23 Jan. 2015
Sometimes, when one is asked a spiritual question, one has an answer that seems adequate. I recall on one forum (FoF) being asked about how I would define the term “sin” as well as other terminology.
What did I reply?
As far as my research had led me, I had found that the same ancient Greek word for “sin” could also otherwise mean “violation.” Therefore, the concepts of “right and wrong” and “godliness and sin” are synonymous but not exactly the same. The focus appears to be a bit different. The first (issues over “right and wrong”) seem to focus on the civil legality and physical implications of actions; whereas the paradigm of “godliness and sin” seems to focus on the spiritual and emotional facets and implications of actions.
For the limited time I had available, a response similar to the above paragraph seemed adequate to me.
In the end, however, not a single mere human has all the knowledge. We don’t have a corner on the market of truth. So sooner or later, if you discuss various topics long enough, you will run into a point at which you are unsure of the answer that you should give.
A few of such topics are lighter in nature. For example, some (e.g., Brad Travis) have wondered what the best written Book of the Bible is (AvT, 2014). I was stumped and had to admit it. It took a while to make a sensible response, even though it might sound to some like a non-answer.
“It is a difficult decision for me, for the following reasons:
1) I usually don’t make absolute favorites lists of things, and for me to say that one Book was the “best” in overall quality would be like doing so.
2) If I say that one is better written than the other, I certainly cannot blame God for the Book that is worse written than the others. This would perhaps lead me to say that some human writers of Scripture were better than others, which might be ok.
But the temptation would be there to then ask, “God, why did You make this Book of Scripture better than the others?” Instead, each Book should be viewed as uniquely designed for several purposes and thus having a unique superiority or complementary value to other books.
3) The more I’ve studied Scripture, the more I’ve seen complexity. So, if I were to go by literary and historical complexities involved in each Book, the larger and even some of the smaller Books would be a mess to sort through to determine absolute literary quality and sophistication.
Thanks for the question though. It’s much more polite than most here.”
Such was the response I posted.
But there was another time I became stumped. It was another impasse. You get down to the logical arguments. Go from teleology to cosmology. And then in cosmology, try at a First Cause (or rather, First Causer) argument.
And then came the notion that, as per quantum mechanics, matter could pop in and out of existence and thus, there might not have been a beginning or a need for a Creator of any material thing at all. Although this sounds absurd, it is comparable to the position advocated by Krauss. This was a point that, in the Greer-Heard Point Counterpoint Forum Sean Carroll v. William Lane Craig debate live-streamed by Tactical Faith, indirectly took Craig by surprise. Admittedly, as one of the few thousand who watched the debate live-streamed before it went on Craig’s channel, I must admit that it was not one of Craig’s better debates.
In later discussions on the topic, the key difference is noted. The theist, or more specifically, the Christian, when he argues that something cannot come from nothing, is referring to the philosophical, Set Theory-based notion of nothing. However, when it comes to cosmologists and theoretical physicists, apparently nothing means something else entirely. Quantum fluctuations and the like do not qualify as “nothing,” even if the sum total of energies actually does equal out on both ends of the spectrum and result in a zero value.
That would still not result in an empty (or null) set.
But another objection against the cosmological argument bears some need for consideration. In arguing against an infinite regress and thus for a First Causer, the argument does not necessarily define the First Causer as having the sum total of core attributes that God is said to have. That is to say, that a First Causer is not at first glance necessarily equal to a Divine Entity. How could you link the two in a logical manner that did not itself multiply assumptions onto itself?
Some online forum members have suggested another paradigm through which to look at the issue of cosmology. “To me, First Cause and Infinite Regress are just two extremes of amazing theories, meant ultimately to deal with the One versus the Infinite” (Aik Haw Tan, AvT, 2014).
Perhaps there is a middle ground, somewhere. However, as far as Set Theory goes, there ought not be an infinite regress, for nothing can be that which is less than nothing. I suppose, however, that one could look at the issue from a calculus perspective and say that an infinite regress is simply an equation in which the trajectory approaches zero but never reaches zero. Ok, everybody, prepare to crunch your “f(x)” numbers!
But how could causality possibly work that way? And more importantly, the thermodynamic beginning for this universe suggests a limit to the regress.
Nevertheless, the issue of linking the First Causer to the God concept still remains. One could decide to give a model of God that as a corollary would be the First Causer. That is to say, that because nobody else would have been there at the time of initial creation (in whatever universe that was), God by process of elimination would end up being the only candidate left to be the First Causer. However, some would object to this, since it sounds eerily reminiscent of some ontological arguments that appear to define God into existence.
Perhaps a more sophisticated form of argument may be needed. How could we bridge the gap between First Causer and a God concept model without it looking and being contrived?
Some Bibliographic Info:
AvT = Atheist vs. Theist: The God Debate (social media forum) FoF = Faith or Fact (social media forum)
Comments