Jesus Vs the Bloggosphere- Confessions of a YEC part 3

Posted on May 29, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Jesus, his disciples, and the authors of the New Testament believed in the Biblical account of Creation, with a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Noah living through a literal global flood. Literally. Most people do not deny these as facts about Jesus and his disciples. Jesus and the New testament authors do refer to the creation, garden of Eden, and flood of Noah as actual events of history (even including Noah and Adam as names in the Genealogy of Jesus).

There are only three ways to turn once you acknowledge these facts-
1. Jesus and his disciples are right about their view of recent, six day creation.
2. Jesus was wrong when he made statements like these (As were the other New Testament writers).
3. Jesus knew better, but he PRETENDED to be a YEC because he knew his audience were YEC. Continue reading →

Posted in Confessions of a YEC | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist- Confessions of a YEC part 2

Posted on May 26, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

As soon as you read the title to this post (“Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist”) some of you immediately went into conniptions and started screaming

“JESUS WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!”

and then you went to have a beer and listen to some “secular” rock music while wearing your Obama/CHANGE t-shirt, because those are things Billy Graham and your Baptist grandmother would NEVER DO. From what I have read on social media, this makes you relevant or hip or something the kids are into these days. Whipper Snappers. Always snapping the whipper…

The title is an attention getter, but it is not sarcasm nor mere click-bait. If you read what Jesus said, it’s easy to deduce that he actually was a young earth creationist. While there are many other reasons which will be discussed in future posts, the fact that JESUS holds a certain position has always been, for me, a good enough reason to do the same. I can buy a beer swilling Obama voter being a Christian but when your position about Jesus is, “He was wrong,” then, no, you are not a Christian. You, my fine feathered fellow, are a fruit loop. Continue reading →

Posted in Confessions of a YEC | Tagged | Leave a comment

How OLD is YOUNG?- Confessions of a YEC part 1.5

Posted on May 24, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

In the confessions series I am going to go through all of the core reasons I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), but before I get into part 2 I want to explain the term “Young Earth Creationist.” Specifically, I want to address the fact that I actually reject the word “young” as being factual.

The Earth is NOT Young. It’s REALLY old.

It’s important to understand that “young” and “old” are words which are relative to their context. When I pick up my daughter from preschool, I am VERY old, but when I go visit my grandmother, I am quite young. It depends on the context, much like short or tall, big or little, fast or slow. So when we call the earth “Young” what are we saying?

Click to see full size

Very simply we are referring to our rejection of deep time/evolutionary timescales. That word is only a response to the popular dogma of Billions of years- but when you actually look at the history of the universe as we propose it (according to the Bible, Historians and science), it is FAR from “young” as we would ever experience or think of Youngness. Take a look at the following timelines: This is the past 300 years or so. That big arrow is pointing to the 1776 declaration of Independence. Since then, 45 men have served as president of the United States. Where were you born on this timeline? If you’re under a century old, you were born AFTER the third blue line. If you are still in school, you were probably born after the big white line on the far right side (just before the little white line which indicates 2017AD).  Included here is every computer ever made, every iPhone, every web site, every movie, radio, TV, tank, plane, car, and train. Almost everything we take for granted, from YouTube to the electric light is found on this timeline, along with the ENTIRE history of the United States as a nation. The last century has seen FIVE generations of my family be born. As of this writing, my grandmother has seen her son’s, son’s, son’s daughter be born. Think about how many generations lived across the centuries before in this timeline.

And that is only 300 years.

Click to see full size

This is the past thousand years. That arrow is still showing you the birth of America, but now we can see the invention of eye glasses, the microscope, the telescope, and the compass. We see the birth of the Protestant Church just after the midway point, which means every church other than Catholic and Greek Orthodox fit on the back half of this timeline. We see the lives of Shakespeare, Genghis Khan, Marco Polo, and all of those guys the Teen Age Mutant Ninja Turtles are named after. Had america been founded at the start of the millennium, we could easily have already had more then 200 presidents. Where is the entire span of YOUR life on this timeline? How far back can you trace your family? I can trace mine to the first settlers here on the Mayflower, and that doesn’t even go back to the halfway mark at 1500 AD.

And this is only a thousand years.

Click to see full size

Here is the entire timeline of world history/Biblical history. 6,000 years and change. The dark arrow on the far right is still pointing to the birth of America, but now we see how much has happened before this nation was born. On this timeline is every empire, dynasty, city, government, and major work of architecture ever created.

Let me make the point: Even according to secular dating methods– methods which assume at the start that the human race as we know it has existed for 100,000 years– ALL of the known nations, governments, cities, empires, and dynasties exist on this timeline AFTER the first dark arrow on the left *.

This is a HUGE amount of history, with more events, people, generations, inventions, constructions, cities, songs and stories than we can possibly imagine. Look at how LITTLE of this timeline America takes up and then try to imagine how little of this timeline YOUR life takes up. Then remember the last time you complained about waiting in line at the DMV. The time it takes to get through the DMV would BARELY show up on this scale.

What I want you to see here are two things.

  1. The Biblical model is called “Young” earth creation, but it still involves a HUGE amount of time- time enough to account for everything we see on earth, under the earth, or above it.
  2. The only evidence of human civilization that exists shows up AFTER the flood, which is what that arrow on the right is pointing to**. On the evolutionary time frame, this means the human race did none of those things for 95% of its history, and then within 1-2% of our time on earth we founded civilizations, governments, dynasties, nations and cities all over the world- a fact which is easily explained by the Genesis accounts of the flood and the tower of Babel incident.

So when I use the phrase “Young” Earth Creation, just know that I am merely using this name to distinguish my position from the popular billions of years, but the history I am proposing really is very deep and wide.

Below is the full six thousand years in more detail. Check it out and think about it, won’t you? And remember, #JesusLovesYou

Click to see full size

 

* Egypt has different proposed dates for its founding, the oldest of which falls before the flood by around 500 years, but the earliest dynasties have left no direct evidence, and thus dating them is based on the fragments of evidence left by much later dynasties recalling their own historical past and the assumptions of historians working five thousand years later. 

**except for a small handful of instances of speculative dating with no direct evidence or historical links to KNOWN history. 

Posted in Confessions of a YEC | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

WHY am I a YOUNG Earth Creationist?- Confessions of a YEC part1

Posted on May 22, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

6,000 years of Earth History

Did you know there is a large, secret subculture in America who reject Darwinian Evolution? A large part of this shadowy underground community is Christians and Jews who look at the Bible and say, “There’s not a lot of room for Evolution in there.” But it goes beyond that! Scientists even Non-religious ones, reject Darwinism in larger numbers than you would guess. Intelligent design proponents look at DNA and molecular machines in living cells and say, “There is no way in the name of science that these things came about without a brilliant designer guiding the process.” And some people just look at the mechanisms of evolution and realize that they would fail to cause anything but extinctions.

There is, however, some disagreement within the “evolution deniers” as to the age of the earth. People like me say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but many people who would call themselves “Old Earth Creationists” (OEC) would claim the earth/universe to be anywhere from tens of thousands of years old to billions of years old. It depends on who you ask. I have heard some who refer to themselves as “Middle Age Earthers” and I am not making that up. Continue reading →

Posted in Confessions of a YEC | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Evolution, Baseball, ShowBoat and Political Correctness

Posted on May 19, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Have you ever wondered how BaseBall and the Musical ShowBoat explain why the racist undertones of Political Correctness lead to Obama becoming our “First Black President”? If you have, I would be very surprised. But just for you, I have put my brains to this task and will share with you what I have learned!

Having used science to show that evolution fails entirely on its own merits, I still know that there are people on both sides of the fence (or perched uncomfortably on it) who must wonder why it is that I bother fighting off the great dragon of Darwinism in the first place. Today I intend to show one of the great social evils which results from an acceptance of Darwinism, namely the prevailing racist, White Supremacy which calls itself Political Correctness. I will also show how Obama is “our first black president” because PC Culture is foundationally white-supremacist. But first, I want to talk about Chicago baseball.ShowBoat

Up on the north side we have the baby bears whose games were announced by the only alcoholic sports announcer to ever be impersonated by Will Ferrell- the Chicago Cubs. On the south side we have a team whose stadium has gone through a variety of bad name changes (though here in Chicago we refuse to use any of them), the White Sox- Because Chicago public schools don’t waste their time on things like spelling. Continue reading →

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Buying a Toaster at Walmart (or, WHAT’S IN THE BOX??!)

