God has many attributes that are in the "omni-" category. In fact, every single attribute of his is in that category because it is the closest way finite beings can explain infinite qualities. One attribute of God in particular that got me thinking was God's omnipresence. I mean, God is everywhere at all times, but would they mean he is everything at once in order to be omnipresent? For example, God is everywhere at every-time, does that mean he is in the sap of the tree, or the thoughts of a rabbit? And if that is the case, then is it fair to knock on New Age and similar cults who believe God is everything?
Well, my answer is quite simple and not a very long explanation. God is omnipresent but he is not everything. God is not trees or rabbits or computers. God is God who was, is and to be (again, the closest way finite beings can describe infinite beings). The single verse to prove my point: Hebrews 1:3. Jesus sustains all things through him. What does that mean? Simply, it means if Jesus was to just disappear, so would the entire universe. The universe staying intact and functioning properly is only done because Jesus is present. He is was makes gravity -9.8m/s. He is what makes math, math.
So, as you follow my logic, you may see where I am going. In order for the tree to have the ability to make sap run up it's roots against gravity, it needs the help of capillary action. How does the capillary action function? Well, it behaves according to its charge. And what dictates the sap's charge so it can flow up the roots? A law in physics that is becoming much more complex than the purpose of this paragraph. What it boils down to is that eventually we will get to a point where we simply don't know why something acts a way it does. Maybe time will allow us to figure out the unknown dictating factor, but what dictates that dictating factor. Eventually the answer is it just is. I it is at this point that Jesus steps in. He is what dictates that last known dictating factor. He is the foundation for the entire building. Without Jesus, all will be void. Since, we are not in a void, Jesus must be present. This is only possible because Jesus is sustaining every law required for life found throughout the universe. So, we come back to the sap in the tree and Jesus is right there in the sap of the tree. Of course he is not the tree, but the tree is only there because Jesus was there first. Thus, Jesus can be everywhere at once while not being everything at once.
Phew, that was actually much longer than I predicted. But I think you will follow the argument much better this way. Anyways, this is my first blog post since I restarted that actually has some content. Like I said before, I really feel like God is calling me to do something with Apologetics. How? I'm not sure. But I know I have a passion for it, and I have faith in God, so I don't need to worry about the rest :D
Disclaimer: I know my science may not be exact in my example, but that is not important. The main idea is what I am conveying and the exact science is not. So, if anyone does reply, you can tell me how I messed up, but don't use it against me.
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Your notion of mathematics is atrocious. It's very obvious you've studied VERY little of the actual subject. God is NOT the reason math works the way it does. I know you Christians are so fond to quote 15th century mathematicians (of course mathematical proof didn't work the same way back then, and those mathematicians could be killed or not published because they didn't believe in God), but whatever, historical context is not usually a Christians favorite thing.
God is NOT what makes gravity, the size of the Earth and it's rotational motion have far more to do with that. If you study gravity even just a little, you'd figure that out.
Lets see... contradictory statement. If God is omnipresent and not in everything, then he is not omnipresent. Again, you mess up how infinity actually works.
However, I am not sure if this one is entirely contradictory or not, it is certainly consistent within your argument. Let's take a look. You claim: if Jesus disappears the universe will cease to exist. This contradicts a notion of Omnipotence, because it implies limitations on his power. So, while you don't seem to believe God is omnipresent, maybe you don't think God is omnipotent either. You clearly haven't thought very much about how infinity works and how it applies to finite objects.
Your notion of mathematics is atrocious. It's very obvious you've studied VERY little of the actual subject.
Again, it does not matter how much experience I have in mathematics. I could have a doctorate degree in math, and you would still tell me I have no idea how to do math because if I am write, it proves your volitions wrong.
God is NOT the reason math works the way it does.
I just showed you how. All you are saying is your opinion
I know you Christians are so fond to quote 15th century mathematicians (of course mathematical proof didn't work the same way back then, and those mathematicians could be killed or not published because they didn't believe in God), but whatever, historical context is not usually a Christians favorite thing.
Many 15th century mathematicians created a lot of the mathematical laws today. So are you saying because I am a Christian, I can't quote them?
God is NOT what makes gravity, the size of the Earth and it's rotational motion have far more to do with that. If you study gravity even just a little, you'd figure that out.
Again, I just showed he does and all your rebuttal involves is "No He doesn't!"
Lets see... contradictory statement. If God is omnipresent and not in everything, then he is not omnipresent. Again, you mess up how infinity actually works.
Omnipresent: being present everywhere at once. That does not mean being in everything at once. God is beyond time, matter, space and anything he created. He can see all at once. On top of that, he is infinitely powerful, so there are no limits to his abilities either.
You claim: if Jesus disappears the universe will cease to exist. This contradicts a notion of Omnipotence, because it implies limitations on his power.
And I am quite consistent with my claim then: The universe is still here, thus Jesus has not disappeared. By your own admission, you admit the existence of Jesus. Also, everything should be capable of being proven wrong (the property of falsifiability) in order for it to be a valid claim and what you just said provides more credentials for Christianity. Just because something could prove something else is wrong doesn't mean that something is true.
Your tone is so zealous, it is almost funny. If we consider that
Do you know what spacetime is?
