The Philosophy of Science: Making Sense of “The Creator God” In An Age Of Theoretical Falsifiability And The Convergence Of Metaphysical Hypotheses

Submitted by Terence Blackett

 

“Miracles, said my friend. Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that.” – C. S. Lewis

Once again the ethics and philosophy behind science has become a front burner issue being raised by academics and scientists alike – men and women who frankly seem to have a lot of time on their hands to pursue frivolous and to some egalitarian ideals. Needless to say, they get paid shed loads of money to write a lot of twaddle in a sort of prevaricated way in order to air out the dusty cob-web within their matchbox brains.

Just recently, the OxBridge community of the learned and the old philosophical scientific chattering classes of the 1990’s were suddenly raising their heads above to parapet to throw some gasoline on the dwindling embers of this idea of the philosophy of science after Stephen Hawking’s revelations in his newest book “The Grand Design” purported rather loosely that this concept in and of itself had passed its sell-by-date; has not kept pace with the quantum discoveries in mathematical and theoretical physics and was frankly as he put it – “dead”. Pretty strong language indeed!

Hawking, with his literary and scientific sidekick (Mlodinow) – the “Batman & Robin” of what is being called “Model Dependent Realism” in a rather obsequious way uses the same fundamental plank of philosophy to underpin their recent book while yanking that said epistemological pillar of scientific philosophy from underneath a structure that goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Aquinas & Aristotle. To many in the scientific community this seems to be a contradiction of terms.

Well, I guess you can trust Hawking to piss in the wind (pardon my French) – and caused the “good fellows” at Jesus College, Oxford to surreptitiously reach for their mobile phones in a desperate panic to call 999, shouting – “the college is on fire”.

To leave to one side the light humour of the situation – the weightier matters of God v science rages on even in this discourse if one takes time to read what Hawking says. What Hawking did was to throw a “metallurgic” spanner in the alchemic works of those philosophers who still somehow want to try to marry the empirical nature of science to some quantum metaphysical entity which can be defined as “Intelligent Design” without the use of the word – GOD!

On the other hand, those of us who are adherents to Einsteinian philosophy understand that even when he said in the convergence of three realities – where he references music, the laws of nature and God (or THE MIND), Einstein had enough “reverence” to posit the notion that something more than just scientific laws were at work and he was willing to take a step back and allow for the metaphysical manifestations to unravel over time.

Therefore, it would be arbitrarily foolish and esoterically incongruous to try to prove the existence of God or to fan the flames in this short piece using philosophical science or any other measurable, empirically based equation or formulation. I will however let the arguments speak for themselves and the audience can decide intellectually or otherwise where they stand in the grand scheme of things. What is clear is that science in the last [50] years have done a great deal of disservice to the philosophy of science and to the cause of God while many brilliant philosophers have inadvertently gone to sleep at the wheel.

In quoting Hawking’s book, would elucidate this point well – although one would subsume that the Lucsian Professor Emeritus has been somehow growing old and weary as he realizes that in his long cosmic battle with the “Power of the Universe” that he has somehow finally thrown up a big “white-flag” as a form of surrender having not been able to disprove or approve on either end, the existence or denial of a CREATOR GOD*.

Hawking & Co; posits this idea that – “We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.”

Was this the white flag we have been looking for? Was this a subtle admission of defeat? Or has Stephen Hawking finally turned the corner as Einstein did in his acceptance that something beyond the realm of conceivable, perceptible scientific law and endeavour must explain the intricacies of the universe and its causalities? You decide!

For the lay person, it would seem guys like Hawking have been reading C. S. Lewis and though he possesses a charismatic allure and for most scientists he remain the “godfather”, with an entire solar system of brain activity going on between his two earlobes – however, for myself and others, the down side in this debate is the fact that guys like Hawking, Nancy Cartwright, Richard Feynman, Addison Wesley, Roger Penrose, Abner Shimony, Ludwig Boltzmann and whole sleuth of other brilliant physicists have done precious little to advance the fundamental underpinning of philosophical science – moreover, they seek at every opportunity and crossroad to discredit any amorphous belief in any Intelligent Design outside of the notions of maybe some ill-informed quackery which hinges on the convergence of metaphysical phenomenon or some opaque hypothesis.

In our day and age, it’s rather simplistic to say that something is either “TRUE” or FALSE” without tested, empirical research. This notion of falsifiability or refutability – a rather analogous sociological concept unearthed by Karl Popper seeks to test the scientific veracity and the empirical purity of any hypothesis or claim. Popper’s contention and rightly so, is that if metaphysical phenomena cannot be falsifiably or verifiably examined or proved on a sliding scale – then there is room for scientific abandonment. According to Martyn Shuttleworth (2008) – “The advantage of Popper’s idea is that such truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted. The major disadvantage of falsifiability is that it is very strict in its definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are observational and descriptive. Pseudo sciences undertake research without an initial theory or hypothesis. On the other hand, theories such as ‘Intelligent Design’ would be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable hypothesis, however ‘weak’.”

As respectably imminent a scientist as Stephen Hawking is – it has become accepted consensus in publishing and in literary circles that in order to garner serious books sales on any scientific topic especially as fecund as theoretical physics or quantum mechanics – all one has to do is put GOD* in the equation.

Christopher Norris – Professor of Philosophy at Cardiff University in Wales squares the circle well by saying this – “No doubt there is a fair amount of ill-informed, obtuse, or ideologically angled philosophy that either refuses or tries but fails to engage with the concerns of present-day science. One can understand Hawking’s impatience – or downright exasperation – with some of the half-baked notions put around by refuseniks and would-be engageniks alike. All the same he would do well to consider the historically attested and nowadays more vital than ever role of philosophy as a critical discipline. It continues to offer the sorts of argument that science requires in order to dispel not only the illusions of naïve sense-certainty or intuitive self-evidence but also the confusions that speculative thought runs into when decoupled from any restraining appeal to regulative principles such as that of inference to the best explanation. To adapt a quotation by Kant in a different though related context: philosophy of science without scientific input is empty, while science without philosophical guidance is blind. At any rate it is rendered perilously apt to mistake the seductions of pure hypothetical invention for the business of formulating rationally warranted, metaphysically coherent, and – if only in the fullness of time – empirically testable conjectures.”

So from Norris’ position, one can deduce that as the philosophy of science change, undoubtedly we too must change the ways in which we explain the scientific reasoning behind those rapid changes to the lay person in the street. Clearly this is where modern education falls on its face, for if we are to foster a 21st century generation of young men and women who are frankly clueless of even the most simple scientific principles – do we not expect that in the near future our scientific progress will suddenly grind to a halt?

Let me close by citing one of my favourite authors C. S. Lewis (which I am sure Hawking must have read at some point in his illustrious career) – on p. 144/5 of his book “Essay Collections & Other Short Pieces”, where he says this: “The laws of arithmetic can tell you what’ll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there’s no interference… The laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way – but only provided no one interfered. If after it is in motion, someone snatches up a cue and gives it a biff on the side – why, then, you won’t get then what the scientists predicted… Quite, and in the same way, if there’s anything outside nature, and if it interfered – then the events which the scientists expected wouldn’t follow. That would be what we call a miracle. In one sense it wouldn’t break the laws of nature. The laws tell you what will happen if nothing interfere. They can’t tell you whether something is going to interfere… It’ not the expert at arithmetic who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the pennies in the drawer; a detective would be more use. It isn’t the physicist who can tell you how likely I am to catch up a cue and spoil his experiment with the billiard ball; you’d better ask a psychologist. And it isn’t the scientist who can tell you how likely nature is to be interfered with from outside. You must go to the metaphysician.”

