The Warfare Is Mental

False Argument #7: Omnipresence Incompatible With The God Of Scripture

May 16, 2008

A traditional definition of God includes the characteristic of omnipresence, or the ability to be in all points in the universe at once, while simultaneously existing independent of the universe. The standard argument has always been, "How can one being be both completely separate from, yet thoroughly immersed in, the universe?" These two traits are apparently contradictory and seemingly cannot coexist coherently within one being.

The subatomic particles that result when atoms and atomic nuclei get fissioned display a peculiar characteristic known as "nonlocality," and the strange ability to be at once corpuscle and wave. The original EPR experiment (Einstein, Boris Podolski, Nathan Rosen) shows conclusively that particles which at one time shared the same system of coordinates remain instantly and enduringly correlated. (*the atomic condition, not the general use of the word) This nonlocality is completely irreverent of space-time, and it exists whether the time that separates the particles is measured in fractions of a second or billions of years of time, and it exists whether the particles are separated by millimeters or light-years of space. Students of world religions may notice the striking similarities to the Vedic concept of the Akashic Records. Since science now generally claims the universe was once a singularity, does it not stand to reason that every particle in our universe might have once shared the same system of coordinates, and as such may remain enduringly correlated in a way that is accessible to God?

The nonlocality ascribed to quantum phenomena may or may not extend beyond our universe or be characteristic of God, and it can by no means be considered proof of any scripture because science cannot verify a religious claim. But does it not stand to reason that if God created the universe, that God might remain correlated to the particles created, i.e., might not God exhibit principles strikingly similar to nonlocality? Are not the terms omnipresence and nonlocality at least loosely interchangeable?

In my opinion, the argument that omnipresence is incompatible with the God of the Bible is not a very strong argument, if a remotely similar concept can already be found in nature.

The Big Bang

May 14, 2008

By Big Bang, I mean simply the point of this universe's creation.

Cosmologists of previous centuries understandably supposed that the universe was static, timeless or self-sustaining, and these are all valid hypotheses considering the evidence of the times. Yet aside from the necessary requirement of being plausible against all current evidence, hypotheses must also stand the test of time and as new data pours in we must constantly reevaluate our theories.

Much like the stars in the heavenly array appear to be fixed in their respective order, a static universe would be a suspended one where planets and stars simply hung motionless in space. Some proposed a hypothetical repulsive force that could precisely counterbalance the effects of gravity, thus canceling out the universe’s expansion. Such a model explains how massive bodies that should normally attract minor bodies could remain static. From the vantage point of an observer on Earth there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of motion occurring in the cosmos, and this static universe theory met its first (and last) serious opposition around WWI when American astronomer Vesto Slipher and others observed that distant nebulae recede from Earth at very high velocities.

Electromagnetic energies such as light or infrared radiation travel in waves of differing frequencies, and by studying electromagnetic emissions from distant galaxies over time, scientists discovered that wavelengths from our remotest galactic neighbors are steadily elongating. These consistent fluctuations, called Doppler shifts, led to the conclusion that the universe was actually growing. This strongly suggests that the universe could not be static, but before the new evidence it seemed a stock observation to even the sharpest of analytical minds.

Building on Slipher’s observations, subsequent discoveries of Edwin Hubble in 1927 confirmed that our universe is indeed expanding as distant galaxies hurtle away from ours at rates exceeding thousands of miles per second. Over the thousands of years of human observation that took place before the advent of science, one could easily see why cultures around the world assumed the universe was eternal and had simply been here forever, but when combined with the evidence for an expanding universe, the fact that we can still see light from other galaxies strongly implies that the universe had a beginning in time. If the universe were both eternal and expanding, then stars, quasars and galaxies would have separated to remote distances long ago. Clearly the universe could not be both eternal and expanding, and the eventual conclusion was that all the matter in the universe was once at an ultra-dense, ultra-hot singularity that defies the laws the physics.

From a religious standpoint, there is nothing in scripture which contradicts the idea that all the matter in the universe was once at an ultra-dense, ultra-hot singularity that defies the laws the physics, and this, in hasty paraphrase, is the sequence of events that led to acceptance of the Big Bang.

