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

Religion, Science and Shakespeare

Posted on April 24, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

I was thinking about the alleged fight between science and religion (or as it is presented to me on social media, the fight between Evolution and Christianity) and I realized that we all learned what we need to know about this issue in school. However, it was not in science class as you might expect, but in English class that the answers came. To understand the relationship between science and God, consider Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was the George Lucas of his day. He wrote a lot of popular entertainment (based heavily on pre-existing entertainment) in a wide variety of styles, many of which had people being killed via swordfight.

Let’s consider Halmet. The fountain of knowledge which is Wikipedia says this:

Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare … between 1599 and 1602. Set in the Kingdom of Denmark, the play dramatises the revenge Prince Hamlet is called to wreak upon his uncle, Claudius, by the ghost of Hamlet’s father, King Hamlet. Claudius had murdered his own brother and seized the throne, also marrying his deceased brother’s widow.

Just to be clear- William Shakespeare is not IN Hamlet. He wrote it. He is the author of the play. It is because of William’s will and pen that Prince Hamlet lives and moves and has his being. Shakespeare determined Hamlet’s appointed time in history and the boundaries of his story. In one poetic sense, Hamlet is Shakespeare’s offspring. He was made in the image of his author- a man with feelings and passions and a sense of justice.

What does all of this have to do with the conflict between God and science? It helps us define the terms of the conflict, and illuminates the actual matter.

Religion is the study of God- the author of life- the Shakespeare to our Hamlet. Science is the study of Hamlet and the world he inhabits. When Hamlet looks at his castle, or his family, or the horses and trees outside, he is doing science. When he considers the mind of Shakespeare, he is doing religion.

Religion is the study of what we can know about Shakespeare. Science is the study of what we can know about Hamlet. Atheism is when you realize Shakespeare is not one of the characters in Hamlet and therefore decide he didn’t exist.

And that is why there is no conflict between science and God. Without God, there would be no world to examine through science, just as without Shakespeare, there would be no Hamlet. And atheism once again fails the logic test by demanding that there is no Shakespeare, because-it asserts- a long, long story with LOTS of information can write itself. But science and common sense tell us that information, whether Hamlet of our DNA, needs an author. It cannot write itself.

Sorry Atheism, F-. See me after class.

For more from someone much smarter than I- check out CS Lewis on Finding God (Finding Shakespeare)

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

The Image of God (Or, How Two Become One)

Posted on April 21, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Consider a few verses about God making the human race:

Genesis 1: 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Matthew 19:4&5 Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’… and the two will become one flesh’?”

Genesis 5:1 (NIV) “When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.”

The reference to being made in the image of God is always coupled with them being made male and female. I don’t think either was made in the image of God, but rather THEY were made in the image of God. This is why the two are meant to become one- we complete the image together.

Which is the image- the portrait or the profile? A front facing portrait and a side profile of the same person are very different. Think about this- if you were an alien life form from a distant world- say you were a plant- and you were given two pictures of the same person- one front facing and the other the profile- would you even know they were the same species?

One has two eyes, two ears, and a mouth and a nose in the middle of its face. The other has one eye, one ear, and a mouth and a nose on the side of its head.

Both together give a better sense of the real subject. Women are like men the way a portrait and a profile are alike. Neither gives a full impression of what the subject looks like. Together they give more of a full picture than either could alone.  This is why God made men and women very similar, and yet very different. Only together can we complete the picture. This is the foundation for marriage, and the equality of men and women.

#JesusLovesYou

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Does Adam Represent ALL Men? (Or, If Adam were Steve)

Posted on April 19, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Some people claim that Adam was a metaphor, because “Adam” just means “Man”. Thus, they argue, the Adam of Genesis isn’t intended to be a man, he is meant to represent all men, otherwise he would have a name like everyone else.

Is this a good critique? Nope.

God could call the first man Adam- or MAN- for the same reason those kids in the movie E.T. could call the alien “E.T.” Because when you have only one of something on the planet you don’t need to specify which one you’re talking about. God didn’t need to give Adam a different name anymore than those kids would’ve been all “We can’t just call him “E.T.”! How are we going to know which extraterrestrial we’re talking about? Let’s call him Steve. Steve is a pretty name…”

Had God called Adam “Steve,” then the human race would have been called “Steves,” or “Stevekind.” You name the collection that follows from the one which fathers them. This is why we have last names. At some point there was a first “Johnson,” who was the son of a man named John. We still do this today. Why would this make Adam mythological when the great-grandfather “John” of the Johnson family was a real man?

The reason we are all called “Mankind” and Adam was called simply “Man,” is because we are distinguishing our species. If he was Steve- we would all be “Stevekind”. Because he was Adam, we are Adamkind. Mankind. So when people try to argue that Genesis isn’t historical because Adam wasn’t Steve, you can know that they’ve failed to be down to earth and are really out of this world, if you catch my meaning.

#JesusLovesYou

Posted in Philosophy, The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Noah’s Flood Assumes a Round Earth

Posted on April 17, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

Genesis 7: 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.


The book of Genesis tells us that the flood of Noah’s day covered the entire earth, and the water rose above the highest mountain. Some people try to claim that the Bible teaches that the world is flat, but not only does it never say so, but it says much which disproves this theory. One such example is the flood.

A flood above the highest mountains can’t work on a flat earth. A global flood assumes a ball earth, because only on a globe can the waters continue to rise. If the earth were flat, the water could not rise above the highest mountains. The water would run over the edge of the disk before it could pile up a mile or more.

So this accusation that Genesis teaches a flat earth doesn’t hold any water.

Boom. That’s science, bro.

#JesusLovesYou

For more reasons why the Flood in Genesisis real history, check out our series on the flood.

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Radishes, Cats, and Human Suffering

Posted on April 14, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

I have seen the light. Thanks to the many tireless commenters on social media, I have seen the error of my ways and I have begun to realize that the atheists are right. Morality doesn’t depend on God! We can figure out for ourselves what right and wrong are! We can create our own moral law using our reason and logic and science! And that is exactly what I am going to do.

First, I have been told over and over that human morality is based on empathy– the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Once I began to understand this, the rest fell into place fairly quickly. I hate radishes. I think they taste awful. Whenever I eat them I experience great displeasure, and so I see that I need to protect others from this horrible experience. This is why I am banishing radishes. From now on, no one will be allowed to grow, sell, or buy radishes.

I also hate cats. I would not like to own a cat. I’m allergic, so beyond mere annoyance at their smug, holier than thou attitudes, I experience physical suffering in the presence of a cat. Thus, NO ONE should own cats, and they too are prohibited.
Continue reading →

Posted in atheism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Objective Morals and the Speed Limit on the Moon

Posted on April 12, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

One of the comments I see from atheists on social media all the time has to do with their views on morality. Christians who have studied some philosophy will tell them that, if God did not exist, then objective morals would not either. Since we all know there are real good and evil, then at some level we all acknowledge that God must exist.

Atheists will return with some annoyance, saying that they can determine right and wrong on their own without any god. Often they appeal to empathy. We don’t want to be killed, so we should not kill others. We don’t want to be robbed, so we should not rob others. In short, atheists reject Jesus and then appeal to the golden rule taught by Jesus.

Is that Irony?

I realized that the problem in this conversation has to do with the use of and misunderstanding of the word “morals.” We Christians tend to add the word “objective” to clarify the fact that they are real, outside of us and would continue to be true if no one on earth believed or obeyed them, just as laws of physics would be. If every person on earth rejected “though shall not steal” it would still be wrong to steal just as if everyone on earth rejected the law of gravity, they’d still fall if they jumped off of their roof in a cape and brightly colored underpants. Continue reading →

Posted in atheism, Philosophy | Tagged , | 22 Comments

Inwardly Fuel Efficient

Posted on April 10, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

The library has parking spaces which are marked as being reserved for fuel efficient vehicles. The physical facts are that I drive an old, gas guzzling Buick, but I self identify as a person who drives a Tesla- a very classy electric car- and therefore I can park in the spots reserved for lower emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles.
The librarian got mad at me and told me I couldn’t park my car there. I told her she was being a close minded bigot. I reminded her that the make and model of the car can be fluid. My car is outwardly a gas guzzler, but inside it FEELS like an electric car.

She didn’t accept my explanation. She told me I couldn’t park there anymore. I was so upset that I ran into the women’s bathroom and cried. It just shows how all librarians are hateful and close minded.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Fart, Sandwich, Fart

Posted on April 7, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

I’ve had a few atheist on social media get angry at me for not taking their comments or questions more seriously. I have failed to reply in the manner they feel their comments deserve. But the reason many of them don’t get the reply they think they deserve is simple; many atheists’ comments and questions are couched in profanity and childish name calling. This is like someone offering you a sandwich but they won’t stop farting.

Continue reading →

Posted in atheism | Tagged | Leave a comment

God and the Number Five

Posted on April 5, 2017 by A Bit Of Orange

When atheists ask a Christian “What would it take to convince you that God doesn’t exist?”, this is exactly the same as if we were to turn around and say “What would it take to convince you that the number five* doesn’t exist? What evidence or arguments would convince you that there is no number between four and six? What argument or evidence could persuade you that we have culturally inserted a fiction between the quantities of four and six just as we invented Santa Claus or flying unicorns?” santa on a unicorn_edited-1

Nothing? Nothing can convince you that there IS no number we call five? I knew it. You can’t be persuaded by reason or facts. You’re just a blind-faith fruit loop.

It is the same because we are asking what would it take to convince you that a necessary being doesn’t exist. There is no possible world where in the number five doesn’t exist. In no universe could you add four to one and get six. The number five HAS to exist. Similarly, God doesn’t just merely ALSO exist. God MUST exist. If God did not exist, nothing else would either. Accepting a universe without God is like accepting an ocean without water or Hamlet without Shakespeare. It is accepting that you could be persuaded by a clever argument that no argument is valid. It is giving a speech about your faith that words do not exist.

Not to get technical here, but it is “kookiedooks“.

Not only is the question absurd but it has nothing to do with the actual existence of God. This is a question about the psychology of the person being asked.  If it could be shown that convincing a Christian that God did not exist was impossible, or if it could be shown to be fairly easy, neither would say anything about the existence of God, but rather, would say something about the psychology of the person being asked. So, while an interesting question, the answer can never be used to defend atheism or attack theism. Food for thought.

#JesusLovesYou

Read our series on Proving God exits here: PROOF OF GOD

*to be clear, I am not referring to the word “five” or the symbol, “5”. I mean the quantity you get when you add one to four. Unless you went to a Chicago Public School, in which case I’m referring to the quantity you SHOULD have gotten when you added 1 to 4.

PS: I kid because I love.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , | Leave a comment