Self Existence
The Big Bang theory is not a constant and fully understood theory but some 14-18 billion year ago, give or take a couple of billion years. At that beginning time all that existed, as said by some, is there was a point of ‘Singularity.’ This consisted of a compacted point of all energy and all matter that may be currently found in the universe. All the stuff of reality was in this infinitesimal piece of Singularity. It existed from eternity in a state of organization. In a stable and ordered way. And for ways we can’t know it exploded and from that nanosecond it exploded outward. Everything is moving from that state from organization to disorganization. Which is the process where it moves toward what is called ‘equilibrium.’
So from this explanation, whatever was, was in a state of organization but the laws of thermodynamics are such that it indicates that it is going back to a state of disorganization.
So this raises all sorts of questions. If the state of nature is to move towards disorganization, you have to ask the question, how did it become organized in the first place?
The law of inertia is another thing we have to question. The law being the things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Also, things at rest to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Golf is a good example. A ball placed on a tee is at rest. The golfer is at rest when he addresses the ball. He sets a club in motion and this outside force strikes it and then the ball goes into the air. Then it is acted upon by air which resists the balls flight because of friction so it hit’s the ground and further friction brings it to a stop. Outside sources acting against the ball traveling indefinitely are why the game can be played at all. So we know what the force was that struck the ball but in like manner we have the Big Bang and we need to ask what caused the Bang?
What caused the Bang?
So we find people saying we don’t have to ask that question for that is out of the scope of science and deals with philosophy and theology. But RC Sproul says that if you are going to pin all your hopes on a concept of an initial Bang why don’t you answer this question of what causes the Bang. Science is innately concerned with causality. And this question is the Big Question of causality. It is an intellectual cop out to not want to go there. If you are going to postulate this thesis for the origin of Everything then you are begging the question of what it is that is the outside force that causes this monumental change in this tiny point of ‘Singularity.’ That causes the movement to begin.
Christianity has the answer to that readily available. This is exactly what is involved in the doctrine of creation. We have a self-existent eternal being who has the power of motion and has the capacity to move that which is not moving. This is what Aristotle understood in antiquity when spoke about the ‘unmoved mover.’ He understood that their had to be an origin to motion. That which has the power of motion must have it within himself. It must have the power of Being within itself. That is why we attribute these attributes to God.
We have the idea that this matter is compacted at the point of Singularity but what about the matter and energy itself being the ‘self existent eternal being’. this is what is assumed in Materialism. The universe is not 15+ billion years old but is just the present incarnation of energy and matter. The stuff of reality is eternal.
Materialism’s description of self existence
What is it in the universe that is eternal? Is it this piece of chalk - in its individuated form or my car keys or Sproul. A materialist will say, no, the sun or the chalk is not eternal. They will say the chief characteristic of matter is it’s mutability, that it changes from one shape to another state. It is not stable eternally. It is in a state of ‘becoming’ and not in a state of pure Being. Anything that we find in the universe that is changing that manifests contingency and is dependent or derived from something else cannot be the ultimate core of being of the universe. That is what we are describing here about ‘Self existent something.’ The materialist will say they grant that this piece of chalk or a key chain is not eternal reality that is self-existent. But that it is made up of elements that are generated by a self existent eternal ‘something.’ But this self existent eternal something, contrary to you religious people, is not transcendent. But rather, it is immanent. You don’t have to appeal to something above and beyond this world to account for this world. For the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview is there is something outside the creaturely universe and transcends it. But the materialist says that their must be something that is self existent, not self created for they know that that is absurd, and is apart of the universe. The sum total of the universe is some eternal pulsating force that is the cause of the existence of everything that is in this universe. It is an undiscovered part of the universe where it accounts for all the Bangs and the generating of the power from Singularity. An isolated unknown point within the universe is the pulsating power which generates everything from that beginning.
Immanence view
Notice in describing this view Sproul uses the term, Generated. Yes, and Genesis comes from Genaoho which means to Be or to Become or to happen and cause to be. To make something to come into existence is to generate it. So back to this view that there is a hidden unknown point, within the universe, that is the pulsating core of all reality that generates everything from the beginning. The point being there is no God who lives outside the universe, above and beyond the universe, but within the universe itself. This is called the “Immanistic view.” This is very popular in science and philosophy in some circles today. They say there is a ‘self existent eternal power’ for without this there can be nothing. Their challenge to the Transcendent view is why does it have to come from beyond the universe? Why is it not possible to be a part of the universe?
Sproul’s answer to these questions is that it can be apart of the universe itself. Depending on how you define ‘universe.’ If you mean by universe, all that is, then, if God is - then he would subsumed under the term ‘universe.‘ Because ‘universe’ is then described as ’all that is.’
If, on the other hand, you mean by universe, the created universe, then obviously you can’t subsume God into the meaning of the term universe. You have to be able to distinguish between God and the universe.
Transcendence
The way we distinguish in theology about God and the universe is God transcends the universe. But what we mean, and this is critical that you get this - transcendence is not a description of God’s location. Transcendence is not a geographical location. We are not saying that God is transcendent in that he lives somewhere out there east of the Sun and west of the moon. What is meant by transcendence in philosophy and theology is something is a higher order of Being. That is rather than transcendence being a geographic location it is a ontological description. Therefore He is a higher order than we are. He is a higher order of Being than a piece of chalk or keys or the Sun or pure energy. We don’t care where He lives.
As opposed to the immanent idea, where there is a pulsating unknown point in the universe where a beginning happened. Some core within the universe that is self existent and eternal from where everything else is generated. Ultimately, is there something within the universe, that transcends everything else in the universe, from that point of generation? To answer this you must distinguish between the ‘point where the core-being is’ from all else that is in the universe that is not at the point of generation. What is that core-source-point and how is it different from the whole universe, from all other matter that is derived, dependent and contingent from the place of generation.
Now if this is true, then we are just arguing over ‘it’s’ name. Whether the name of it is X or YHWH. No matter how you slice it your forced back to a self existent eternal being. From whose Being and from whose power all things come into existence. Immanence or Transcendence are to be understood by a self existent eternal power source.
Now Christians will object at this point and say to me that we grant that philosophy and reason argues and demonstrates that you have to have a SEEB but, after this is dealt with, how do we get to the God of the Bible. All we have demonstrated, so far, is Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ thesis. All we have is an abstract idea, a SEEB, but not a God who is depicted in the biblical account. This is a legitimate objection and it brings one to the question of what is the difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the philosophers. As you know, all that I have been saying in the last few lectures has been based more on philosophy than on biblical exegesis. And Sproul grants that that is true. Sproul’s burden that he has for the Christian community is going to be addressed in our next lecture. About the relationship between the God of the Bible and the God of the philosophers.
No comments:
Post a Comment