White Holes

May 13, 2008

At the risk of sounding like a completely arrogant putz, I still have to share this. Lately I’d been thinking a bit about cosmological matters and I independently arrived at the idea of white holes. I thought to myself it was just speculation and that I shouldn’t even pursue the matter. A week later I saw another one of those History Channel segments which often contain variant mixtures of scientific truth and fiction. At any rate, during a discussion on the hypothesis that black hole type forces are responsible for anomalous events occurring around the Bermuda Triangle, the writers noted Einstein actually included white holes in his work. Now what exactly any of this has to do with panspermia, abiogenesis, the origins of the universe or even history for that matter is an entirely different question, one that might be better directed towards the executive producers of the show, but the point is that I was unaware Einstein actually proposed such a thing in his treatises on black holes. The bad news is that’s no longer my independent idea, but then again I guess that’s not all that bad to have what you thought was your own idea confirmed by such a prestigious researcher, as opposed to say, a frontier science nut-job. The whole scenario got me thinking that we’re all capable of doing science, and that we should all trust our intelligent convictions to some extent. Maybe not everyone can do the research part of science, which requires tools, time and technical knowledge of course not everybody will have, but the hypothesizing and critical thinking aspects of science are natural human endeavors anyone can benefit from if they try.

False Argument #1: Science Is Incompatible With Religion

May 8, 2008

The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which translates literally "to know," and humans want to know the answers to the fundamental questions of our own existence: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?

Statistics

May 2, 2008

Statistics refers to mathematical science relating to the collection, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data.

Statistics can be misleading, vague and distorted. The word itself has roots to the 1797 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica where it was defined as a "word lately introduced to express a view or survey of any kingdom, county, or parish." Statistics are figures collected by politicians, economists, government officials, physicians, mathematicians and others, with the object being to obtain information about the society and its members that would be useful and thus increase their leverage and efficacy in social improvement and control. One example is the London Statistical Society, which defined the furtherance of statistics as a science as its goal and among other things gave advice to the government on the types of data they felt should be collected as part of the various censuses conducted periodically in the British Isles.

Statistics without specifics are useless. Take as an example the statement that since George W. Bush took office in 2000 to the national election of 2004, approximately one million jobs were lost. Such an ambiguous statistic allows the reader to interpret it based upon their like or dislike of the president. If we knew the specifics, we could discern whether the jobs lost had a positive or negative impact on our domestic economy. If the jobs lost were those of average, hard-working family-raising Americans, the loss would seem a bad thing. If the jobs lost were positions held by unnecessary government bureaucrats in an attempt to cut some fat in our over-expanded federal government, the loss would seem quite good.

Inherit The Wind: A Case Study In Intellectual Polarization

April 24, 2008

It seems to me that America is becoming an increasingly divided country. Ostensibly the land of plenty, many struggle amidst deep socio-political and economic rifts. This division manifests through a series of false intellectual dichotomies: Republican vs. Democrat, scientist vs. religionist, pro-life vs. pro-choice, peace vs. war, activist vs. apathetic, traditional vs. progressive, etc. The situation has deteriorated such that one can’t even mention God in class or utter the name of Darwin in church without somebody getting all up in arms. What might have contributed to this odd social phenomenon?

Eugenics

April 14, 2008

Aside from its ability to explain differentiation in the Galapagos finches, the idea of natural selection also carries implications for the future of any species. Defined neutrally, eugenics is the study of human betterment through means of gene manipulation and control, and the movement’s scientific reputation was forever tarred and feathered when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into Nazi propaganda and racial policy.

List Of Notable Religious Scientists

April 11, 2008

At the thought of perusing any list of religious scientists, the question may immediately arise: Why are we told over and over again that the Church was an impediment to science? Confusingly, the answer is because it was. Be it religious, scientific, political or otherwise, bureaucracy is notorious for clinging to tradition in the face of challenge and it has long been noted that power structures tend to favor any course of action that will preserve power. Almost all of the following science pioneers were independent thinkers that were barred from the orthodox churches and universities of their day. The pattern is one that repeats throughout history. The dominant power structure establishes the status quo, and anybody who dissents is labeled a heretic, ostracized or worse yet – executed.

Abiogenesis

March 28, 2008

As any good biologist or taxonomist can tell you, there is a fundamental line of demarcation between living and non-living systems. Among others, a few of the prerequisites for a living system of any sort are the abilities to process energy, store information and replicate. A rock, for example, seems to contain information in the form of mineral structure, textual pattern and general shape, but rocks cannot process energy or replicate. Also, all living things must contain amino acids, DNA and/or RNA. But exactly how did the first living thing or things get here? Sometimes referred to as spontaneous generation, in its most rudimentary form abiogenesis refers to the rise of life from nonliving chemical systems.

Genesis 1:1

March 11, 2008

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." At the most basic level, the first three words of the Bible are currently upheld by Hubble’s Law. Recorded seemingly by the Hebrews alone, the notion that the universe had a beginning is mentioned again in Psalm 102:25-26. Here is another example where scripture is in reasonable accord with the findings of modern science.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →