"If Something Exists Now, Then Something Exists Necessarily and Eternally"
|
Index and Summary of this Page:
The Great Debate — Evolution (Natural Selection) vs. Creationism (Intelligent Design)
What is the Fundamental Concept of "Evolution"?
" Evolution" can be defined as: Non-intelligent, random change, with it's mechanism of mutations based on a process
defined as " Natural Selection". This theory is primarily predicated on the idea that given enough time and chance,
favorable mutations, through these mechanisms, are additive and result in higher and more complex forms of systems, beneficial to what
ever is evolving.
Evolutionists promote the idea that all species of life can be traced back to a common ancestry of simpler forms of biological systems
that have gradually evolved to their current state over a time span of billions of years. Evolution is faith in random, non-intelligent,
naturalistic processes, and mutations to account for the existence of the universe. (God not necessary)
What is the Fundamental Concept of "Creationism"?
" Creationism" can be defined as: Intelligent Design of purposeful and complete systems, intelligently constructed
for the purpose for which they were created. Time and chance are not factors in their existence. Random mutations, in the " Intelligent
Design" model, are generally considered as harmful and result in entropy (deterioration) of these systems that make them less
useful or even permanently useless.
Creationists promote the idea that all major species of life were created separate (each after it's own kind) and are relatively
young in age. Creationism is faith in intelligent, creative processes to account for the existence of the universe. (God is
necessary)
God or No God?
In the last century, a great debate has been going on about the origins of the universe. The real issue, however, goes even deeper. At
the core of the debate is the existence or non-existence of God. Evolutionists maintain that since God does not exit, we must account
for the origins of the universe without any supernatural assistance from any intelligent, transcendent being, such as God. The creationist
maintains that since God does exist, He is the sufficient "first cause" when accounting for the existence of the universe.
So how we account for the existence of the universe is directly proportional to our belief in the existence or non-existence of God.
Someone may point out that it is science that has persuaded them to believe or not believe in the existence of God. However, this would
make no sense because science can never prove the existence or non-existence of God in the first place. Science is a great tool, but
falls short of proving or disproving spiritual matters.
Science vs. Faith?
Often, we hear the argument that Evolution theory has it's basis in science, and that Creationism has it's basis in
faith. While both are true, this is only half of the picture. The theory of Evolution has as much basis in faith as does Creationism,
and Creationism has as much basis in science as does Evolution! Both systems have plenty of science (some good some
bad) to justify their acceptance. Likewise, both systems require that a certain amount of faith be employed for their acceptance. The
problem here is not with either science or faith, but with presuppositions and bias already held by the one doing the investigations.
Same Evidence, Different Presuppositions
Regarding evolution or creationism, there seems to be physical evidence that, when interpreted one way or the other, supports one theory
or the other, but not both at the same time. These systems are mutually exclusive because one system depends on the non-existence of
God and the other depends on the existence of God. Both cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. Both camps use
the same observable evidence in developing their arguments and theories, but with different presuppositions. Physical evidence, then,
becomes very subjective and based on one's preconceived view of the existence or non-existence of God.
Theistic Evolution - A Combination of Creationism and Evolution?
There are some who believe that God was the first cause of the universe but also maintain that God then set in motion the macro-evolutionary
processes that did the rest under its own impieties. In other words, God created the self-generating process of evolution and let everything
evolve through time and chance by means of natural selection.
- Hard-core evolutionists reject the idea of Theistic Evolution obviously because they reject the very existence of God.
- Hard-core creationists reject the idea of Theistic Evolution because they see a gross injustice done to the Genesis account
of creation in this view that is destructive to the idea of a literal Garden of Eden, a literal rebellion, real redemption, and anything
else in Genesis that is central to established Christian doctrine.
- Theistic Evolutionists, on the other hand, attempt to combine creation with evolution, thinking that they can preserve their religious
or theistic view of God, while observing scientific rationale for evolution at the same time. The problem with trying to combine these
two systems is similar to trying to combine water and oil. They do not mix, and here's why...
The only source we have, regarding God's creation of the universe, is the Biblical account of Genesis and references to the book of Genesis
in other Biblical scriptures. If the Biblical account of creation is literal and correct, then Adam and Eve were real people that God
created, and their descendants, through the meticulous linage given (Adam to Noah to Moses to David to Jesus) were real. So if Christ
was real (the Cornerstone of Christianity, through which redemption of humanity comes), then Moses had to be real, Noah had to be real,
and Adam had to be real, resulting in human history that spans only about 6,000 years or so.