Hawking and others continue to wrestle with these truths hiding behind scientific paradigms which purport no real ABSOLUTES. However, what is fascinating is Lewis’ position on this whole question – where he states that since the Middle Ages Ptolemy’s Almagest (a standard astronomical handbook used back then) in Book 1, chapter 5 stated that “the earth in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point!” This was known back then, exclaimed Lewis but none of the histories of science – none of the modern encyclopaedias ever mentions that fact.

Lewis’ contention is that something or someone was complicit in keeping this knowledge from the forefront of men’s mind for whatever the reasons. He concluded by saying unequivocally – “People usually think the problem is how to reconcile what we now know about the size of the universe with our traditional ideas of religion. That turns out not to be the problem at all. The real problem is this. The enormous size of the universe and the significance of earth were known for centuries, and no one ever dreamed that they had any bearing on the religious question. Then, less than a hundred years ago, they are suddenly trotted out as an argument against Christianity. And the people who trot them out carefully hush up the fact that they were known long ago. Don’t you think that all you atheists are strangely suspicious people?”

The question is – how do we answer C. S. Lewis? Maybe Hawking & Co; will tell us!

0 thoughts on “The Philosophy of Science: Making Sense of “The Creator God” In An Age Of Theoretical Falsifiability And The Convergence Of Metaphysical Hypotheses


  1. My dear Mr Blackett – not to put too fine a point on it, but I wondered at your motivation when you wrote this early your submission: “men and women who frankly seem to have a lot of time on their hands to pursue frivolous and to some egalitarian ideals. Needless to say, they get paid shed loads of money to write a lot of twaddle in a sort of prevaricated way in order to air out the dusty cob-web within their matchbox brains.”

    Was this meant to be ironic, or are you simply bitter because these scientists get paid “shed loads of money to write twaddle, etc”, and you seem to do it for free?

    Just asking…


  2. Hawking’s and those of his ilk, who seek with vengeance to write Almighty God out of the Universe He created and sustains; then propagate their true agenda, which IS, in fact, a philosophical ideology of rampant, rabid, rancid, atheism, couched, veneered, and convoluted in a maze of pseudo-scientific jargon, which then continues to deceive many who simply have not taken the time to examine the true facts and evidence, the preponderance of which overwhelmingly support and largely confirm the Creationists model, (Intelligent Design!) as outlined in God’s Word, the Bible!


  3. @ PB

    Hawking & company may consider the books I wrote and are being sold at Barnes & Noble and elsewhere to be “coswobble” as well…

    So my dear Mr. B. – it’s all a matter of opinion!

    I may not be making shed loads of “dosh” in the sense that I get millions in downpayments without a single book sold as this is the domain of the Hawking’s of the world but I am quite happy to plug away discretely – content in doing what I have been created to do…

    By the way, book sales didn’t look too bad last quarter on the heels of a new book this summer… So steady as she goes my dear brother B…


  4. @ ZOE

    Many critics of Hawking believes he has surrendered in his quest to find all-encompassing “THEORY” whether through “mathematics”or theoretical physics to explain the “MECHANICS” of the universe…

    A simple explanation would be for him to merely READ* the BIBLE!!! LOL…

    But I guess for our so-called “learned” brethren that is an uphill task too cumbersome to even comprehend, less contemplate – given their in-built prejudice towards “THE” CREATOR* GOD* and their blinded desires to be “gods” themselves…


  5. @ Terence, Hawkings and other Evolutionary atheists, are the most intellectually and scientifically dishonest people one could ever encounter.

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22)

    Folly of the Godless, and God’s Final Truimph.

    “The FOOL has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.” They are corrup, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.” (Psa. 14: 1 Emphasis added)


  6. @ Terence Blackett

    Congratulations on the book sales.

    Contributors to this blog are often reminded by the moderator to “engage” with other contributors in the interest of healthy debate. That’s a good position to take, and it’s in that spirit that I offer the following quick remarks.

    Like Paul Barnes, I was curious about your first sentence: “Once again the ethics and philosophy behind science has [sic] become a front burner issue being raised by academics and scientists alike – men and women who frankly seem to have a lot of time on their hands to pursue frivolous and to some egalitarian ideals.”

    Indeed, to the extent that I can follow your reasoning, your whole piece seems to be something of a sneering assault on academia (“the Oxbridge community of the learned and the old philosophical chattering classes”, “the good fellows at Jesus College, Oxford”, etc).

    Since you mentioned your book sales at Barnes and Noble, I hope you won’t mind that I took the liberty of looking at those sales on Amazon. What struck me was the “About the Author” section there, whose first sentence states: “Terence Blackett is an academic.”

    Now there’s a surprise. In which academic institution, Mr. Blackett, are you an academic? Or is that like me saying that I’m “a footballer” because I like to kick a ball around in the park with some friends on Sunday afternoon? I used a kit to build a kennel for my dog. Maybe that makes me “an architect”, who knows?

    Also striking on Amazon is the assertion that you are “a gifted writer”. I only know you through your writing, Mr. Blackett. You might have many fine qualities, sir, and few people of good heart could doubt the sincerity of your faith, but the fact remains that you are a “gifted writer” only in the sense that I am an astronaut (i.e., inside my own head, while I’m asleep, after a few shots of good rum).

    Good writers don’t pepper their writing with random and unusual adverbs, Mr. Blackett. They know what “subsume” and “prevaricated” mean when they use those words. They know that “a sleuth of other brilliant physicists” means “a detective of other brilliant scientists”. They know what a “slew” is. They don’t say “contradiction of terms”, since the phrase is meaningless—in contrast, for example, to “contradiction in terms”. They know that “coswobble” doesn’t exist (though it’s an interesting neologism) and would understand that you were straining for “codswallop”. They know that you mean “discreetly” when you say “discretely”.

    Good writers don’t use words that they don’t understand and in general they do the exact opposite of what you do. That’s to say, they make a conscious effort to keep their prose crisp and clean and immediately accessible to a reader. They avoid unnecessary jargon and they omit needless words. They do not labor under the illusion that the use of uncommon words somehow makes their writing sound more sophisticated or “academic”. Quite the contrary: they understand, instinctively, that it’s a mistake to indulge in such a practice because to do so can make a writer seem foolish, especially if it’s obvious that the writer doesn’t have full command of the vocabulary that he’s using.

    Finally, Mr. Blackett, your pieces would sound much more authoritative if you could even begin to give the plausible impression that you had actually read the books from which you quote—rather than, say, cutting and pasting the quotations from fringe websites run by wingnut members of the “intelligent design community”.


  7. @TMB… With all due respect…

    You seem to fundamentally misunderstand The Scientific Method (TSM).

    TSM tries to explain the Universe within which we happen to find ourselves within using empirical observations, mathematics, objective and critical thought, and empirical experiments to test presuppositions.

    An important touch-stone of TSM is reproducibility. That is, if one person can produce results, or predict results, then anyone with the same knowledge and instrumentation should be able to as equally well (within predictable margins of error).

    Another important touch-stone is the willingness to say that any claimed solution (read: theory) seems to explain the empirical evidence. But TSM is always willing to admit there might be other explanations as well, or instead. And TSM followers welcome such alternative arguments.

    One of the problems of many who are solely “faithful”, who tell us to “read the [insert religious text here] for all the answers” asked, is they cannot stand up to the same test standard, and instead seem to rely on rhetoric when they’re pushed. And most are very unreceptive to alternative solution spaces.