Yes
Please define it for me. Thoroughly and in your own words, not just copy/pasted from wikipedia.
In a nutshell, the combination of space and time.
Elaborate please. Anyone could guess that by looking at the word.
I need to know you have a deep understanding of the concept before I ask you what I really want to ask.
I don't know what angle you are going at, but just ask the question. I will naturally need to refer to the idea if there is some aspect that I don't remember/know.
It is more important to determine what your level of understanding is. If you don't actually know any science and are just pretending to know what you are talking about, then I won't waste my time with you.
However, if you do know what you are talking about, defining the concept of spacetime in detail should be trivial for you.
I'm not going to act pretentious either. If I don't know an answer, then I will tell you. So fire away.
My only question right now is: do you understand the concept of spacetime? If the answer is yes, please explain it in detail.
This really is not hard, and you would certainly not be acting pretentious by elaborating.
Like I said before, ask away. I understand the basic concepts of spacetime, but if you were to throw something out that I didn't understand, I could do some referencing and make the connection. And if I can't, then I will tell you.
Prove it, right now all you have shown is that you can derive the meaning of a compound word from its components. The fact that you can't even provide a little bit of basic information or a more precise definition on a simple scientific matter, but are ready to leap ahead to the ontological indicates that you are hiding behind concepts you are not willing to grasp fully, but sound "correct".
I want to talk about infinity and omnipresence, but in order to do so, we need to be on the same page in terms of definition, otherwise discussion is fruitless. What is the composition of the spacetime continuum? What does a "point in spacetime" entail? What does it mean to exist in spacetime, and how do you represent real objects within it? What happens when you add extra dimensions to the original composition
If you can't answer these incredibly simple questions, you cannot make any statements on omnipresence.
If I was to stay true to your word, I could not answer a lot of your questions by not looking at Wikipedia or a similar source. However, I understand the general idea behind spacetime well enough so that if you throw something at me I don't fully grasp, I can refer to articles explaining it and connect the dots. Now, if you don't ask whatever you wanted, I am going to give up with this because, as you said, this discussion is fruitless. So please, just ask. I am interested to see what you have to say, but unfortunately we are to hung up on logistics.
I didn't say you couldn't look up the information, I said you couldn't simply copy/paste it.
I have given your comments a lot of thought and here are my conclusions.
"Again, it does not matter how much experience I have in mathematics. I could have a doctorate degree in math, and you would still tell me I have no idea how to do math..."
False. If you had a PhD level education in math we would be on a similar page and be able to have a fruitful discussion. Right now you haven't displayed that you know anything about the topic, yet you insist on making grandiose claims about it. Honestly, I am curious, at this point, what level of mathematics have you seriously engaged?
"I just showed you how. All you are saying is your opinion"
Where? All you said was "Jesus is the reason math works", then you started in on a discussion about trees. You haven't even remotely discussed it, you just said it and expect people to agree because you said it.
"Many 15th century mathematicians created a lot of the mathematical laws today. So are you saying because I am a Christian, I can't quote them? "
No, I am saying because you have no concept of math on a historical level, or on a level of proof, you cannot quote them. Their statements about God are entirely irrelevant in the face of modern mathematics.
"Again, I just showed he does and all your rebuttal involves is ;No He doesn't!'"
So when you do this it's okay and when I do it it's not? Okay, if you want to play this game. Let's try this for starters, where's your fundamental mathematical relationship between the mass of an object, it's rotational motion, and God (this is an ultra basic representation, but you should still be able to do it, if it's true)? You haven't even discussed the God variable in your equation of gravity. All you did was talk about trees, in which case I can reference things like a syphon and say a similar thing. "See God makes syphon's because they defy gravity", when that doesn't even begin to explain the actual mechanics.
"Omnipresent: being present everywhere at once. That does not mean being in everything at once. "
I rest my case, you don't know what this word means.
"By your own admission, you admit the existence of Jesus."
Where? I don't think you understood what I said? I was specifically talking about limitations, that doesn't denote that I admit Jesus exists (as an incorporeal being at least).
"Also, everything should be capable of being proven wrong (the property of falsifiability) in order for it to be a valid claim and what you just said provides more credentials for Christianity. Just because something could prove something else is wrong doesn't mean that something is true."
I don't think you understand what the property of falsifiability means and I definitely don't think you understand how mathematical proof works. The property of falsifiability is not applicable to mathematics. If something is proven true mathematically, then it IS true. In fact, you can't ever hope to prove it false. Vice versa, if you prove something false in mathematics then it IS false, there is no hope of proving it true.
Falsifiability as applied to something like Physics would be the negation of a hypothesis, thus if your data does not support your hypothesis, then it MAY or MAY NOT support the alternate hypothesis.
"Your tone is so zealous, it is almost funny. If we consider that"
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything really. Your making ridiculous claims and tarnishing the name of the field I'm going into. You don't make any supporting comments about what you say, other than, for whatever reason, you think you've proven something. This is an appeal to ethos for those reading our discussion, basically you want them to feel bad for you because I have such a "zealous" tone, and you want to make it look like people outside of Christianity are the zealous ones, not you. So stop trying to garner touchy feely support from your readers and answer my questions with well researched rigor.
Post a Comment