According to evolution, man has evolved from the primordial soup dating back billions of years. If Adam and Eve were just fictitious
characters, not meant to be taken as literal people, then obviously, their descendants were fictitious, all the way to Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore, if Adam is a hoax, then sin is a hoax, salvation is a hoax, and Jesus is a hoax thereby destroying everything the Bible teaches
about redemption and salvation.
If one embraces theistic evolution or macro evolution, then they must reject the Biblical creation account given in the book of Genesis
and reject everything that the Bible teaches about the redemption of man, because it is all an illusion. If the creation account in Genesis
is true, then theistic and macro evolution must be rejected as any valid theology or science. Both creation and evolution cannot be true
at the same time and in the same relationship because they are contradictory to each other. One is true and the other a lie.
Philosophy Can Help When Science Cannot
Since evolution or creation processes cannot be reproduced in a science lab, pure testable and reproducible science cannot confirm or
debunk either system, nor can it prove or disprove the existence of God. This is where philosophy can step in and help. Taking a philosophical
approach, we can test, rationally, for the existence or non-existence of God. Since the existence or non-existence of God is at the central
core of the evolution/creationism issue, it is important that we know, rationally, if God exists or not. If we can prove this rationally
either way, we have taken a huge step in how to properly interpret the observable evidence of the universe to account for its existence.
 Back
to Top
Important Question:
If there were ever a time when absolutely nothing
existed, what would we have now?
If there were ever a time when absolutely nothing existed; no space, no molecules, no light, no gravity, not a hint of anything, absolutely
nothing, what would we have now?
Absolutely nothing!
How can we know this rationally?
We know this because of a fundamental and inescapable law of reason: " Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" - " From Nothing,
Nothing Comes". To violate this fundamental law of reason is to violate all truth as we know it. If it were possible for something
to come from nothing, (self created) it would have to be, before it is. In other words, it would have to be, and not
be, at the same time and in the same relationship. This is absurd reason and violates the law of self-contradiction! Nothing can " be"
and " not be" at the same time and in the same relationship. Nothing!! ( See the "Philosophy"
page for more on this reasoning.)
Therefore, if something exists now, then something exists necessarily and eternally. In other words, it has had to always exist—It's
existence is eternal without any beginning. It has the necessary power of being within itself to have always existed. It cannot, not
be!
I'm certain that at some point, some newfangled ideas or theories, masquerading themselves as valid science, will argue that indeed something
could have come from nothing. How they will argue this will probably be through some creative expression of quantum physics and complex
mathematics involving anti-matter or who knows what. But remember, all of the quantum physics and mathematical speculation in the world
cannot overcome the problem of the existence or the non-existence of matter. Something either exists, or it does not exist, but not both
or neither. Philosophically speaking, we just cannot have it both ways and be expected to make any rational sense of it!
Like it or not, SOMETHING OUT THERE IS ETERNAL!
I wanted to demonstrate this point of reason before continuing, because it is crucial at every point of a philosophical debate to understand
the difference between reasonable and unreasonable thinking. Of course, there is no "law" against unreasonable thinking, but
unreasonable thinking never lends itself to revealing truth that has its basis in absolutes, rather than personal preference, and in
reason, rather than in randomness.
Back
to Top
Accounting For The Existence Of The Universe
There are three and only three scenarios to consider, when accounting for the existence of the universe:
-
The Universe is Self Created (Ex Nihilo - From Nothing)
-
The Universe is Self Existent (Eternal)
-
The Universe is the Result of Something Self Existent (Created)
These three scenarios cover EVERY possible theory and explanation when accounting for the
existence of the universe. Let's examine each one.
(1) The Universe is Self Created (Ex Nihilo - From Nothing)?
Did the Universe Create Itself?
I opened up this page with a rational explanation of why nothing can create itself Ex Nihilo (from nothing), but for the sake of review,
and for expansion of the point, I will press on.
The idea behind the theory of a " self-created" universe, is that it is assumed at one point in time past, absolutely
nothing existed, and then in an instant, or in some measure of time, the universe, or at least the building material necessary for the
universe, suddenly and mysteriously appeared from nowhere and from nothingness. Wow, this is quite a feat! As discussed earlier, nothing
can pull off a feat of this magnitude. Remember, that for something to create itself, it must be, and not be, at the same time and in
the same relationship. It would be called on to bring itself into existence before it is. How is this possible? By sheer reason, it is
not possible. Again, for something to create itself, it must be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship,
which is a gross and preposterous contradiction of all things regarding a reasonable and rational explanation. Nothing can create itself,
not even God can pull this one off!
