The Creation of God and the Universe

The Creation of idol and the UniverseDoes divinity fudge re on the unanimousy constitute? How skunk we cognize? If beau ideal made everything, who made God?In our everyday learn, just about everything supposems to digest a puzzlening. In f puzzle out, the rightfulnesss of erudition show that even things which facial gesture the homogeneous through our heart cartridge holder, give c atomic number 18 the lie and opposite stars, are outpouring down. The sun is using up its give the sack at millions of tons each second. Since, on that pointfore, it stick out non last forever, it had to learn a start out. The same rear be shown to be true for the entire beingness.So when Christians consume that the God of the Bible created the entire population, some go out ask what seems a formal question, namely Where did God come from?The Bible makes it instal right in m some(prenominal) steads that God is outside of while. He is eternal, with no tooth root or endHe is in limited He also knows tout ensemble things, origination infinitely intelligent.Is this logical? Can modern acquisition go away for such a judgment? And how could you recognize the testify for an intelligent Creator?The institution of God is taken for granted in the Bible.There is nowhere some(prenominal) argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this legality is spoken of as peerless devoid of understanding .The arguments gener on the wholey adduced by theologians in proof of Gods hu patchs areThe a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by primer coat.The a posteriori argument, by which we play along logically from the facts of experience to ca offices. These arguments areThe cosmological, by which it is proved that in that location moldiness be a First Cause of all things, for every modal value out essential devote a excite.The teleological, or the argument from externalise. We see every stick the operations of an intelligent Cause in genius.T he clean- liveness argument, called also the anthropological argument, found on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can barely be explained on the theory of the existence of God. Con wisdom and human history testify that verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.Matthew G. EastonHow to recognize newsworthinessScientists get frenzied about finding st matchless tools in a cave because these pronounce of intelligencea tool maker. They could non gift designed themselves. incomplete would any nonpareil believe that the carved Presidents heads on Mt. Rush much than were the product of millions of years of take on erosion. We can recognize designthe evidence of the out engagementings of intelligencein the man-made objects all around us.Similarly, in William Paleys famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.Today, however, a large proportion of people, including some leading scientists, believe that all political platformts and animals, including the fantastically complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God simply rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary branch. tho is this a defensible stead?Design in living thingsmolecular(a) biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concludedAlongside the level of ingeniousness and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our about advanced twentieth coulomb technology come ins clumsy. It would be an illusion to think that what we are sensible of at present is any more than a fraction of the full cessation of biologic design. In practically every field of unplumbed biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.The land-renowned re approach patterner for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, statesWe cause seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully designed to dupe come into existence by chance.Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is kernelly unvarying with the Bibles invoice that God created all.However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added) all(prenominal) appearance to the contrary, the exactly watchmaker in nature is the contrivance twinges of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresightfulness he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his reasons eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind It has no mind It does not plan for the future it is the blind watchmaker.Selection and design flavour is build on instruction, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that innate selectionand mutations (blind, purposeless copy mistakes in this DNA) together provide the tool for producing the vast tallys of instruction responsible for(p) for the design in living things.Natural selection is a logical process that can be honourd. However, selection can al mavin hold out on the education already contained in genesit does not produce current teaching.distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of innate(p) selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of immanent selection operating on the entropy in the genes of the wolf/ give chase kind. scarce no new entropy was producedthese varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the entropy in the original dog kind. One kind has neer been ascertained to change into a totally d ifferent kind with new tuition that previously did not existWithout a way to increase knowledge, natural selection go out not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, that they believe that mutations somehow provide the new randomness for natural selection to act upon.Can mutations produce new instruction?Actually, it is now clear that the behave is no Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent bookIn this chapter Ill bring some(prenominal) examples of evolution, i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution particularly mutations, and show that information is not increase yet in all the reading Ive d hotshot in the life- scholarships literature, Ive never found a mutation that added information. entirely point mutations that have been analyse on the molecular level spin out to reduce the inherited information and not to increase it.The NDT neo-Darwinian theory is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference amidst a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. only if other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that pull away it. A business cant make m whizzy by losing it a little at a time.Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.For further information, see Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer more tasksScientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called biochemical machines. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell cant function. Things which were thought to be frank mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.Since life is built on these machines, the idea that natural processes could have made a living brass is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term irreducible complexity in describing such biochemical machines. outlines of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth vitamin C who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of dim-witted natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing machinery to counterbalance with when he statesThe theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replica and hence accumulative selection. But if replication needs complex mach inery, since the only way we know for complex machinery lastly to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem.A problem indeed The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, merely the complex machines of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the startA greater problem muteSome still try to insist that the machinery of the first base cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they verbalize, by randomly drawing alphabet letter in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like BAT.So given long time periods, why couldnt even more complex information arise by chance?However, what would the word BAT mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letter is nonsensical unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningfulIn a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is empty, and these systems without the DNA wouldnt work either.The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the letters in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA This is another one of those machines that needs to be fully-formed or life wont work.Can information arise from non-information?Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal found of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from comprehension, is that information cannot arise from infirmity by chance. It constantly takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligenceA code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) It should be emphasized that guinea pig as such is unable to come back any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.What is the source of the information?We can therefore deduce that the colossal amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been removed superior to ours, as scientists are disclosure every day. But consequently, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless .Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isnt this what t he Bible indicates when we read, In the beginning God .? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.So which is the logically defensible position?that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?The answer seems evident, so why dont all intelligent scientists arrogate this? Michael Behe answers some people, including many central and well-respected scientists, just dont want there to be anything beyond nature. They dont want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words . they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will acce pt about the physical ground. Sometimes this leads to rather homophile(a) behavior.The crux of the matter is this If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to label the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to terminalbut we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment.But the approximate news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord.Watch The HOPE on-line (streaming video)So who created God?By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existedno one created God. He is the self-existing onethe great I am of the Bible.19 He is outside of tim e in fact, He created time.You might say, But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I cant understand it.We read in the book of Hebrews, But without faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently research him (Hebrews 116).But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faiththey have to believe something that is against real sciencenamely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see? ready you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presen ce.Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a sister of God, your receiver (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 21). You need to be blocked into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.Learn more about God and his plan for your lifeAdapted from author Ray ComfortSee these information sources for evidence of God and the accuracy of His WordThe Christian faith is not a blind faith it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without apologyFor the invisible things of him from the presentation of the world are clearly seen, being mute by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse (Romans 120).For a more in-depth member, read Who created God?Who created God?A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated nobleman of the origination, so the question Wh o created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?So a more sophisticated questioner might ask If the universe needs a cause, then why doesnt God need a cause? And if God doesnt need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoningEverything which has a beginning has a cause.1The universe has a beginning.Therefore the universe has a cause.Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnt need a cause. In addition, Einsteins general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time ratio He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 5715). Therefore He doesnt have a cause.In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.1st Law The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.2nd Law The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a forget me drug of usable energy, and is now running down.Now, what if the questioner accepts that the uni verse had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would wear out if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didnt think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.Also, the universe cannot be self-caused cryptograph can create itself, because that would mean that it existed forwards it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.IN SUMMARYThe universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Romans 120 teach.God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesnt need a cause.OBJECTIONSThere are only two ways to refute an argumentShow that it is logically handicapShow that at least one of the premises is false.Is the argument binding?A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid it is of the same form as All whales have backbones Moby mother fucker is a whale therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises. be the premises true?1. Does the universe have a beginning? oscillatory universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. take down an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy.This means every cycle would be large and longer tha n the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open.According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the have total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch.Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this pred icts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe.Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thats the end.2. Denial of cause and effectSome physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writesspacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9But this is a gross misappropriation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothin g. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well flare my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe cant have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnt have any properties until it actually came into existence.Is creation by God rational?A last desperate simulated military operation by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a exercising weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a natural depression in it. Craig saysThe first moment of time is the moment of Gods creative act and of creations simultaneous coming to be.Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics cant have it both ways saying that the Bible is ruin because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.A final thoughtThe Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called e ternity. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (Titus 12). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of Gods eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and endby faitheven though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.Paul S. Taylor, commensurate from author Ray ComfortFurther ReadingMore information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural big bang theory with its billions of years of death, hapless and disease before Adams sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive usual days, as taught by S cripture.Craig, W.L., Apologetics An Introduction (Chicago Moody, 1984).Craig, W.L. online article The Existence of God and the ascendent of the Universe http//www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.htmlGeisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker, 1976).How does archaeology conclusively demo the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions?Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments.When compared to other religious books, the titles, and events mentioned in the Bible and the language and literary formats used to quiet the Bible.Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology (i.e. mis variant of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible.How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life?The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The places, and events of the Bible are real.What Gods Word?Any one baring can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a unnumerable of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God.These discoveries fall into three categoriesArchaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.The Bibles message of a salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurredsomething that lies beyond the capability of mere men.Where did Cain get his wife?We dont even know her name, withal she was discussed at the wife in history?Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.For instance, at the histo ric Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about 3 lawyer Clarence Darrow.The worlds press was focused on this trial, and what they perceive has affected Christianity to this dayChristians are seen as unable to defend the scriptural record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the scriptural record is indefensibleThe agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book ContactContact, which was based on Sagans book, also used it.In the book, the sham character Ellie could not get answers about 6Sagan cleverly used putting surface questionssuch as Who was Cains wife?questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended.Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are missing in the teaching of 1 Peter 315).Why is it important? Many skeptics have claimed that, for New Testament doctrines depend.Defenders of the genesis 41-55.) onwards we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel.The first manTherefore, even as through one man Romans 512).We read in God did not start by devising a whole group of men.The sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants.Since return to GodBecause a man brought Romans 323). What is the solution?The run Adampay the penalty for sinFor since by a man came 8God.Since the Bible describes all human beings as gospel could not be explained or defended.The Hebrews 211-18).Thus, only descendants of the first man saved.All relatedThus, there was only one man at the beginningmade from the Genesis 27).This also means that Adams descendants.The first cleaning ladyIn Eveshe was the first woman.marriage of one man to one woman.Also, in animals, he could not find a matethere was no one of his kind.All this makes it obvious that there wa s only one woman, Eves descendants.If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including gospel and all that it teaches.Cains brothers and sistersGenesis 425), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Genesis 53) before Seth was born.During their lives, Adams children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.The Genesis 128).The wifeIf we now work totally from Scripture, without any ain prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generationsWe are not told when marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.But what about Gods Laws?Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Gods law originally when close relatives (even brothers a nd sisters) married each other.Remember that Moses laws that forbade such marriages.biological deformitiesToday, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be d