Posted on May 17, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Have you ever had a conversation about what “Atheism” means? I have, thanks to my many fans on social media, and it leads me to this thought experiment about buying a toaster.

I argued long ago that knowledge and belief are two sides of the same Metaphysical Nickel– they CANNOT be separated.

To Believe is to have confidence/faith in the Truthfulness of information one can recall and understand.

To Know is to be able to recall and understand that which is believed to be true.

If you do not choose to accept a proposition as TRUE, you will not say you believe it. Also, if you cannot remember, nor understand it, you cannot honestly say you believe it. On the flip side of the nickel, if you do not believe a proposition to be true, you will not say you KNOW it.

Imagine I come into the room with a nondescript box, taped shut. It’s a little bigger than a bread box. I say, “Do you know what I have in this box?” You say, no, for how could you know?

“Do you believe I have a toaster in this box?” I ask. Again, you say, no, as you have no knowledge about what is in the box.

At this point, I would say you were Agnostic about the box. You don’t KNOW that there ISN’T a toaster in the box, but you don’t know that there IS. You lack a belief in the toaster, only because you can’t honestly say one way or another. You have no intellectual foundation for making that call.

Now, you may decide you don’t like the looks of me and assume I’m a big liar- the kind of liar that would make up a story about having a toaster when he clearly does not have a toaster. If you choose not to believe my story, it’s not an intellectually founded rejection of the existence of the toaster. It’s an emotional response to me. You still would have to admit that there is no REASON why there COULDN’T be a toaster in that box. You just think you have reason not to trust ME. It’s a thin line which is hard to see, but it’s there.

Now imagine you are walking through Walmart, and you see a very similar box, taped shut, and sitting on a shelf. Only, this box has a picture of a toaster on it, and it is labeled, “Toaster.” In this scenario is it not IMPOSSIBLE that there is something else in the box, but now you would say you KNOW what is in the box. The reason is not direct observation- the box is still shut. But it’s still a kind of scientific assurance- every time you open a box from the store which was taped shut until you open it, it contains what the packaging claims it would contain. Once again, you see a box at the store with a clear label, and because of past experience (and other reasonable arguments about truth in advertising) you believe that the box is accurate, and you would say you know what is in the box, even though you have not seen it.

William Lane Craig makes the useful distinction between 100% confident, mathematical certainty, and a proposition which is clearly more probable than its opposite. In this case, you can be far more certain that there IS a toaster than you could be certain that someone put something else in this box at the factory. It’s not impossible, but it is so unlikely that you would not hesitate to buy the box and take it home if you needed a toaster.

Now a third scenario- I show you the box, as above, but this time I open the box and show you. This time you would also say you know that there is a toaster in the box. If I asked you, “Do you believe there is a toaster in the box?” you would, of course, say YES. You can SEE it. Now, whether this equates to 100% confident, mathematical certainty depends on what kind of skeptic you are. There are people out there who will doubt their own existence and REFUSE to admit that it’s possible to prove one’s own existence with 100% certainty. What about “I think, therefore I am?” These people will say, “That only proves that thinking exists, not that there is a self doing the thinking.” At some point, you need to stop trying to convince other people of what they refuse to believe. This guy won’t believe HE exists. Good luck getting him to accept anything else.

Popular YouTube Atheist Thunderfoot had a long conversation with Creation spokesperson Eric Hovind where in he (Thunderfoot) admitted that his atheistic worldview means he could be wrong about EVERYTHING he knows, and the universe, all of reality, might not be real. I’m not sure if he would buy a toaster at Walmart, but his position must give you pause.

Have I proven that Knowing and Believing are two sides of the same Metaphysical Nickel? Consider this, if I show you there is a toaster in the box and ask if you know what is in the box, would you say, “I know there is a toaster in the box because I can see it, but I don’t BELIEVE it.”

Or would you say, “I believe there is a toaster in the box, but I don’t know if there is a toaster in the box.” What sense would that make?

Now, you may say of the box at Walmart, “I believe there is a toaster in this box, but because I have not seen it, I do not KNOW.” If you say you do not KNOW, wouldn’t you really be saying “I believe there is PROBABLY a toaster in the box.”? I propose that we CANNOT separate our belief from our knowledge in order to really mean “I believe FULLY something which I cannot know.” We do say things like this, but if we think about it, what we MEAN  by such statements is just that we consider it far more likely that the expected thing is actual as opposed to the opposite. This is why we buy items at the store without opening them at the store. We KNOW what is in the box- in a sense. It’s also why we love magic tricks or a really good punch line. We KNOW there is no rabbit in the hat, or we KNOW how this story is going to end, but we are delighted to find out that what we knew and believed was wrong.