Did Time and Chance Play a Role?
Someone may argue, that given enough "Time" and "Chance", anything can happen, even self creation. I would like to
briefly explore this notion because I think it is important to understand just what influence "Time" or "Chance"
might have on anything.
What is time?
Time is a word. Time is ONLY a word, used to express an abstract idea of motion in the passage of events that make up our lives. Time,
regardless of what science fiction writers would have us believe, is NOT another dimension. There are only three dimensions in the physical,
cosmological world; height, width and depth. We live in a three-dimensional world. These three dimensions are observable and are necessary
for anything to exist in the physical universe. To define any other dimension, beyond the three (in the physical world) is pure science
fiction, even though it makes for some great science fiction. If a " 4th dimension" were to be defined, it would have
to be referring to the spiritual realm that is transcendent and outside of the constraints of the material, physical universe and its
properties. In any case, it certainly would not be " time" because time is " No Thing"...
Time is " Nothing". It has no power, because it has no being or real existence outside of an idea. It is only a word
and nothing more!
I am sometimes amused by some so-called scientific theories that advocate the idea of time travel or time distortion based on Einstein's
" Special Theory of Relativity". While I know that there are some brilliant scientists working out some impressive
and clever math on the subject, impressive and clever math is all that it will ever be. They treat time as if though it were something
even though it is really nothing. Again, it makes for interesting temporal discussions, but beyond discussion, there is not much of a
future in it. (Pun intended)
Ironically, even if Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity were true hypothetically, it could be argued that the seemingly
billions of years that have passed in our space-time continuum (from our perspective) have only been a mere few thousand years of relative
time from the perspective of the universe. However, this does not change the fundamental point here... given six thousand years or a
six trillion, something cannot come from nothing, or be before it is. All the time in the world is still not sufficient
for self creation.
Additionally, when one starts to really investigate what Einstein (and others of the Einsteinium ilk) are really teaching, it resembles
a religion more than any hard science. Even some well established and proven Newtonian laws of gravity must be disregarded or changed
in order to make room for this new religion of time. Aside from the scientific difficulties with the Relativity theory, there
are a whole host of philosophical difficulties as well, including paradoxes involving contingency and causality. This is what happens
when mathematicians spend more time and energy on their math (for various self-centered reasons) to prove what they believe to be true,
rather than using math to prove what is true.
Again, time is just a word and only a word and cannot be expected to possess the necessary power or being in any self-creation
process.
What is Chance?
Chance is just another word. It is a word we use to describe mathematical probabilities based on relative factors. If a coin is flipped
100 times, it is commonly understood that the " chance" or " odds" of that coin turning up " tails"
only, will be at 50 percent. But does " chance" itself influence this result? No. What does influence the result are
variables that are real and that can be quantifiably accounted for and measured such as... weight, air density, pressure exerted on the
coin when flipped, which side we started with, how we catch it, whether we turn it over after caught, etc ..There are several variables
that will determine the coin's final side of exposure. But chance itself does not have power for determining the end results,
because chance has no being, thus no power to do so. It is " No Thing" It is " Nothing"
Therefore, if starting with nothing, and given enough time ( Nothing) plus enough chance ( Nothing) will still result
in NOTHING. Time and chance cannot be motivators for a self created universe, because neither time nor chance have any power
to do so, as they have no being to do so. And if time and chance had being and power, then we would not be starting with nothing,
since anything with "being" is something.
Some may try to point out that the Christian view of the universe, that maintains that God created the universe Ex Nihilo (from
nothing) is guilty of the same claim of the cosmological view of the universe, stating that the universe was created Ex Nihilo
(out of nothing). The Christian/Creation/Intelligent Design view never claims that the universe came from absolutely nothing
because the view maintains that God is something and has always existed, with sufficiency to create the universe from no other
existing matter. This is a different matter (pun intended).
Surely, No One Really Believes That The Universe Actually Created Itself Do They?
Evolutions don't like to talk about origins very often because they cannot explain events and/or circumstances prior to their " Big
Bang", even in theory. Some evolutionists proclaim that nothing existed before the Big Bang (which hopefully I have
successfully argued against). These evolutionists have the impossible task of proving that nothing existed at some point in time in an
attempt to to prove that at least God didn't and therefore doesn't exist. This is the hallmark position of an atheist because they have
no other possible choice available to them in their belief ( faith) system, other than believing that the universe has
always existed in some form or another, prior to the Big Bang. (More on that later.)
