rejected “chance” as the cause of life and said:

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” [Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105].

Professor Klaus Dose, the President of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg stated:

“More than 30 years of experimentation on origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either ends in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance” [quoted in Harun Yahya’s book Evolution Deceit [London: Ta Ha publishers, Wynne Road, 1991], p. 82].

A well known Australian Professor of Biology Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis writes:

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of SUPREME TECHNOLOGY and BEWILDERING COMPLEXITY beyond our own creative capacities, A REALITY WHICH IS VERY ANTITHESIS OF CHANCE, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man.”

H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, admits that what the evolutionists generally call “primitive” in order to explain the origin of life and the spontaneous progression from a single cell, is in fact more complex and modern than any mechanism man has ever created or even conceived in his mind:

“The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man”  [The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-299].

It is fair to say that as we entered the 21st century majority of physicists and biochemists actually reject “chance” and the evolutionary process in order to account for the beginning of life. Majority now seem to favour a divine intelligence behind it. Great names are behind those who reject “chance” and who argue that divine creation is more scientific than any other theory which resorts to “chance.” Here are presented some of those names: 

ROBERT BOYLE [the father of modern chemistry]
IONA WILLIAM PETTY [known for his studies on statistics and modern economy]
MICHAEL FARADAY [one of the greatest physicists of all time]
GREGORY MENDEL [the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics]
LOUIS PASTEUR [the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism and therefore chance]
JOHN DALTON [the father of atomic theory]
BLAISE PASCAL [one of the most important mathematicians]
JOHN RAY [the most important name in British natural history]
NICOLAUS STENO [a famous stratiogrhaper who investigated earth layers]
CAROLUS LINNAEUS [the father of biological classification]
GEORGES CUVIER [the founder of comparative anatomy]
MATTHEW MAURY [the founder of oceanography]
THOMAS ANDERSON [one of the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry].

These are great names and the “master minds” of their fields. They all rejected Darwinism and the possibility that the Universe and everything within it originated by a blind “chance.” To say that these guys did not know what they were talking about is equivalent of saying that the greatest names in music did not know their music or that the greatest sportsmen in history did not know their sport. When faced with the complexity of life in general, Darwin himself was forced to admit that God must have breathed life in at least one or more simplest forms of life. In his original book in which he argued his thesis for evolution entitled The Origin of Species he admitted in his final paragraph:

“The Creator originally breathed life into few forms or into one. From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”

If “God” is responsible for the existence of a single cell organism for example then life did not start by “chance” but rather it was created via divine fiat. And if everything else “evolved” from this single cell organism then it could have as well been done so by God’s providence and supervision, in which case this evolutionary process must be called “theistic evolution” and therefore according to this principle the existence of God cannot be rejected only the method of creation could be the subject of controversy. Indeed there are many who adhere to the concept of theistic evolution. I don’t believe this to have been the case but at least it could be argued that this theory carries some weight whereas the theory of “chance” carries no weight at all. The existence of paranormal and supernatural - now proven as an irrefutable fact - forces one to conclude that there must be something that is beyond physical. People everywhere still worship the divine and claim to have some sort of relationship with the divine and many claim to perform at least some miraculous deeds through their dialogue with the divine. Although most of these claims can be explained away through various methods there are at least some which cannot be explained - as virtually all those who study the paranormal concede. But there is not a single person today - nor in the past of the recorded human history - who was ever able to perform a miracle through a mere “chance.” Let me give you an example. If “chance” is real and if everything that exists was actually the product of “chance” why then no scientist has ever been able to create life or anything else randomly by “chance?” If things can come into existence by “chance” then you can simply park your car on a high mountain and wait for a great storm to transport you from New York to Moscow for example. But who would believe that this could occur? And how long would you have to wait for your transportation by “chance?” One year, a decade, a century or maybe billions of years? Unless you are transported within the space of your lifetime it could never come about. Do you see the point here? Limitless amount of time does not help you here since your life at best would be about 100 years.

But if the whole universe could have been caused by a mere “chance” then transporting you from one desired place to another would be an effect without virtually any effort at all. But have you ever seen anyone ever trying to accomplish such a feat? And if you were to see someone trying to accomplish such a feat would you not say that he is a lunatic? If things can really “happen by chance” why then do you never see an object assembled at random or a house built without tradesmen or an animal giving birth to a human being or a human couple of a purely black race giving birth to a Caucasian or a Mongoloid? Why does everything take place in accordance with the physical laws of the universe and nothing ever breaks these laws by a mere “chance?” Those however who are capable of portraying something which apparently defies the known laws of the universe do so, by their own claim, through the dialogue with the divine. No person who can perform such an act has ever ascribed it to a mere “chance.” This positively proves that “chance” stripped of its original conception of the ancient cultures does not exist and in fact does not and cannot have any ability to function of itself and by itself. It will be demonstrated later that chance is in fact an AGENCY by which “random selection” can take place and that chance is in fact a contrast of “choice” which is defined as “careful selection.” I will positively prove that both “choice” and “chance” were created by God and that both function through and by the laws which govern them. If “chance” cannot even account for the existence of a single cell organism how can it account for the existence of a human being who is comprised of trillions of cells? How can it be then that God who is understood to be Infinite and Omnipotent and Omniscient Being could have originated by a blind “chance” as some would want us to believe? There are other ways by which we can strongly suggest that an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient Being does and out of necessity must exist and that He is in fact the First Cause and the reason why anything and everything else exists.
The Law Of Motion

By definition “motion” is “to move; movement.” But nothing can be in motion unless it was first put in motion. Motion is in fact reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But no thing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by someone in actuality. Thus something that is in actuality hot, like fire, can actually make things hot. Now something that is hot in actuality cannot simultaneously be potentially hot, but only can simultaneously potentially be cold. Thus it is impossible that a thing should be simultaneously “moved” and “mover” - i.e. that it should cause its own movement. Therefore whatever is in motion and is moving must have been put in motion by another. The planets in our solar system did not “just happen” to be in orbit. They had to be put in motion by another with power strong enough to cause their movement and the mind intelligent enough to design them. This “another” all cultures throughout history understood to be the First Cause commonly referred to as God.

The Law Of Possibility And Necessity

We notice in nature that things can either be or not be since they are generated and also subject to decay and therefore death, consequently they can be and not be. But it is impossible for them to always be since they are both generated and die and are therefore of temporal existence. Since it’s possible for things not to be it follows then that there could have been a time when nothing was in existence. But if this was ever the case then even now there would be nothing in existence. Since nothing can ever come from nothing. Anything and everything that exists only begins to exist by something which already exists. Therefore if there ever was a time that nothing was in existence it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist, and thus nothing would be existing now. Thus there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Since there must be a First Cause whose necessity was not caused by another it is logical to postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another. This self necessary being all cultures perceived to be God.

The Law of Gradation

Among living beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” or “less” are predicated of different things, according as they reflect in different ways something which is the maximum or climax, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; thus there is something that is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being. Now the climax in every genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection. And this noblest and supreme being all cultures understood to be God.

The Law of Governance

It is apparent that whatever lacks intelligence cannot think or make any decision. But we see in nature natural bodies and objects which do not possess intelligence and life, but which act for an end or purpose. And they do so in a continuos and identical manner. Hence it is obvious that they do so by an inherent law or formula and therefore they act and function in the same way as the computer. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot of itself act towards an end or purpose. It must have been directed or programmed to do so by a being endowed with power, ability and intelligence. Therefore an intelligent being must be in existence by whom all natural things are directed to their end - a being who has devised all programs necessary to obtain the desired result. This programmer and governor all cultures understood to be God.

The Law of Morality

Certain facts are obvious simply from the way the world is. It is a fact that Moscow is the capital of Russia because such a city exists and is actually the capital of Russia. It is a fact that elephant is a larger animal than a dog and that a dog is a larger animal than an ant. It is a fact that in our dimension of existence a triangle cannot exist with four sides. For most facts there are objects in the world which make them real. The same is not true of the moral facts. There is no object you can point to which makes the moral fact true. This is due to the fact that moral facts are not DESCRIPTIVE they are PRESCRIPTIVE - they have a form of commands. There are certain things in this world which cannot exist unless something else exists along with them. Nothing can be moved unless there is something that moves it. Nothing can be a best seller unless there is a great demand for it. The same is true of the commands. They cannot exist unless someone commands them and establishes them as Law. There can be neither morality nor immorality if there is no Law in existence. If morality cannot exist without the Law in operation, then the question arises: who established the Law of morality and who commanded it? To find the answer we need to first of all realise the tremendous importance attached to the concept of morality. Morality is of over-riding importance. If you think that you should morally do something then this moral obligation over-rules other important things. A young girl gave all her savings away as a donation for the Tsunami victims. Now this girl was saving money for her own interests. But this wonderful young girl saw that moral obligation - obligation to help the victims - was of more importance than any toy that she could have possibly bought for her pleasure. People skip their favourite concerts and games in order to be somewhere where it is morally preferable to be. Morality has ultimate authority and obligation.

Every command carries with it some weight of degree of authority. The higher the authority which commands the higher likelihood of its implication. For example, if I was to decree that all Australians pay a higher tax for a particular cause then no one would need to comply. I just don’t have an authority to implement such a decree. But if the Prime Minister was to give such a decree then all workers would be forced to comply. Those who refuse would be prosecuted. The principal of morality compels us to over-ride any human authority or institution. People abhor slavery and cruel exploitation even if it is legally instituted and practiced in a certain country. Those laws are nullified and the victims are helped whenever possible because of the compelling force of morality within. We are willing to risk our lives for the sake of morality and a noble cause. Since morality has more authority than any human being or institution, the moral argument implies, morality could not have been enacted by any human being or institution. Since morality has an ultimate authority, as morality over-rules everything, morality must have been commanded by someone who possesses the supreme authority and is therefore sovereign. This Sovereign Being, all cultures understood to be God. Atheists and sceptics argue that if God could have always existed without having a cause, then the universe itself could have always existed without actually having a cause. But there is a problem here. To say that the universe always existed is to say that everything of what the universe is comprised always existed. Universe, as we have seen, is defined as “complete physical world.” Thus if only the universe exists then there can be no spiritual world - an impossibility as we shall see later. Also, no evolutionist would ever say even in his wildest dreams that everything within the universe had always existed. If the universe is uncaused and has eternal existence then nothing within it could be a subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics - known as Entropy. Everything within it should then be perpetual and not subject to decay. This clearly is not the case. Scientists now generally agree that the universe did not always exist and that it most definitely had its origin and beginning.

Since Hubble’s discovery in 1929 of the red shift in the light from the distant galaxies, an astronomical revolution began on the par with Copernican revolution. Before Hubble’s discovery it was held that the universe was “static” but since his discovery it is now universally held that the universe is in fact expanding. The colossal implication of this fact is that once we trace this expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until it eventually reaches an “infinite density.” Four of the world’s most prominent astronomers made a remark on the subject:

“The universe began from a state of INFINITE DENSITY…Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe” [Richard J. Gott, “Will the Universe Expand Forever?” Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65].

The startling fact in this statement is the realisation that “infinite density” is a synonym for “nothing.” The four most prominent experts in the field of astronomy therefore argued that the universe definitely had a beginning and that it was created out of nothing. The Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle pointed out that the universe “shrunk down to nothing at all” [Fred Hoyle, From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology, p. 36]. Since the universe has a beginning it is an effect and a contingent entity and therefore must have been caused. R.C. Sproul in his book Not A Chance, 1994, on p. 172 stated:

“Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause.”

Astronomer Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA wrote:

“Only as the result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world HAS NOT EXISTED FOREVER…The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; MODERN SCIENCE DENIES AN ETERNAL EXISTENCE TO THE UNIVERSE, either in the past or in the future” [Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, pp. 19; 30].

Dr. Jastrow has also pointed out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down and that therefore there must have been a time when it was wound up and therefore began:

“And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up.”

Arthur Eddington, the most famous astronomer of his time, stated:

“If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe. When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists, and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s” [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, pp. 48,49].

Dr. Henry Morris, an expert on thermodynamics points out:

“The Second Law requires the Universe to have had a beginning” [Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 26].

But how does the Second Law of Thermodynamics establish the fact that the universe had and must have had the beginning? According to the Law of Entropy every enclosed system always tend towards a state of equilibrium and therefore the most complex and most sophisticated mechanism in time disintegrates and returns to basic matter. The universe itself is a gigantic enclosed system since no energy is being pumped into it from outside. The Law of Entropy therefore implies that in time the universe will wind down and reach the state of equilibrium commonly called “heat death” by the astronomers. If the universe is infinite and therefore has always existed then at present it would not be, since it would have already reached the state of equilibrium and “heat death.” Since the universe is still in existence this means that it had to have had a beginning and that the time of its existence is not as yet sufficient to dissolve it. This is an irrefutable fact. Different mechanisms malfunction in accordance with different lengths of time. No thing however can reach the state of entropy being infinite or eternal. The universe therefore could not have always existed but must have had a beginning. 

Ever since it has been established that the universe has had a definite beginning some scientists who absolutely abhor the idea of divine creation had postulated that the universe had actually created itself out of nothing. The concept was known as “The Inflationary Universe.” The principle of this theory violated the basic scientific law which states that “no material thing can create itself.” Ralph Estling of Great Britain severely criticised the idea and emphatically states that in order to accept such a theory one must depart from the realm of science:

“The problem emerges in science when scientists LEAVE THE REALM OF SCIENCE and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for more personal opinions by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of - out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever…Then they intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing IS SCIENCE. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being ready-made, out of nothing.”

Estling’s criticism provoked a controversy and he was forced to defend his statement and respond to many letters addressed to the Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were published, along with Estling’s response, in 1995, January/February issue. Estling remarked:

“All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren…There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness.”
Estling hit the nail right on the head. Matter does not simply “pop into existence” nor does anything occur “without a cause.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NASA wrote:

“…an effect without a cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world th7at science has tried to banish” [quoted by Dr. Bert Thompson in his article “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Cause and Effect”].

The concept of  “inflationary universe” has been abandoned and is now dead, although many are unaware of this fact. The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, stated:

“The new inflationary model IS NOW DEAD AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable.”
 
The universe is not eternal and therefore it had to have had a beginning. Since it had a beginning then it has to be an effect. The Law of Causality states that “every effect must have its antecedent cause.” This “antecedent cause” we have clearly seen must be God Who alone qualifies since He alone possesses all the qualities and means by which everything could have come into existence.



 Does God Exist? Part 3 of 3









Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment

busy
Last Updated on Friday, 08 May 2009 10:23