So how does this relate to the discussion over the way we use the word “Atheism”? My friendly commenter suggested that, by saying he was Agnostic, he had NOT answered the question “do you believe God exists?”. He had said what he did not know, but did not say what he believed. I am suggesting that it is impossible to do one without doing the other. I know God exists, and so I believe God exists. That commenter does not know, and so how can he believe what he does not know? Further, how can he know what he does not know? Specifically, how can he believe God does not exist, or say he KNOWS God does not exist if he admits to being agnostic?

The agnostic says, “I don’t know what’s in the box, so it MAY be a toaster. But I don’t believe it IS a toaster because I don’t KNOW what is in there. I only know that it is not impossible, but that is too little knowledge to have a flip side of belief.”

Or in a sense- I’m not shelling out $25 to Walmart until I look in the box.

For the atheist to be rational- what I call an intellectual atheist, one with reasons for his atheism- he would have to say, “I do not believe there is a toaster in the box because the box is a match box, and it is far too small to fit a toaster inside. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a toaster to be in that box.”

I hope this helps to clarify my position, and again I want to thank all of the Atheists and Agnostics who reached above name calling to actually try to help me understand what they are thinking. When I look at you, I don’t see a toaster, and I hope you do not either.

Now go have a pop tart! You’ve earned it.

Posted in atheism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Atheism and the Return of the Metaphysical Nickel

Posted on May 15, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

To begin with, I want to thank all of the kind self-declared Atheists who have chosen to dialogue with me on the social media. It is because of you guys that I have been able to understand and think about these issues as much as I have. And equally important, you have proven to me that not all self declared atheists are the kind of perplexing nimrods who cuss me out because I ask them to explain themselves when they tell me that plants are NOT alive (or at one point, that “pants are alive, depending on your definition.”). Some of the people on social media worry me in that “He’s off his medication again” kind of way.

The “pants are alive” guy also insisted that toasters can’t NOT believe in God. If I made this stuff up, I wouldn’t believe me either. Continue reading →

Posted in atheism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Branyan, Spirituality, and Atheists (art or Arthur?)

Posted on May 1, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

The Month of Branyan continues with a great post about Atheists trying to abscond with “spirituality.” The article I am responding to is here: http://www.johnbranyan.com/in-the-spirit-of-no-spirits/

The key to it is a quote from famed atheist and “sweaty pervert” cosplay aficionado, SamHarris. In a recent article he said this:

“Spirituality “is a name for all of the deliberate efforts people can make to cut through the illusion of the self, the illusion that there is a thinker in addition to the thoughts, or an ego as it is often called,” Harris, 47, said in a telephone interview. “Self-transcendence is the foundation of what I am calling spirituality.”

A reader of the blog commented thusly: “Art, for example, doesn’t transcend the self?”

John replied with, “Art is not conscious.”

John has stated that Art is not conscious, but To be fair, on atheism, consciousness is an illusion- as Sam Harris stated in that first quote above: “..the illusion of the self, the illusion that there is a thinker in addition to the thoughts..” On atheism neither art NOR the artist are conscious. As I have pointed out in THIS article/THIS video, consistent atheism has no room for a self, conscience thought, or free will, and Sam Harris may sound like an idiot here, but he is being a consistent atheist. Neither art nor Arthur are selves. Neither is a WHO, both are WHATs.

On atheism, a toaster and the human brain differ only in their complexity and chemical make up- but in a godless worldview, how does complexity create self or self awareness? That is like asking how complicated your toaster can get before it DECIDES to make toast. In both cases, it can’t. You can add as many features to your toaster as you want and it will never gain the ability to decide if it is going to toast that pop tart. The lever you push down to get toasting just becomes more complex, but it essentially will always do the same thing.

Push lever= toast pop tart.

Atheism demands one reject free will and a unified self. It’s part of the laundry list of reasons why atheism is unlivable and absurd. When atheists are consistent, they have to reject belief not only in God, but in themselves. Sam Harris is being consistent and rejecting his own free will, ability to think, and self to do the thinking. And for this he gets people to buy his books?