The mantra and god's of evolution are time, chance, and natural selection (as if anything in nature, without
intelligence, can make intelligent choices in " selecting" anything at all). In other words, their faith ( belief
system) is predicated on randomness rather than on order. It is the belief that disorder and non-complexity can and does
evolve into order and complexity, given enough time and chance, through helpful mutations, that somehow know or can discern what is helpful
to the system being built. But a value judgment involving " what is helpful" would require intelligence or intelligent
design, which they avoid at all costs, because this would suggest a being transcendent to the universe for which they would have to be
accountable to.
There is no true, hard science involved in any " macro-evolutionary" process, ( microbe-to-man) because it
is not testable, provable or reproducible. It is a belief system, based on faith, that everything we have is the result of nothing for
no apparent reason (because reason requires intelligence). Evolutionists would be quick to argue that the " goal" of
evolution is to improve on itself—but without any implied or necessary intelligence.
Note: It is important to distinguish the differences between "Micro-Evolution" and "Macro-Evolution"
systems.The mainstream evolutionist will argue for the " Macro-Evolutionary" model,
which promotes the belief that man has evolved from lower forms of life (the ape) and that all species of life is the result of progressively
lower species, all the way back to microbes and back to the "primordial soup" that everything owes its existence.
The creationist recognizes that there is justifiable evidence to support a " Micro-Evolutionary" process that
involves change and mutations within a given species, as an adaptation to environmental conditions, but NOT a process that causes one
species to evolve into another.
Back
to Top
(2) The Universe is Self Existent (Eternal)?
Has the Universe Always Existed?
Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before a Big Bang, it must be known that they present no
evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature. Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses
or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations, as essential elements of the proposed mechanisms, are not acceptable
in submissions, due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore
be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more
mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature or provable with any know science. The laws of physics simply do
not support such bogus claims. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic
expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.
Also, evolutionists must proclaim that the necessary materials or building blocks (or something even prior to these) have existed forever,
perhaps in some altered state of existence. But as to why or how these pre-Big Bang materials suddenly materialized into the
current universe is a subject matter that they will avoid at all costs because this forces them to deal with causality. Philosophically,
if the universe has always existed, then by reason and by definition, there could not, and can not be any change involved with the universe.
Change requires influence. And if something is defined as " eternal", then self-change cannot be an attribute, or it
would not, by definition, be eternal at all. However, the material universe has, and indeed still is, undergoing continual and
drastic change. It is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The universe is mutable, changeable, and in constant flux. Therefore,
the material universe cannot be self existent and eternal for these critical reasons. Change can only be accounted for by an an external
influence for any change to happen at all. (This involves the law of contingency)
One may argue that even though the universe is changing, the original components, atoms, particles, etc.. may have always existed. If
these so-called eternal particles are eternal, then even their order and configuration should not have changed, because change requires
influence outside of the system we are examining, whether it be the universe in whole, or in its sub-atomic matrix. No matter how we
break it down, the universe is changing and we must look to a transcendent source outside of the universe for the motivation and causality
of its ever-changing condition.
Therefore, since that which is eternal cannot exhibit change on itself (otherwise it is not eternal) and since the universe is undergoing
extreme change, then we must look beyond the universe itself to an eternal force or being that transcends and is responsible for the
changing universe. We need to look beyond the universe itself for that which IS eternal—because something is eternal, and
it is NOT the universe!
Back
to Top
(3) The Universe is the Result of Something Self Existent (Created)
The Universe Was Created!
The only option left in our philosophical process of elimination (deductive reasoning), is the reality that something or someone self-existent,
eternal and transcendent to the universe, is directly responsible for the existence of our ever-changing mutable universe.
Something with the power of being in and of itself, with necessary power and self existence, eternal and unchangeable, is at the very
core of all things that exist. All things that exist have their origins from this source. And since the source is not the universe itself,
then something or someone transcendent to the universe must be the source by virtue of pure philosophical deduction via abstract reasoning.
Is the Eternal Source, Transcendent to the Universe, Just Inanimate In Nature?
An inanimate, lifeless and impersonal source, if eternal, would eternally be incapable of creating, because the act of creating, or producing
something on its own, outside of itself would require the power of choice and purpose. By definition, anything inanimate is without life.