    To close, could you, TMB, please tell us all what the Bible says about why hot objects glow red, and really hot objects glow blue?


  8. @Tony Almeida @11:29

    As they say in blogspeak; COSIGN. People, real people, actually buy books written by TMB? My word!


  9. @ CH
    “You seem to fundamentally misunderstand The Scientific Method (TSM)…Could you, TMB, please tell us all what the Bible says about why hot objects glow red, and really hot objects glow blue?”

    Chris, in my piece I referenced Abner Shimony in whose book speaks vividly on the issue of scientific method:- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Naturalistic-World-View-Epistemology/dp/0521377447

    I am sure that you can appreciate that scientific methodology in areas like theoretical physics varies in praxis from that of the social sciences or even in the domain of the philosophy of science…

    Most scientific philosophers & teachers of social sciences find the hubris of TSM rather boring – needless to say, that does not take away from the TESTING* of a hypothesis or the scientific attempts at “DEFINING*” it…

    As to answering your question on why one object glow a certain colour as against another –

    You know Chris, with all due respect, that the HOLY BIBLE* transcends the confines of arbitrary conjecture, speculative hypothesis or human construction methodologies…

    If you are asking for my personal opinion – then that is another thing…

    Just ask!!!


  10. @TMB: “You know Chris, with all due respect, that the HOLY BIBLE* transcends the confines of arbitrary conjecture, speculative hypothesis or human construction methodologies…

    Please don’t tell me what I know. I know what I know. You don’t don’t what I know.

    @TMB: “If you are asking for my personal opinion – then that is another thing… Just ask!!!

    So, then, with your permission — I’m asking you again.

    What is your personal opinion about what the Bible says about why hot bodies radiate red light, and really hot bodies
    radiate blue.

    This should be a simple answer.

    Why are you fighting to admit the truth?


  11. @ CH
    “What is your personal opinion about what the Bible says about why hot bodies radiate red light, and really hot bodies
    radiate blue.”

    Chris, the HOLY BIBLE* does not say nothing on that issue…

    Secondly, I do not have a “PERSONAL OPINION” on something The Holy Scriptures gives no “LIGHT” on…

    It is difficult to admit something or to supposedly run from something that is not there!!!


  12. HERE’S A QUESTION FOR YOU ‘OLE CHAP…

    Explain to the reading audience how “BLACK-BODY” radiation emitted from a light bulb causing it to glow is atypical of how the same black-body radiation emitted from the sun and from stars? And what does the BIBLE* say about temperature, heat and thermal energy?


  13. @ CH
    “It takes a “leap of faith” to say “I Don’t Know”…

    Hold on sunshine….

    Please do NOT* jump to any conclusion for me…

    If you are going to quote me, pls* be specific… I did not admit that I didn’t know what the GOOD BOOK* says on the issue you raised – rather I stated that The Holy Scriptures* has no “LIGHT” on the ??? you raised…

    That’s a huge difference Chris!!! LOL


  14. @ CH
    “Might you be able to speak to this better while you are on your back-foot?”

    You cricket analogy is noteworthy dear boy… However, many boundaries have been made on the back-foot…

    In this case, I am positing a philosophical slant on the issue of known determinant natural laws which are NOT* all Biblically referenced – but we understand that THE CREATOR GOD* did not give man an answer to every question – neither did HE* expose absolute knowledge on all the infinitesimally nagging phenomena which science is so obsessed in finding out about…

    Somethings will & MUST* remain in the domain of the SUPREME knowledge of GOD*…


  15. Paralipscatelepsis is always a good word to know if one is in the sermonizing business, and especially if one fancies oneself as an orator and bringer of truth using ancient texts. Rare would be the man who would dare to suggest that the Rab Terence Blackett is unfamiliar with the concept.

    To ignore the main point because you cannot refute it, and to concentrate instead on minor objections that you can at least attempt to refute, that would be a fair rendering of the Greek.

    Mr. Blackett, in your most recent post you referred to Ptolemy. Deeply cool. You’ve read a lot of Ptolemy, have you? What, do you think, was his most piercing insight?

    Mr. Blackett, I believe I raised questions that you should try to answer if you are to be taken seriously.


  16. @ CH

    C’mon CHRIS***

    We both know that they are “gods” many and “lords” many…

    When I speak of GOD – I refer to “THE CREATOR GOD”…”THE ONE” the Bible calls – THE ANCIENT OF DAYS!!!


  17. Open up your channels

    When we do pure spiritual connections, meaning without the ‘gravity’ of the selfish desires, we elevate ourselves and with that we activate and open channels of light that give us abilities to see and feel beyond the illusion of the five senses.


  18. @TMB: “When I speak of GOD – I refer to “THE CREATOR GOD”…”THE ONE” the Bible calls – THE ANCIENT OF DAYS!!!

    The Hindus refer to many Gods.

    The Buddhists refer to no Gods at all (although they do believe the Universe reflects).

    The Christians (and their sects) and the Islamics (and their sects) refer to the “One and Only God”, and argue and fight about which is the “One and Only”, even though they’re actually all the same.

    My question was intentional.


  19. Chris, the HOLY BIBLE* does not say nothing on that issue…

    Gifted writer, did someone say? “Does NOT say NOTHING?


  20. @ac: “Question: ‘What is the meaning of the Word “GOD”

    An excellent (and very cleaver) question.

    The short answer is the word “god” means different things to different people.

    The longer answer is somewhat longer. And maybe intractable over the short term.


  21. Don’t you think that “GOD” would rather be called “The Creator” as the name “god “is synonymous with other “gods ” of the past which were supposed to pagan.


  22. God, ac, is the ultimate tool of control freakery.

    You cannot see, touch, smell, taste or hear him except in the mouthings of his chosen ones, and they, by your fear of the unknown, become your new slavemaster.
    If, that is, you let them into your hearts.

    Beware, and be an independent sentient human, strong enough to live out this short time as nature intended…. free from the ridiculous yoke these religious bigots delight in placing upon your shoulders from cradle to grave.


  23. @ac: “Don’t you think that “GOD” would rather be called “The Creator” as the name “god “is synonymous with other “gods ” of the past which were supposed to pagan.

    I have reason to believe that any true god doesn’t care what he’s called.

    I have reason to believe that any god would be bigger than worrying about what they might be called.

    But, then, maybe I’m wrong.


  24. I really tried to read this piece but it was so poorly written I had to give up.
    Read like it was translated from English to Romanian and back again via Google Translate.
    OxBridge = Oxbridge
    prevaricated – author does not understand meaning of word.
    raising heads above parapet and throwing gasoline – mixed metaphor.
    Lucsian = Lucasian
    whole sleuth = whole slew
    and then I gave up.


  25. Would you like to be called’Jack the Ripper” knowing that his name is synonymous with crime. The point is that linking a person by name or thing especially if the link is corrupt does not make sense. Since creation was made by the Creator . It should make sense that his name should be in some form or representation be linked to that which he created . Does “GOD “really care ‘? Wouldn’t you . ? Not forgetting the name “god has been inked to all type of falsehoods.The only difference now is man has capitalise the letter”G” which i guess makes us feel better!


  26. @ Terence Blackett

    You claim on many websites to be a graduate of the University of Essex.

    Are you, Mr. Blackett, a graduate of the University of Essex?

    Let’s make this as easy as possible, Mr. Blackett. There are precisely two possible answers. One is yes. The other is no.

    Did the University of Essex give you a degree, Mr. Blackett?