There needs to be a better word for “stupid.”

Here’s where I take atheists to task- if you admit that you can think and make choices,

or-if you can distinguish between actual right and wrong (as opposed to your feelings and personal preferences),

or- if you admit you can choose and make decisions,

or- if you admit you are not a toaster,

then you admit that Atheism is false and God must exist.

They don’t get to steal from the Biblical worldview and attack it at the same time. It’s absurd. If you claim you are thinking person- a “free thinker”-then you have rejected Atheism already. You want to reject the existence of God? OK, but in the same breathe you are professing that you’re a toaster whose DNA has forced their brain to take the form we call “Atheism.” Not only did you not choose to be an atheist, you never could. Your lever got pushed and your brain machine toasted the theism pop-tart until it was burnt. And from there, Sam Harris writes books defending the atheistic world view.

Harris can attempt to persuade me that I can’t think and don’t exist and then ask me to think about becoming an atheist, but I’m not interested in what he has to say. Personally, I’m not going take advice from a toaster.

PS: Thanks for posting this JB. A great invitation to think, as always.

Posted in atheism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jackson Pollok and The Psychology of Arson

Posted on April 28, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

I was looking at the painting Convergence (by Jackson Pollock in 1952) the other day, and I noticed something which I had not seen before. Now that I have seen it I can’t believe I never noticed it before. Take a look and tell me what you notice. Take in the whole picture.

Now look at the splotch of white in the top left corner and the line of red-orange which circles around it. Can’t you see it? Jackson Pollock made a HORRIBLE error while making this painting! That white splotch curls UP and to the RIGHT just like the white splotch over the center of the image! That is such an obvious error that I am surprised he even allowed this thing to see the light of day. Now, compound that with the flagrant error which I am guessing resulted from that one. The red-orange line above the while splotch ANGLES up and down on either side instead of CURVING like the image demands! I suspect that his second error is the result of his first. He must have seen it and been so AWARE of it that he just couldn’t control his paint!

If I were him, I would have taken the effort to correct these heinous mistakes.

Speaking of correcting mistakes, I have stopped going to my therapist. THAT was a mistake and I can’t believe it took me this long to notice it. See, I was assigned this therapist by court order when I was arrested for various arson related charges last year. I have Pyromania, or maybe Pathological firesetting (My therapist never could make up her mind), both of which are described as psychiatric disorders.

But as I was burning her office to the ground (at night while it was empty of course. I’m not a psycho!) I had a realization. If the human brain simply evolved from random chance processes and natural selection and what not, then how does some nerd in her ivory tower tell me that the way MY brain works is a DISORDER? Maybe I am statistically different than the majority, but then so were the first apes who walked upright! Or the first cavemen who could talk- or make fire! The point is, WHY call something a DISORDER just because it is different than average? The only reason humans exist is because some members of the species- whether those were bacteria several billion years ago or some smarter than average apes a few million years ago- were different than average. Super geniuses are different than average. I don’t see anyone saying Einstein had some kind of high functioning math disorder. He gets praised for HIS difference. Why do I get labeled for mine?

Calling my desire to set fires a disorder seems to be based on the idea that there is a natural order- a plan from which I have strayed. It’s like saying the brain was designed a certain way and mine is broken or malfunctioning. But of course that is ridiculous because there WAS no plan! Evolution is not a designer with a plan. We evolved from worms and fish and monkeys through random mutations! Some mutations made us walk upright and my mutations make me want to see the whole world burn. What ORDER does that violate? What SHOULD or OUGHT did evolution create which MY particular desires violate? The whole thing is silly. These psychiatrists are seeing problems which are not there.

If you ask me, my therapist was letting her Catholic beliefs contaminate her scientific worldview. As a scientist she should know better than to think the human brain was designed to function a particular way. It’s not a car. It’s merely a very complex piece of organic matter which is the result of chance over millions of years, same as lice or tape worms or crabgrass. So I refuse to accept the idea that I have a disorder. My brain does what evolution has created it to do, and that is to love fire. It’s time we stop letting these religious nuts tell us what we can and can’t love.

And I think its time we all admit that Jackson Pollok wasn’t a very good painter. If you think Convergence had a lot of mistakes in it, you should see Number 5 (1948). THAT thing has some disorders.