Without life, there is no independence of choice, reason, purpose, or anything else creative enough to "choose" to influence
anything nonexistent outside of itself, into something existent outside of itself. And, by sheer reason, if anything inanimate is the
eternal source we are looking for, that which has always existed before the universe, then that should be all that would still exist
now and nothing else, including the universe.
The Eternal Source, Transcendent to the Universe, Must Have Being and Purpose!
There is no other conclusion from all of this, than to accept the reality of an eternal Sovereign Being, personal in nature, all powerful,
living, creative, and sufficient within Himself to willingly and purposely choose to create all that exists external and separate
from Himself.
Since no one, in a human sense, was around when the universe was formed, and since recorded historical records and documentation only
go back about six thousand years or so, the ONLY one who could possible describe the creation account with any authority, detail, and
accuracy is the Author Himself—God! Therefore, if God is indeed the author of the universe and of life, and there
is no logical reason why He is not, then God and only God has the authority to speak about it. And He has!
( See Genesis Chapter 1)
There is only one such ontological Being that resembles the sovereign attributes of the eternal source we have been looking for here
that is responsible for the first cause of everything in existence. That first cause and source is described in remarkable detail in
the pages of the Bible, specifically in the very first sentence in the very first book, Genesis 1:1
which states: " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Rational Conclusions
Philosophy can only take us this far, and cannot offer any more detail regarding the personal nature of God. But I believe it has taken
us far enough to support the truth claims of Christianity, found in the the pages of the Genesis, and of the God of the Bible
who is described as being all powerful ( omnipotent), all knowing ( omniscient), all present ( omnipresent),
and self-existent, being " the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" ( eternal).
Not only does God exist, but He must exist—necessarily. There are no other rational options for us to flee to, if that is what
we are trying to do. I would encourage those of you who are interested in learning more about this incredible Being, God, to
whom we and the universe owe our existence, to read the Biblical Scriptures that refer to Him, for a more complete understanding
of His divine nature and of His passion and plan for His creation.
Secular scientists may point out to me that I have a way of rejecting or accepting things that I do not understand or can prove. I would
point out that secular scientists have a way of rejecting or accepting things that they do not understand or can prove either. What it
really boils down to is—faith in our presuppositions. A secular scientist presupposes that there is no God... A Christian scientists
pre-supposes that there is a God. Both use the same scientific data and evidence to study and evaluate the universe, but will draw different
conclusions based on presuppositions. Our presuppositions and faith determines how we will interpret something.
Faith in a created universe is not only rational, but supported by much evidence. Philosophically speaking, one needs not apologize for
their faith in Intelligent Design and therefore in an Intelligent Creator that has power to create Ex Nihilo. In fact, rationality
and logic demands the existence of a force or power transcendent to the universe that is responsible for universe's
origins and purpose. To believe, by faith, that the universe is nothing more than a cosmic accident, actually requires even more faith
because of both the irrationality of such an accident and the lack of any conclusive evidence. Even the well known and provable laws
of thermodynamics are in conflict with evolutionary theories of the universe but perfectly consistent with creation science.
A secular scientist, by faith, believes that there is no God. A Christian scientist, by faith, believes that there is a God. Faith can
be a very powerful tool if developed as the result of revelation or evidence that supports it. Every conclusion that one draws from observed
evidence, will be directly effected by their presupposition of whether God exists or not. Philosophically speaking, it is perfectly rational
to accept that God not only exists, but must exist. He cannot not be.
The scriptures contains many mysteries, and perhaps some paradoxes, but certainly no self-contradictions. The truth claims of the scriptures
are accurate, reliable, and support all testable and provable science. Good solid science and the scriptures are in perfect harmony.
This is because God not only understands all scientific principles—He created them for us! His physical laws are as authoritive
as His spiritual laws.
Meaning or No Meaning?
If the universe and life are the result of Intelligent Design, by an intelligent Designer, then there must be meaning
and purpose to the universe and life. If the universe is the result of random processes and natural selection, then
there must not be meaning and purpose to the universe and life. Both exist for a reason, or they were both just cosmic accidents.
Back
to Top
Biblical References (NIV)
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:25
...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who
is forever praised. Amen.
James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created.
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Psalms 95:5
The sea is His, for He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.
Psalms 95:6
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;
Isaiah 43:10
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you
may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.
Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has
made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself,
Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says—He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the
earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: "I am the LORD, and there
is no other".
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out
of what was visible.
Proverbs 3:19
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place;
Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by
His understanding.
Back
to Top
|