  27. Pantheism, makes all god, and misses* the GOD of ALL.
    Polytheism, makes many gods, and misses the One True GOD.
    Dualism, makes good and evil two equal gods in conflict, and fails utterly to discover Almighty God who will judge all evil.

    The One True Eternal God, has given to us, in His divinely inspired Word, the Bible, various expressions of Himself which declare His eternality.

    a. I AM that IAM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:56)
    b. The Everlasting God. (Genesis 31: 33)
    c. In the beginning, God. (Genesis 1:1; Heb. 1:10; John 1:1)
    d. Thy years are throughout all generations ( Psa. 102: 24)
    e. The Lord of Hosts, He is the First and the Last ( Isa. 57:15)
    f. The High and Holy One Inhabits eternity. (Isa. 57:15)
    g. The Eternal God is our refuge. ( Deut. 33:27)
    h. God’s eternal power and Godhead. (Rom. 1:20)
    i. The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending. (Rev.
    1:8)
    j. Him which IS (time present), which was (time past), and which
    is to come (time future) (Rev. 1:4; 4:8)
    k. The King Eternal ( I Tim. 1:17)

    And, the Universe of worlds, are upheld, guided, and propelled by His Omnipotent Word. (Heb. 1: 1-4).


  28. The Redemptive or Jehovahistic Names of God.

    Yes, Almighty God has revealed the significance of His redemptive Names, as Jehovah ( or Yahweh) are God’s own personal and distinct names. The name Jehovah appears in the Authorized Version about 6, 823 times and is generally translated as LORD. The Hebrews reffered to this Name as the unpronouncable or incommunicable Name of God. The Hebrew letters for this Name are four, the English letters are JHVH or YHWH. These are spoken of as being the four letter tetragrammation.

    Jehovah IS the IAM THAT I AM. It signifies “to be”, or “I will be all that I will be.” It tells us that God is the Eternal, the Unchanged and Unchanging One, and He will be ALL that He is ever needed to be. This is more particularly seen in the compound redemptive Nsmes of the Lord. These compound Names are always linked with some need of man, and it is here that Jehovah will BE ALL that His people ever need Him to be. He says of Himself “The LORD is My name…this is My memorial unto all generations.” (Exo. 3:14, 15; 15:3; Isa. 42: 6; Jer. 16:21; 33:2; Amos 5:8; 9:6)/

    1. Jehovah ( Yahweh, or Lord ) – I AM THAT I AM ( Exod. 3: 14-
    15) “I WILL BE what I WILL BE.” The Self-Existent One
    revealing Himself to man in redemptive purpose. ( Malachi 3:6).
    2. Jehovah- Elohim – The Lord God, the Redeemer-Creator. (Gen.
    2:4)
    3. Jah – Abbreviated form of Jehovah ( Exo. 15:2; 17:16; Psa. 66:
    4).
    4. Jehovah-Elohim-Saboath – Lord God of Hosts. That IS, of the
    hosts of heaven, Creation and creatures.
    5. Adonai-Jehovah-Saboath – Master Lord of Hosts (Psa. 69:6)
    Adon is singular for Master, and translated Lord in OT. Adonai
    is plural for the same.
    6. Jah-Elohim – Lord God ( Psa. 66:18)
    7. Jah-Jehovah -Lord Jehovah (for double emphasis). (Isa. 12:2;
    26: 4).
    8. Jehovah-Jireh – The Lord will provide. (Gen. 22: 14).
    9. Jehovah-Rapha – The Lord that heals. (Exo. 17:15).
    10. Jehovah-Nissi- The Lord my banner. (Exo. 17:15).
    11. Jehovah-Kanna- The Lord who is jealous. (Exo. 20:15; 34: 14;
    Deut 5:9).
    12. Jehovah-Mekaddeskum – The Lord who sanctifies. (Exo. 31:13;
    Lev. 20:8).
    13. Jehovah- Shalom- The Lord our Peace. (Judges 6:24).
    14. Jehovah-Shaphat – The Lord is Judge. (Judges 11:27).
    15. Jehovah-Saboath -The Lord of Hosts. ( I Sam. 1:3; Psa. 24:10;
    84: 1,3),
    16. Jehovah- Elyon – The Lord Most High . ( Psa. 7:17).
    17. Jehovah- Raah- (or, Roi) – The Lord my Shepherd. (Psa. 23:1)
    18. Jehovah- Hosenu – The Lord our Maker. (Psa. 95:6)
    19. Jehovah- Gibbor- The Lord is Mighty. (Isa. 42: 13).
    20. Jehovah- Tsidkenu – The Lord our Righteousness. (Jer. 23:6)
    21. Jehovah- Shammah- The Lord is There, or Everpresent. (Ezek.
    48: 35).

    Each and all of these compound redemptive Names, show how Jehovah meets every need of man in redemptive power. The unltimate revelation of the Redemptive Names, IS found in the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ!


  29. DEBUNKING DAWKINS…

    Rich Deem argues that “Richard Dawkins has stepped out of his usual area of expertise, biological evolution, and has attempted to become atheism’s greatest apologist. Unfortunately, like so many other atheists, he picks out the easy targets with blinders fully engaged, to avoid having to deal with any serious challenges to his beliefs. Yes, I did use the “b” word, since Dawkins actively promotes the belief that there is no God (hence the title) and that atheists should “come out” of the closet and exhibit abundant “atheist pride.” Dawkins seems to be “preaching to the choir,” since the vast majority of his apologetics is either old or strawman in nature.”

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html


  30. @ Terence Blackett

    You quote Rich Deem.

    Who is Rich Deem and why should anybody give a rat’s rectum about his opinions?

    I spoke to Poor Deem in person. He said: “Rich Deem is a tool and an idiot. For evidence, see Ephesians 2:17; John 3:9; and Leviticus 7:17.”

    I also spoke to Poorer Deem, who was gracious enough to speak to me by telephone from his current residence in the Virginia Beach Retirement Home for the Terminally Bewildered. He said: “Poor Deem is a tool and an idiot, just like Rich Deem. For evidence, see Timothy 3:2; Galatians 9:19; and Revelations 24:24. I personally believe that Poor Deem is the antichrist, but that’s just my opinion.”

    I’m still trying to contact Poorest Deem and I’ll be back with more news as soon as I’ve spoken to him.


  31. Too many false gods resulted in one GOD. The idea of “GOD is a man made. Look at the numerous names given to “God” in one mind it seems like appeasement over the years to satisfy what man believe is the “TRUE GOD” The only thing Creation speaks of is a “CREATOR”


  32. @ac: “The idea of “GOD is a man made.

    Too true.

    @ac: “The only thing Creation speaks of is a “CREATOR”

    Too true.

    So, then, please explain to me et al again, why so many are killing each other over the question what is the “One and Only True God”?

    Or, perhaps, that actually isn’t the fundamental question; but is instead simply the convenient cover….


  33. again this goes back to when man staredworshipping the “False God” and during those episodes was waged with each side pitting one God against the other. Nothing has changed in our thnking even though we are supposed to be of high inteligence than the idol worshippers of the past. Man need for control over everything would never changed including the control of GOD” Even in the very bible. the question is asked of man”How can you say you beieve in a GOD you have not seen and do not believe in the things you have seen. the religionist leap of Faith is only a “LEAP”


  34. @ac: “Nothing has changed in our thnking even though we are supposed to be of high inteligence than the idol worshippers of the past.

    A sincere question:

    Do you think it would be beneficial if we changed our thinking?

    If “yes”, then a follow up question:

    Why haven’t we?