 

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

British Literature and An Elephant on the Couch

Posted on April 26, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

If you’re like most citizens of the internet you have no doubt seen memes and whatnot attempting to show that belief in God is silly. Here’s an example of what I mean: Many atheists think they have come up with a clever defeater for the creation of the universe by God by asking WHEN God created the universe if Time is a part of the universe. On the surface, this question presents quite a pickle.

If God made time, WHEN did he make it? But if there was no time yet, then there was no WHEN when it could have been made… thus the whole sweater starts to unravel.

Or does it?

To answer this question I shall appeal to a brilliant American Philosopher and two very popular British stories.

JP Moorland is a brilliant philosopher who sums up the Kalaam argument for the existence of God like this:

One- the universe exists 
Two- it was either caused or uncaused
Three- the cause is either personal or impersonal

And then he argues that the universe is caused, and that the cause is personal. I won’t go into all of those details there, but he goes into them here and I highly recommend it: The Kalam Cosmological Argument – JP Moreland, PhD

I bring up Mooreland primarily because it is in this discussion that he explains the relationship of God to his creation.

The personal cause stands in ontological relationship to the creation of the universe- not temporal relationship to the beginning of the universe. In other words, the one owes its existence to the other even if there is no moment when the one caused the other. This sounds like self contradictory gobbledygook, but allow me to explain.

Shakespeare stands in ontological cause to Hamlet. He is the reason Hamlet exists, even though Hamlet was not written in the timeline of the story of Hamlet. If Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were to ask Hamlet when Shakespeare wrote “Hamlet,” there can be no answer. Hamlet cannot say Shakespeare began when Hamlet was born, or a hundred years before, or anything else which would make sense in his own story. Shakespeare did write Hamlet, but not at a point in time inside Hamlet’s universe.

If I step into my Tardis and fly through all of time and space with the Doctor, will we ever find the moment when the first episode of Dr Who was written? To you it was 1962, but to the Doctor himself, it never happened. That story- the story of his origins- happened outside of his own story, and so he can never travel through space and time to see it for himself.

Similarly, God made the universe outside of the time of our own universe, the act of which caused the first moment of our time. God stands in relationship to our universe like an author to a story.

Let me skip 500 years of British literature. Step into the Tardis and hold on for a moment until we land at Hogwarts…

Imagine that Prof. Albus Dumbledore waved his wand and instantly an elephant on a couch appeared in the great hall. POOF! The elephant looks around somewhat perplexed, because he finds himself in a school for wizards, and the children begin to scream because they are children.

The couch has a considerable dent made by the elephant. It exists because the elephant is on the couch. Thus, the dent in the couch owes its existence to the elephant. We would say of this relationship of elephant causing the dent, the elephant stands in ontological causation to the dent- in other words the dent exists because the elephant is causing it.

However, the elephant did not create the dent at any particular time. The elephant did not SIT on the couch, but rather the couch and the elephant were magically created at the same moment. Thus we would say of the relationship between elephant and dent in the couch that the elephant does not stand in temporal causation to the dent. It didn’t create it at some point in time, but rather is causes the dent to be without having caused the dent to come into being at a particular time by sitting.

When did the elephant sit? He didn’t. But the fact that he is sitting is what is causing the dent.

So, when did God create the universe? WHEN did God create TIME? It’s an unanswerable question, but not because the idea of God creating the universe is self contradictory. It’s unanswerable because the author is not inside our story until he writes himself into it. God makes the elephant of our universe at the same moment as the couch of time. This is no problem for God, as he stands outside of our time in what we call Eternity. God can cause time to exist without there being a time when he made the effect.

But for the atheist, when did the Big Bang happen? THAT, my friends, is an unanswerable question because it is literally asking, When did the cause of the universe make time? And this time, there is no Shakespeare outside of the story to write the first line. Where atheists fail to understand the distinction is when they try to think of God as a physical part of this universe which we are claiming also made the universe. They think we mean by God “Prof. Albus Dumbledore,” when we actually mean something more like “JK Rowling.” He’s not just the greatest character in the story- he’s the author.

Both the creation by God and the self-creation via big bang present deep questions of science and philosophy, but of the two, only creation by God is reasonable. And that’s being said by a mad man in a Tardis traveling around inside of British stories.

#JesusLovesYou

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment