Who is God and Why Should You Care >>Part 1

This is the single most important question you will ever ask. It is a question men and woman far wiser than you and I will ever be spent their lives dedicated to discovering. Whether searching through religion, science, philosophy, anthropology and every other "logy."

My question to you is: Have you asked yourself this question?

Okay, great!

For how many years?

Seriously, this is the most defining and important question of your life. Make sure you never give up until you know what you believe.

Before writing this post, I delved into as many articles as I could find. I’m still diving, gleaning and pruning ideas as I go. Feel free to offer additional resources in the comments!

Am I reading theological articles, articles penned by renowned theologians and pastors? No, of course not. I’m reading the scientific texts of agnostics and atheists. Reason, Science, and Humanism have had a heyday in distorting the truth. Interestingly, the very laws of physics and science they use to cast a shadow on the idea of a divine creator actually illuminate the very real possibility He exists. Thank you, Stephen Hawking. I sometimes wonder, if those very scientists researched alongside a theologian would they have been surprised to notice how many of their ideas correlate and explain each other?

In one article, Stephen Hawking explains how the universe could come from nothing, according to science. However, this very science, as he goes on to explain, shows, “The universe resulted from the explosion of an ultra-dense point of singularity smaller than an atom.”

Sounds like “something” to me, Stephen.

The article goes on to say, “From this speck came all the energy, matter, and empty matter the universe contains and ever will contain” (energy cannot be created or destroyed).

So, this ultra-dense speck of “nothing” provided all energy, expanding and filling the entire universe. Right, but isn’t this ultra-dense speck of energy still, energy? Isn’t it something and not nothing? There is no true vacuum, otherwise known as, space with no energy. Even seemingly empty space contains subatomic particles. Stephen mused that one of these subatomic particles could have been the origins of the universe. It still begs the question: Where did the subatomic particle come from? And didn’t Hawking just use science to prove the universe came from something and not nothing?

That aside, a point of singularity comes from collapsed stars, immensely dense, so even light cannot escape their gravitational pull. Now the nothing from which the universe originated is a collapsed star? How is that nothingness? How is gravity and a collapsed star (black hole’s point of singularity) nothingness? Gravity is an energy force, a pulling, from which nothing can escape, including time, as Hawking will further detail. Aren’t these somethings? I'm still perplexed by how anyone did not ask him to further illuminate on how these scientific explanations proved the universe originated from “nothing,” when they appear to prove the opposite. Oh, he does.

He goes on to posit, “Since there is no time in a black hole, and the singularity from which the universe originates is a black hole, there could be no creator because there was no time in which the creator could have existed before the universe.” This statement would have left many a theologian scratching their heads. Oh, so because there is no time, there is no creator…except we Christians believe our creator exists before the universe and, as He created the universe and the laws which govern said universe, it goes without saying, but apparently it needs to be said, that the creator exists outside of time. He created time. This goes well with Einstein’s idea that space and time are only the product or effect of objective existing matter. You don’t need to have time before you can have energy or matter, time only exists in relation to the existence of energy and matter.

Perhaps there is a “universe” outside our universe as well. I am sure the blood cells in our body, if they could think, might be shocked to realize a whole other universe exists outside the only universe they have ever known, our body, that fated day we scrapped our knee, exposing them to the outside world. They’d be shocked, but should they be surprised? No. Our whole universe is a system within a system. To think there is not a greater system of which our universal system is a part of demonstrates limited thinking rather than expansive thinking, which I’ve always admired scientists of having. People assume religious zeal equates intellectual and scientific limitations. Perhaps one’s personal disbelief is more limiting to the expansion of scientific knowledge, instead of the other way around.

Almost every scientist agrees that the big bang was sparked by something. They simply don’t know what it is. After which, the universe expanded at an exponential rate. Almost like a creator speaking the universe into existence? Why is this so hard to believe? Why is it so difficult for us to accept that this “thing,” this “spark,” may not be a what at all, but could be a Who?

Isn’t a baby a clump of scientifically explainable systems and chemical interactions and conversions of energy? Yet, why is it we identify and explain this clump of matter to be what we know as a thinking, willful, human being? A “who,” not a “what.”

Let’s go further. Why do we have numbers for instance? Why would we count? We do not use words or letters in the same way. Well we do, we do build systems of numbers, much like we build systems of words, but for completely different purposes. We communicate with words, but what do we do with numbers? Why assign, identify, and classify items according to their number? To communicate or to reason? What need would there be for the higher form of communication, like reasoning, exist? This is a far larger deal than we realize. We have no explanation as to why we discovered it was reasonably advantageous to number days, seasons, food, our fingers, our children. I have two children. Why number them? I can just as easily say, I have Don and Tim, my children.

Numbering expands our ability to reason and understand, to makes sense of our world. Why do we accept our numerical capability, which includes the higher thought processes i.e. reasoning, even though recognizing and recording the moon’s shape would have been sufficient enough, yet we don’t believe the scientific explanation of our world may have a more resonate and complex level of reasoning behind its creation? May there be an infinitely more complex entity that encompasses the explanation and responsibility for all the scientific processes?

We didn’t discover gravity it was always there. We just named it. We simply recognized and recorded and named its effects. We haven’t discovered anything that doesn’t already exist. We are only naming. Interesting how God’s first job He gave Adam was to name things. And here we are still trying to discover the name of something that has always existed and always been behind everything; a name that has been right in front our faces all along.

Click here to read Part II of this Post