  35. @TM
    This article is interspersed with inaccuracies. First, the authors never claim that theoretical physics is “dead”. What they do assert is that philosophy has not kept pace with advances in physics and therefore philosophy is “dead”. Actually, the premise of the book is the antithesis of the entire second paragraph of this article. The authors expound on the historical evolution of physics starting with Sir Isaac Newton’s theories of motion. (which are acceptable for macroscopic systems) They then go on to show how quantum mechanics is a refinement of Newtonian mechanics and captures the complex behaviour of physics at a microscopic scale. Finally, Hawking has not thrown in the “white flag” and in the last chapter of the book he is hopefully that the group of theories known as M-theory hold the key for making Einstein’s theory of relativity compatible with quantum mechanics ….i.e. the theory or rather the group of theories of everything. Why then would theoretical physics be proclaimed to be dead if it is so dynamic?


  36. Why would man want to change their thinking. When in a position to control a person thinking that is power that man would never relinquish. Man quest to define “GOD” has all but created a “GOD” that fit into what man perceives of themselves. The “GOD ” that was created by modern man is an identical replica of mankind. Even unto judgement day. Even the bible speaks of man’s image of God However to speak of a “Creator” is without all the trimmings and trappings of man does not fit well into man’s scheme of things .


  37. @ac: “The “GOD ” that was created by modern man is an identical replica of mankind.

    I bow down before you. But might you answer me this?

    If not all “men” are in a position to control other “men”, but might be instead be attempted to be controlled by other “men”…

    …might then some consider thinking differently in order to avoid being “controlled”?

    But, again, maybe I’m wrong.


  38. They might try but they will failed. Man has been fed a deadly dose of diatribe which for some reason we are addicted to.


  39. Goldstone Recants: No Deliberate Trageting of Civillians by IDF.

    Remember that South African Jurist, Richard Goldstonem, who chaired the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict during Operation Cast Lead ( 27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009) and his report of hundreds of pages, chastized Isarael, with little or nothing said about the Palestinian Gaza terrorist, as they relentlessly terrorized Israeli citizens for 8 years, with thousands of rocket and mortar fire?

    Well, the learned jurist, has now began to speak more honestly and objectively, as he wrote on Friday in The Washington Post, hear Goldstone!

    “If I had know then, what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

    Goldstone insisted the purpose of his report was “never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel,” and that he was the one who had insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, “…which was skewed agsinst Israel.”

    Glodstone added, that he had hoped the inquiry would have began “a new era of even-handedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

    Isn’t that a fresh piece of objective reflection, when it WAS the very Goldstone twisted, bias report, against Israel, that caused even further Hatred all over the world against Israel, ignited by the very unbalanced report of Goldstone at the time!

    Now, hear this!!

    Muslim Student Attacks UN Rights Council for Anti-Israel Bias.

    “Muslim student Amram Hussain on behalf of the European Union of Jewish Students, recently spoke out for Israel a session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, were he castigated the Council for anti-Israel bias.”

    Hussain said: “Why is Israel consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation on the grounds of human rights violations, yet the world turns a blind eye to the human rights situations in the Arab countries…or the Far East…or Africa” He added.

    Hussain told the council he came to the session “to remind you of the moral obligation we all have here today to protect the only country in the world [Israel] whose very existence is constantly under attack.”

    Hussain then goes on to say, “The world was very quick to condemn Israel for defending itself from unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. I ask you, what about the human rights of Israel Jews, Israeli Muslims, [and] Christians living constantly in fear of attacks from Gaza.”

    He added, “There are members of the international community present today who do not even accept the existence of Israel.”

    Hussain says that he is ” an active campaigner for human rights all over the world (but) has always remained disheartened by the disproportinate and unfair focus on the Human Rights Council on Israel, the disregard to human dignity for Israel and the ignorance shown to some of the worst human rights violaters around the world.”

    Truth, facts, and evidence, will always prevail, even though it only ever seems to come from the voice(s) of a few, in this world of darkness, where men’s conscience are seered with an hot iron, it is so refreshing to hear this young Muslim, speak to the Truth, in the FACE of the FARCE of the United Nations Human Rights Council!


  40. Halsal asked:

    “A sincere question.”

    “Do you think it would be benifical if we changed our thinking?”

    “If ‘yes’ then the follow up question.”

    “Why haven’t we?”

    Halsall, mankinds plight, that his heart IS stained with SIN, which inherently makes him think dishonestly, act dishonorably, etc, etc, and reject Truth, when presented, is repeatedly stressed in God’s Word, the Bible.

    ‘The heart ( seat of man’s desires, emotions, etc) IS deceitful above ALL things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jer 17:9 Emphasis added)

    ‘…Who can know IT?” Only Almighty God!

    Almighty God’s majestic, awesomely Created Universe, and all life forms on planet earth, from the tinnest creature, to man himself, speak overwhelmimgly TO, in much silence, that WE were ALL Created.

    “For since the Creation of the world HIS invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood, (perceived, witnessed) BY the things that are MADE, even HIS eternal power and Godhead, so that they (all of us) are WITHOUT excuse.” (Rom. 1: 20 Emphasis added)

    But, the majority of mankind, for the most part, wilfully choose to remain IN, self-imposed ignorance, denying what IS so clearly SEEN, that simply cannot, could NOT, ever, have come into existence, without an Omnipotent, Loving, Creator!

    So, “Professing to be wise, (those who remain in denial) became fools.” ( v. 22).


  41. The failure is that in man putting a name to a “creator” the creator existence is seen everday. Why is it so important to put a name. isnt it good enough to say ‘THE CREATOR”


  42. Scientist,

    Isn’t the statement “philosophy is dead” a philosophical observation?

    “There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.” – pg. 267

    Do models ‘create’ or ‘describe’ reality? Sounds a lot like Hawking and Mlodinow are falling into a Kantian trap. Did the universe exist before humans and their models?

    “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6” – pg.282

    ROFL… so the law of gravity is nothing? Can a law of nature pre-exist the nature it describes? The universe created itself?!? I wonder what Hawking and Mlodinow were smoking when they wrote that sentence.

    “If the theory [M-theory] is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design.” – pg.283

    Does M-theory make any predictions that can be tested?

    Hawking is a brilliant scientist but he needs to brush up on his knowledge of philosophy.


  43. What is Philosophy?

    Though scholars are agreed that there is no airtight definition that expresses a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying some activity as philosophical, conditions which all and only which philosophy satisfies. But this should not be troubling; as one does not need a definition of something before one can know features of the thing in question, and recognize examples of it.

    One can recognize examples of historical study, love, a person, art, matter, sport and a host of other things without possessing
    an airtight definition. Nevertheless, definitions are useful, and a reasonably adequate definition of philosophy can be provided.

    There are three ways in formulating a definition of philosophy. First one could focus on the etymology of the word ‘philosophy’ which comes from two Greek words, ‘philein’ ‘to love,” and ‘sophia’ “wisdom.” Thus, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. Socrates held that the unexamined life is not worth living, and the ancient Greek philosophers sought wisdsom regarding truth, knowledge, beauty and goodness. In this sense, then, philosophy is the attempt to think hard about life, the world as a whole and the things that matter most in order to secure knowledge and wisdom about these matters.

    Accordingly, philosophy may be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life’s most important questions, in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom about them. Philosphy can help someone form a rationally justified, true worldview*, that is, an ordered set of propositions that one believes, especially propositions about life’s most important questions.

