Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful

Preface

Photo: University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Official

Revised today

Presented from a theological and philosophical perspective while citing scientific sources.

Yesterday, I received another short and informative newsletter from Reasons to Believe, a scientific, non-Darwinian Evolution, Biblical ministry.

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful 

I am going to briefly discuss 'Did the Universe Have a Beginning'? By Jeff Zweerink.

I am not a scientist and do not have any science degrees. I did have to complete some limited scientific work for my British Doctoral work, such as researching scientific journals with articles on consciousness. These findings were part of the finished thesis.

The article author states that he was challenged by a published scientific paper, showed to him, 'indicating that the universe did not have a beginning'. (1). The idea presented is that 'scientists need a quantum theory of gravity to know with total certainty whether or not the universe had a beginning (a non-controversial and correct statement) and yet the sufficiently developed theories of quantum gravity point to a universe with no beginning!' (1).

The author then notes that 'none of the current models is yet established'. (1).

As well, 'the experimental data to test the validity of those models still resides in the far distant future, at best.' (2).

The author further explains that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2). But eventually the scientific community, had models that included a beginning. (2).

Wikipedia

'In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.'.

Michigan State University

'What is quantum physics? '

'Quantum physics is necessary to understand the properties of solids, atoms, nuclei, subnuclear particles and light. In order to understand these natural phenomena, quantum principles have required fundamental changes in how humans view nature. To many philosophers (Einstein included), the conflict between the fundamental probabilistic features of quantum mechanics and older assumptions about determinism provided a cognitive shock that was even more unsettling that the revised views of space and time brought by special relativity.

The word quantum refers to discreteness, i.e., the existence of individual "lumps" as opposed to a continuum. In Newtonian physics, all quantities are allowed to be continuous. For instance, particles can have any momentum and light can have any frequency. A quantum is a discrete packet of energy, charge, or any other quantity. '

Oxford Dictionary of Science

Quantum gravity is

'An aspect of quantum theory that attempts to incorporate the gravitational field as described by the general theory of relativity; no such theory has yet been accepted...there is some evidence that superstring theory can provide a quantum theory of gravity free of infinities.'  (679).

Free of infinities...

The text further states that it is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

It is then explained that black holes can also be investigated in regard to quantum gravity theory. (679).

I cannot comment as a scientist, but as a theologian and philosopher:

In regard to the idea that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2)  This may be a case of philosophy within science or philosophizing within science, in other words, starting with the premise that the universe has no beginning and is infinite and setting out to find reasonable scientific proof.

This therefore could be an approach based in philosophy and not just empirical science. This allows me at least some room to comment.

It is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

From the Oxford source, this reasonably recent 2010 citation clearly indicates that within this scientific field of study, the current default conclusion based on premises is to consider quantum gravity within the very early universe that began after the big bang.

The Oxford text defines evolution as 'the gradual process by which by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms...' (304). The text reasons this is at least for the last 300 million years.

Evolution (including microevolution; change within a species or group) by definition implies finite.

The infinite is limitless and does not evolve or expand. It simply is....

Therefore any type of (including evolutionary) scientific model is doubtful to empirically prove an infinite universe.

Further...

The idea of infinite is compatible with God described in Genesis 1, as in the beginning creating the heaven and the earth. God existing before the material universe, time and matter. Universe defined as ' All the matter, energy, and space that exists.' (847).

Even if the Biblical Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments could be academically discredited as historical, religious history, which is not my academic position; an infinite cause behind the material universe is still the most reasonable philosophical and theological explanation for finitude.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Reasons To Believe Newsletter, July/August, 2016, Covina, California.

Demonic faith (non-exhaustive)

Buenos Aires: Waterfront Cities of the World

At Northview Community Church this morning, the sermon was in regard to three signs of true Christian belief.

This was reasonably presented as:

Profession

Practice

Perseverance

As with this article and my website posts in general, these three points are non-exhaustive.

A person could state rightly that love and a concern for goodness, justice and truth are also signs of a legitimate, Biblical, Christian walk. One could state that a person needs to demonstrate good 'fruit'.

Galatians 5:22-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 English Standard Version (ESV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 King James Version (KJV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

But for the purposes of a sermon, less than one hour in length, the three 'p' 's sufficed.

Romans 10: 9-10 was referenced:

Romans 10:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation.

Romans 10:9 English Standard Version (ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Biblical keys from this section that demonstrate true Christian belief for salvation, are therefore confession, belief in the Biblical, historical Jesus Christ (belief in the Biblical God and the atoning work of Christ, implied), belief in the resurrection of Christ.

The sermon touched upon the books of James and Hebrews. From James 2, the pastor correctly noted that demonic faith was not sufficient as demons cannot be saved. It is a trusting, faith-based belief, not a mere intellectual belief that saves any person.

From Hebrews the concept mentioned was that some have confessed Christ but now deny him.

Doubtless this is Biblically and historical true as the pastor also referenced the false teachers from Jude. See also 2 Peter 2 (my add).

Hebrews 6 New American Standard Bible

Therefore leaving the [a]elementary teaching about the [b]Christ, let us press on to [c]maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, [d]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 

This passage is debated.

I gather from the sermon the pastor would view these as people that have never had a saving faith in Christ, but rather had demonic faith, like the demons. An intellectual, matter of fact, faith.

This is a reasonable biblical position.

As counter: The following

7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 'worthless and close to being cursed'.

Reads very much like: (1 Corinthians considered by many Biblical scholars to have been written by Paul and Hebrews, perhaps so, or a Pauline associate).

1 Corinthians 3:15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This same pastor, I heard on an online sermon stated that the 1 Corinthians judgement was in regard to church leaders/leadership.

I reason, it is also reasonable that Biblically, those discussed in Hebrews 6 are non-repentant believers.

I mentioned to another pastor, in agreement, that a true Christian always confesses biblical belief. So called former Christians that now deny Jesus Christ, in my mind never had biblical, trusting, faith-based belief.  Mental illness, perhaps could change the thinking process of a person, but in spirit at least, trusting, faith-based, belief would exist.

As the sermon pastor admitted, none of us are perfect. That means none of us are perfect in repentance.

I therefore reason that in biblical, Christian belief, general repentance to God is an essential sign of salvation. Confessing self as sinner, implies repentance.

However, specific repentance of each and every sin is not essential for trusting, faith-based belief, although to be clear, it is a command.

Acts 3: 19-21 New American Standard Bible

19“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

Repentance is an aspect of biblical salvation as turning from sin, and accepting the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to a person. The salvific work is done by God, not by human acts of faith. Technically speaking we are regenerated through the Holy Spirit (John 3) and saved by the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to us. Repentance is via a regenerated human nature and will.

On a practical theological basis we can realize that due to universal sinful natures and sinful choices, human beings will not 'catch' every sin to repent of, and as well sometimes because of spiritual blindness, persons will not always specifically repent of sinful choices via sinful nature. The atoning and resurrection work of Christ covers a regenerated person that therefore demonstrates general repentance within trusting, faith-based, belief.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Things happen in threes?

You Tube

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy assumes that events which occur together are casually related. It leaves no room for coincidence or for an outside factor which separately influences those events. (72).

A classic example is (my add):

Things happen in threes.

Good things happen in threes.

From a Reformed, Biblical perspective, God causes all things as the first cause (implied from Genesis, Romans, as examples), but this would not make three events which occur near the same time, all specifically and directly causally related.

What happens when there are four or more events that occur that are possibly on a surface level, related, for example, four celebrities die within a certain time?

It is simply more likely that celebrities die and will continue to do so, in this present reality.

Events are linked because they occur simultaneously. (72). It is unwarranted because it is assumed any of the events could not have occurred without the other event. (72).

There is a presumed, assumed connection and not a rationally demonstrated one.

Pirie reasons statistics can be used for Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (74).

This is done when selective information is used. (74).

Therefore, a key for the sake of fact when using statistics is to present all relevant statistical information and not just what supports one's case and agenda.

The negative use of statistics is highlighted by the classic statement:

Cited

Wikipedia

'"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]'

In my mind, this is another documented fallacy which fits into the excessive use of assumption and lazy thinking categories.

Daily Mail

Demeter Clarc

Briefly Defined: Lord of Hosts

Portovenre, Parma: Cheap hotel:added colour

In sermons the terms 'Lord of Hosts' are mentioned fairly often, but rarely defined. There is more to the definition than a basic idea of the Lord hosting his creation.

I think the terms need to be defined more often, for clarity.

Jon Courson.com

In his July 21, 2016 sermon that I listened to today online, Reverend Jon Courson stated (paraphrased) that the Lord of Hosts, is the Lord and his armies.

Explains, T.E. McComiskey:

Yahweh Sĕbāʾôt (Lord of Host) is in translation: 'He creates the heavenly hosts' has been suggested. as a reasonable possibility. (465). In basic agreement with the Pastor Courson statement from the sermon, the word sĕbāʾôt means armies or hosts. (465). The name Yahweh is understood as a proper name in association with the word 'armies'. (465).

God and his armies

The Lord and his armies

These would seem to be reasonable translations into English.

Therefore, as Revered Courson was preaching on eschatology and end times events, it is not out of context to mention the Lord in a militaristic, biblical context.

Explains, W.R.F. Browning:

In regard to Lord of Hosts:

The God of Israel as commander of armed forces, both Israel and in heaven. God is the general of the armies of Israel...but God also has angels (1 Kings 22: 19) and the forces of nature. (178).

The terms 'Lord of Hosts' and related terms are a friendly, written, biblical reminder that God is a God of justice. God demonstrates love, especially to his people in both Old and New Testaments (Psalm 136, John 3, John 15 as examples). However, there is not only divine judgement for humanity (2 Corinthians 5, Revelation 20); there is also when deemed divinely necessary, lethal force used by God. This should be no surprise in light of Genesis 3 and the death sentence for human disobedience.

This is lethal force above that granted to governments for the maintenance of law and order in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

The two concepts should not be theologically and philosophically confused, lest a state, overstep its power of governance, biblically mandated by God. Or a state-religion attempt to govern and rule on behalf of God. Rather, the state is to maintain law and order and no state or state-religion should attempt to exercise God's eschatological mission in presumption. Each state is finite in understanding and tainted in sin. Politics within both government and state-religion makes overly-politicized reasoning and actions, over the sake of truth and biblical truth, ever so possible at key points.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MCCOMISKEY, T.E. (1996) 'God, Name of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Parma: travel wiki