    Second, our understanding of philosophy will be enhanced if we observe that philosophy often functions as a ‘second-order discipline’. For example, biology is a first-order discipline, that studies organisims, but philosophy is a second-order discipline that studies biology. In general, it is possible to have a philosophy of X, where X can be any discipline whatever; for example, law, mathematics, education, science, government, medicine, history or literature. When philosophers examine another discipline to formulate a philosophy of that field, they ask normative questions about that discipline ( e.g., questions about what one ought and ought not believe in that discipline and why), analyze and criticize the assumptions underlying it, clarify the concepts within it and integrate that discipline with other fields.

    Consider biology again. Philosophers ask questions like these: Is there an external world that is knowable and, if so, how does one know it? What is life, and how does it differ from nonlife? How should one form, test and use scientific theories and laws? Is it morally permissible to experiment on living things? When biologists talk about information in DNA, how should we understand this talk? How does the biological notion of being a member of the kind Homo sapiens relate to the theological notion of being created in the image of God, or to the metaphysical notion of being a person with legal/moral rights? These questions are all philosophical in nature, and by examining them it becomes evident that philosophers ask and seek to answer presuppositional, normative, conceptual and integrative questions about other fields of study. Thus, by its very nature philosophy is, perhaps, the most important foundational discipline in the task of integrating Christian theology with other fields of study. (PFFACWF, pp. 12, 13)


  44. If you look at the time evolution of the expansion of the universe you see that the galaxies are receding which implied that the universe is indeed expanding. This has been proven experimentally and the theoretical foundation was laid by Edwin Hubble. Now, if one goes in the opposite direction then the universe contracts until it becomes infinitesimally small and there are four dimensions of space and none of time …i.e. time was non-existent. This renders the question of what happened before the beginning of the universe irrelevant.

    Bubbles in boiling water are used by Hawking as an analogy to spontaneous quantum creation of the universe. My understanding is that if “nothing” is unstable then bubbles start to form and these bubbles represent a multiplicity of universes. Some of these universes expand, like ours, and allow for the formation of the cosmos, intelligent life etc. while others collapse.

    In terms of M-theory, it will take some advanced mathematics to deal with n-dimensional space, so I agree that it will be a while before the theory is rigorously tested.


  45. The problem that is confronting this issue is the word “GOD” . Now we can all agree that there was creation. If the word’God ” was not included we would not be having this discussion. Then we would all be using the word ‘Creator which is the principle mechamism in the creation of all that is and continues to be. I will continue to be in awe of a nameless “Creator” and the creation.
    I still don’t not understand why the neccesity for the word “GOD”
    In one of the above comments . There is a long list of names which was being using in the old testament to define the same “GOD” how can that be. Who gave man the authority to make such changes. In the end I think “God” even got tired and gave up. Man is so complicated. Nothing has change and nothing will !


  46. @ac: “The problem that is confronting this issue is the word “GOD”.

    Agreed.

    @ac: “Now we can all agree that there was creation.

    No so fast there Ace. (That’s meant to be funny.)

    Please define “Creation”? Does it include evolution?

    Because some reasonably believe that Life can manifest out of a very (very) large number of random events over a very (very) long time.

    Maybe we’re stupid; maybe we’re not.


  47. The question you should ask is Which came first? Creation or evolution?or are they one of the same similar to the god head instead of three persons we have two relevant forces with creation starting the chain of events and evolution being the catalyst for continuing.In other words both of them are defining forces upon which the world depends. Actually creation and evolution coexist peacefully.


  48. You people do realize that if the Europeans were not such a dominant military force but perhaps the Indians or those from the middle east you would probably be all Islam and Hindu right about now. You do realize the Europeans are those who taught the idea of Christianity to us as a people after our enslavement but first the idea of teaching it was outrage as it would just could have been a way for those niggers to get together and plot. What if it some one else was dominant in that time, what religious factor would you be in now? If you do some research you can find that the Bible was written by men for men and men do make mistakes. Did you ever think to find out who this King James is, which the most popular version of the bible stems from, a guy from many centuries ago who lead witch hunts by the way and probably killed many innocents. Would you trust the interpretation of the original pieces by people who thought the world was flat and if you got to one end you would drop off. Or maybe you pondered on why people die so young these days rather than live centuries. So much to think about.

    But why all the hate on science and academics? I’m pretty sure you folks have gotten used to the modern technologies brought about scientists. Maybe if you would listen carefully to both sides of the story instead ignoring the other side you can see what they are all going on about and collaborate.


  49. @Scientist,

    “the universe contracts until it becomes infinitesimally small and there are four dimensions of space and none of time …i.e. time was non-existent”

    Four dimensions of space? The dimensions of space existed without the dimension of time?

    “if “nothing” is unstable then bubbles start to form and these bubbles represent a multiplicity of universes.”

    What exactly is this “nothing” and did any laws of nature exist in this “nothingness”? How can the prediction of multiple universes be tested? Does M-theory qualify as a scientific theory? …based on the description you and Hawking provided it sounds a lot like faith.


  50. @MME… Let us please not forget what a great man once said:

    “Not everything which can be measured is important, and not everything which is important can be measured.

    But, then, this same man was wrong about Quantum Uncertainty (but he was so close to that break-through as well)….


  51. Richard Dawkins, is the most arrogant, proud, high and mighty, insolent, deluded* fool, I’ve heard from the Evolutionary camp, of scientism; only such a one as Dawkins, in his delusion* ignis fatuus, phantasm, could possibly write, ‘The God Delusion’

    What an utter fable of ultimate folly, that book is!!!


  52. @Zoe: “Richard Dawkins, is the most arrogant, proud, high and mighty, insolent, deluded* fool, I’ve heard from the Evolutionary camp

    You sound like a musketeer going up against a B52 bomber.

    Hey, it’s an honorable, if futile, death.


  53. Dawkins, Halsall, is like a blade of grass, fighting against, a forest fire, only thing, in his deluded ignorance and scientism arrogance, he will yet, Bow his knees, like all other scoffers and unbelievers, and confess, before the Almighty, that Jesus Christ, IS Lord, to the glory of God the Father!

    Then…the Lake of Fire awaits him…where there is NO rest for the wicked…only eternal torment forever and ever…!!!


  54. why are the religionist so afraid of scientist. Then if they do they don’t really believe in ‘GOD ‘the creator because every molecule, atom. metal . compound. mineral and all that made up this universe is scientific in origin and the religionist theory is that “GOD” made everything


  55. Halsall, there are many recorded stories in Foxes Book of Martyrs, where while been burnt alive, by Papal deligates, and refusing to recant their Absolute belief in God, and Jesus Christ, and as the FIRE rose to their chest, amazingly, eyewitnesses, testified, that these men of God, actually expired, died, with the Glory of God on their faces!

    Wheras, there are also testimonies of Atheist, who died horrible, terrifying, ghastly deaths, agonizing deaths, as the moment awaited their entry into Hell!

    One such Atheist, who mocked God all his life, like Hawkins et al, actually made this remark before his death, “If there is a God, or any truth in the Bible, let my body be infested with snakes.”

    Since his burial the family lot has been full of snakes holes around the curbing. Snakes can be seen any day you visit the graveyard. the neighbors there say the more they kill the thicker the snakes seem to be.

    BTW, no one in that neighbourhood, ever saw any snakes, in or around that graveyard, until that Atheist died!

    Of course, the snakes on earth, infesting his mortal remains, are a joke, compared to those Demonic ones in Hell Fire, that’s where the unspeakable torment really is!

    As the Word of God states, ‘…where their worm never dies…”


  56. Religionist, NOT Christians, might fear Atheists, true Christians are fearless of no man, even if we are burnt alive at the stakes!

    The Almighty, His Son, Jesus Christ, and ONE, sincere, Justified, believer are a majority, (go figure that Math, Halsall!) in the farcical face of a billion Atheists!


  57. Names, as used in the Old Testament of God’s Word, usually always imply some significance; therefore it is only to be expected that our Creator, who identifed Himself as a personal, loving, caring, Creator, would then, in His divinely inspired Word, the Bible, give us HIS Name(s) some of which as I gave earlier a few days ago, specifically are used and given by HIM, for the purpose of showing us, in these various names, that our One, true, and living God, allows us to know the significance of each* Name, and NOT some abstract term, ‘Creator’.

    Hence, we see in the very first verse of His Word, in Genesis 1:1,

    “In the beginning, God, (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)

    Note, that here our Creator, identifies Himself, with His Name, God, (Elohim), as distinct from the word ‘created/creator’ as He IS our personal, loving, God.

    Also, ‘In the beginning’ not of eternity, but of the ‘Creation’ of the world as described in this chapter. This markes the first break in the past endless eternity.

    The word ‘Created’ is from the Heb, ‘bara’ used also in verses 21 and 27. The word itself not not preclude the use of preexisting material (Isa. 65:18), though none is mentioned or implied here (cf, other occurences in Ps. 51: 10; Isa. 65:17; Amos 4:13). ‘Bara’ means essentially the same as ‘asa’ “to do or make” (used in v.25 and also of the entire creative activity in Ex. 20:11 and Neh 9:6. a third word for God’s creative activity, ‘yasar’ (‘formed’) occurs in 2:7, ‘the heaven and the earth’ I.e., the Universe.

    The word ‘Bara’ possesses the meaning of ‘bringing into existence’; it is not surprising, therefore, that this word, is used by God, in His Word, the Bible, with its distinctive emphasis used most frequently to describe the Creation of the Universe and the supernatural phenomena, (Gen. 1:1; 21, 27; 2:3), as the Omnipotent magnitude of God’s power IS exemplified in Creation.

    This has implications for the weak (Isa. 40: 26; cf. vv. 27-31) and for the unfolding of God’s purposes in history (Isa. 42:5; 45:12). Creation displays His awesome majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa. 45:18), and His sovereignty (Ps. 89:12) of Almighty God.

    It is interesting, that the limitation of this word, ‘Bara’ to divine activity, indicates that the area of meaning delineated by the root, falls outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word IS on the newness of the created* object, the words lends itself splendedly to the concept of reation, ‘ex nihilo’ although that is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 127).


  58. Biblical Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.

    Most scientific disciplines have been given English names, compounded from two Greek roots, one meaning “organized study,” the other referring to the object of study. Biology is the study of life, geology is the study of the earth, hydrology is the study of water, and so on. The ending of each word is from the Greek ‘Logos’, meaning ‘WORD’ also translated “answer,” “saying,” etc. As a proper name, it is identifed in Scripture with the Lord Jesus Christ, as the living Word of God, the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3)

    It is therefore, at least providential that Jesus Christ should be thus indirectly identified with the study of His creation. Bilology is the science of life* and Christ Himself IS ‘LIFE’ (Jn. 14:6) Geology is the science of the earth, and Jesus IS the Creator of the earth (Isa. 40:28). Hydrology is the science of water, and from Him, Jesus, flows the “water of life” (Rev. 22:1). We also could speak of the sciences of meteorology, zoology, psychology, sociology, climatology, physiology, and many others, BUT, all must ultimately be ascribed to Christ, for in Him, “are hid ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). For:

    “By HIM were ALL things created” (Col. 1:16), and He “uphold[s] ALL things by the Word of His power.” (Heb. 1:3), so it follows inescapably that true knowledge of any component of His creation, must, depend ultimately on the knowledge of Christ and His Word!


  59. And the Only adequate First Cause is the God of the Bible. That is, the First Cause MUST be infinite, eternal, and omnipotent (as required by the effects of boundless space, endless time, and the array of various phenomena of energy and matter occuring everywhere through space and through time). The First Cause must be living, conscious, volitional, and omniscient, in view of the phenomenal effects of life, consciousness, will, and intelligibility in the universe. Similarly, the First Cause of the concept of righteousness – and the universal conviction that righteousness is “better’ than unrighteousness, must be a moral cause. The First Cause of the concepts of beauty, of justice, of spirituality, of love, and other such qualities, which have throughout history, been seen and experienced to be ‘right’ and ‘true’ must be, by the principle of causation, be an esthetic, just, spiritual, loving Cause!

    Therefore, is necessarily must be, that:

    The First Cause of limitless space must be Infinite.
    The First Cause of endless time must be Eternal.
    The First Cause of boundless energy must be Omnipotent.
    The First Cause of infinite complexity must be Omniscient.
    The First Cause of LOVE must be LOVING.
    The First Cause of LIFE, must be LIVING.

    Therefore, the First Cause of the Universe must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, volitional, Holy, Loving Being!

    And, this we find over and over again, revealed by Him, in His Word, the Bible, confirmed, over and over again, througout history, the veracity of which, cannot be denied!


  60. @Zoe…………………..R U aware that if there was no christianity, there would still be a universe with non-intelligent life as we witness here on this planet as well as intelligent life somewhere out there. You and Mr. Terrence ought to know that life as we know it does not need any religious figure head to lay claim to it, simply because it was created and since evolved before christianity and all his other ‘jockeying-for-position’ siblings.

    Before today’s String theory was magnified which was sometime around the 1980s, there was the PRIMORDIAL THREAD OF THE DOGON of West Africa. The Dogon’s conception of the universe was rooted in the principle of ‘vibration of matter.’ Now today we’ve come full circle where quantum science assigns the source of these vibrations of matter to a string. Today’s string was known to the Dogon as a thread or the ‘Spider of the Sene.’ This Spider of the Sene not unlike today’s quantum gave rise to 4 branches which bore fruit ….ist, you got the mono[to bring together], 2nd, the sene gommuzo[bumpy]/sene benu[stocky], 3rd, the sene urio that bows , and finally the sene na in Amma’s womb which contained the 4 elements. In today’s quantum science we see the same 4 show up as the quantum forces of gravity, electromagnetic force, and the strong and the weak nuclear forces. What a co-incidence!

    And the list of similarities continue. Different name, same concepts. Yet another co-incidence! Who copied whom?

    I MUST AT ALL TIMES PAY HOMAGE TO MY GREAT BLACK ANCESTORS!

    So Zoe, do you see how all this occurred before the evolution of christianity and its god? Therefore to link your god i.e an evolved god [because its the god of christianity/bible] to creation is somewhat tantamount to ‘gravitons’..i.e very weak and difficult to detect. Wouldn’t you agree?


  61. Einstein’s general theory of relativity unified space and time i.e. the space-time continuum, but the temporal dimension was treated as separate from the spatial dimensions. When you combine quantum theory with the relativistic theory though, warpage of space and time happens to such an extent that the two become intertwined and the temporal dimension behaves like a spatial one. This explains the four spatial dimensions in the early universe.


  62. @Zoe

    Ref comment April 7 /2011/11.34am . How can one not read your comments and not come away not believing that the universe was indeed created by scientific methods. The problem with religionist is that they keep trying to put a “PERSON” a FACE” and a NAME” to that which we already see. The problem with that theory is that it complicates and confuses and presents itself as fiction rather than fact. We need to take away all the religionst jargon and stick to what our minds are able to comprehend. The universe needs no “God head


  63. @Hopi, You’ve gone and dug deeper into this Afrocentric, Paganistic barathrum, to bring up just another variation of this utter unhistorical, soporific obscure nada!!!

    Come now Hops, we’ve dealt extensively with this sort of diatribe of yours before!

    Get real!


  64. @TMB… I note with interest that you haven’t been around lately.

    I also note with interest that you haven’t answered Tony Almeida’s question of 2011.04.04.2004 (Barbados and BU time-stamp).


  65. The Book of Beginnings.

    The Foundation of History.

    The Book of Genesis, the beginning of Almighty God’s divinely inspired Word, is probably the most important book ever written; for it is here that we are given vital information concerning the origin of all things – and therefore the meaning of all things – which would otherwise be forever inaccessible to man. The future is bound up in the past. One’s belief concerning his origin will inevitably determine his belief concerning his purpose and his destiny. A naturalistic, animalistic concept of beginnings specifies a naturalistic, animalistic program for the future. An origin at the hands of an Omnipotent, Holy, loving God, on the other hand, necessarily predicts a divine purpose in history and an assurance of the consummation of that purpose. A believing understanding of the Book of Genesis, is therefore prerequisite to an understanding of God and His meaning to man.

    Therefore, the Book of Genesis is in reality the foundation of all true history, as well as of true science and true philosophy. It is above all else the foundation of God’s revelation, as given in the Bible. No other book of the Bible is quoted as copiously or referred to so frequently, in other books of the Bible, as is Genesis.

    The very first verse in Genesis, refutes atheism* because the universe was created by God. It also refutes pantheism*, for God is transcendent to that which He created. It refutes polytheism*, for One God created all things. It refutes dualism* because there IS, but One God. It refutes humanism*, because God, not man is the ultimate reality. It refutes evolutionism, because God created all things.

    Actually, all such false philosophies are merely different ways of expressing the same spurious beliefs. Each one proposes that there is no personal, transcendent God; that ultimate reality is to be found in the eternal cosmos itself; and that the development of the universe into its present form is contingent solely on the innate properties of its own components. In essence, each of the above philosophies embraces all the others. Dualism, for example, is a summary form of polytheism, which is the popular expression of pantheism, which presupposes materialism, which functions in terms of evolutionism, which finds its consummation in humanism, which culminates in atheism.

    Isn’t it remarkable that, when there have been so many anti-theistic philosophies (ancient and modern) affecting untold millions of people, the Book of God, makes no attempt to prove that God exists. The opening verse of Genesis simply takes this fact for granted, as though it were so obvious, that only a fool could say “there is no God” (Psa. 14:1).


  66. @Zoe: “The opening verse of Genesis simply takes this fact for granted, as though it were so obvious, that only a fool could say “there is no God”

    The Scientist, on the other hand, takes a broader approach…

    Perhaps there is a Creator; a God.

    On the other hand, perhaps we can explain our Universe without a god.

    Let us see what empirical tests say about each (and every) hypothesis….


  67. and then the most logical question one would ask is “Who created GOD” since GOD was from the beginning that is only a fair and reasonable questions to ask The brain is programmed to decipher events places and things in a logical and distinct pattern. Any other form or pattern is madness. Now what was the question?


  68. @Halsall, continue with your limited, “….broader approach.” (Lol!) and your “…empirical hypothesis” hope you find something to satisfy your inquiry into what IS sooooo evident….that even a blind and deaf man, could see, [read: perceive Lol!] and hear with his inner heart, what surround us, in Millions of enlightened ways, that only the blind and deaf [read: in heart Lol!] fail utterly to see and hear, because their futile minds, are cloaked IN, scientism, professing themselves to be wise, are fools* personified!


  69. If the multiverse theory is proven to be correct then there will be so many interesting questions. Feynman’s sum over all possible histories explains why particles exhibit counter-intuitive behaviour like interference which is wave-like behaivour. However, a particle takes every possible path including one which which it interferes with itself. Applying this to the universe one of the paths would be a universe in which there is no bible, pope, etc…, who has dominion over that universe?


  70. Scientist, In your feble theorectical postulations, and in your endarkened folly, you have absolutely no idea, that our Creator, Almighty God, holds the ENTIRE Universe, in the palm of HIS Omnipotent hand, like an ATOM*, and IF, He moves His little finger, ALL of it, trembles!!!

    No so-called scientific whatever, can EVER understand what I just said above, for this reality, is beyond anything Physics can, or will EVER be able to compute, period!!!


  71. Zoe | April 7, 2011 at 11:12 PM |

    Scientist, In your feble theorectical postulations, and in your endarkened folly, you have absolutely no idea, that our Creator, Almighty God, holds the ENTIRE Universe, in the palm of HIS Omnipotent hand, like an ATOM*, and IF, He moves His little finger, ALL of it, trembles!!!

    No so-called scientific whatever, can EVER understand what I just said above, for this reality, is beyond anything Physics can, or will EVER be able to compute, period!!!

    Seriously Zoe?????………..Seriously????
    What really is the difference between what you and Scientist said.?
    Scientist said “if “……. what if?……..what if you are wrong?……what if he (scientist) is right?


  72. All of these other Godless philosophies are rooted in atheistic evolutionary humanism; and could be incorporated ino the same monstrous structure, of naturalism, uniformitarianism, diesm, agnosticism, monism, determinism, pragmatism, and others.

    All are arrayed in opposition to the Great Truth, marvelously simple enough, understandable to a child, yet inexhaustibly profound, that, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1)

    In spite of the universal prevalence of such pantheistic evolutionary cosmogonies amomg nations of antiquity, the inspired account in Genesis, does not attempt to refute them or prove the existence of the true God. The reason for this strange silence is, most likely, the fact that the Genesis account was written before* any of these other systems developed. Whereas, the others Godless systems were developed later for the very purpose of combating and replacing the true account in Genesis; as Satan never stops trying to discredit the Truth of God’s Word.

    The most advanced mathematics and physics know to man, as amazing as it is to others outside of this discipline, it is like child’s play, in relation to the awesomeness of our Creator, Almighty God, who creates, not by power, nor by might, as we know and understand it; BUT, “By My Spirit says the Lord…” He JUST speaks Galaxies into existence, no effort whatsoever is required, none; its like when Job in his utter frustration sought to question God, and He answered Job.

    The Lord reveals His Omnipotence to Job.

    “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

    “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man: I will question you, and you shall answer Me.”

    “Where were you (scientists et al) when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know? Or who stretch the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band. When I fixed My limit for it. And set bars and doors, When I said, This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop.”
    “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, And caused the dawn to know its place, That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it.It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment, From the wicked their light is withheld, And the upraised arm is broken.” (Job. 38: 1-15)

    This is just a sampling of God’s questioning of Job, of course Job went silent, and repented of his ignorance before his Almighty Creator.

    All of modern day mathematics and physics, before Almighty God’s Omnipotent Creative and Sustaining Spirit of His Universe, is like adding up 2+2+2, before HIM, as the infinite and eternal dimensions of HIM and HIS Universe, scientist AIN’T see nothing yet!!!


  73. Throughout the old testament God countenance was never revealed to man. God would show himself in “Fire” or any other tangible or intangible force. However over the years man’s yearning to connect with a god was sought in the form of idol worshipped while abandoning the “Creator GoD” the one they could not see. Man soon came to the realization that in order for man to accept “GOD” God would have to revealed himself in the form of human. that being Jesus Christ.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.