Why do Christians hate infinity?

..

Why do Christians hate infinity?

.

I have just finished reading an article by an author who swears by the existence of God. And, he provides us with many proofs for his argument. The article is shown below:

.

The Existence of God

Logically Proven!

.

Personal From David C. Pack, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief

.

Source here

.

This is a very weak presentation and does nothing to disturb the mind of the atheist, nor does it make him want to clamor towards God. In fact, it is a very basic argument, using the traditional tools of Biblical beliefs and some Cosmological arguments. Mr. Pack also utilizes the Theological Argument as well and points out the great complexities that time offers us in its precision. He is asking us to believe that because nature is so precise it must have been accomplished by some Divine Hand. Why does this have to be the case I would ask? Why cannot nature in its spendour and majesty do what it does without a master? That is what nature is; it is a set of rules which act in certain ways and under certain conditions. Why does nature have to have a human or Divine name when it can accomplish things better than humans or gods? Perhaps we humans should pray to nature as it surely has something to offer us. What does God have to offer nature?

.

Mr. Pack's biggest and best arguments seem to revolve around the general condition of nature and the Laws of Thermodynamics:

.

" The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful. "

.

I think what the author is really saying here is that he agrees with the idea of infinity, even though he is certainly not going to state that as a fact. If matter always is and always will be what does that fact have to do with a Divine Entity? Absolutely nothing. If God entered the picture and created the universe He would most assuredly would have to have come from nothing. And, the author is plainly telling us that if the universe came into existence from nothing that would violate this very principle that he is mentioning. Therefore, infinity exists and God does not. Or, God exists and He is most likely the same thing as Infinity. So, why do not we just simply rename our God and call Him or It " Infinity ". Christians appear to dislike or even hate the idea of infinity it would seem. They are not willing to admit that it exists.

.

The author is determined to say however, that matter could not have existed for all time and that something must have brought it into existence. He calls this thing God. He uses the example of the breakdown of uranium, claiming that since it breaks down it could not have existed in the past. Why not? Has he ever thought about the idea that this matter was formed from some explosion or other combination of events between atoms and other forms of matter? Surely, he is making himself look foolish by stating in one breath that matter never disappears completely, so how can it appear completely then? Isn't this some sort of contradiction that he will have to deal with at some point?

.

The author goes on to say:

.

" This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator! "

.

From the above quote you can plainly see that the author is simply trying to fit God in just as the other religionists attempt to do. And, I have already given you my thoughts about the prior existence of the Entity and the fact that He made is all happen by his Divine presence. You simply cannot have it both ways when it comes to creation. Either something caused the earth to happen or it did not. And, if it was a Creator then surely the intellingent mind needs to know from whence came this Entity. Is he Eternal and the same thing as infinity or does he appear out of nothing, like magic? This is the territory of the idealists and is the only place where you will find friends for this kind of an explanation.

.

He then talks about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and then attacks evolution and speaks of ' Proofs of Creation ' and the ' Complexities of Life ' to solidify his case for God. But, again, he comes up short. I don't really know why Christians even bother to try and destroy the idea of evolution, for example. Man, through the very act of living is constantly evolving into something else. That is the nature of man and of the universe-all is change and transformation. The author gives us lame excuses and attempts to show that man is closer to this or that creature depending on the circumstances and provides instances learned from biology and chemistry. Surely, these religionists are missing the point of the whole thing: Why is man not an ape or is a dog not a man? The answer is because they are entirely different things. They are different biological creatures. What they have in common, however, is that they are all living things. They are different from the flowers and the trees, but their commonality is in their needs and desires; they need to attract each other and they need to reproduce their own kind. And, it just so happened that man came to acquire and develop a large brain and the ability to philosophize and to even create religions. Yes, create religions. So, why would anyone try to take these things away from them? Taken as a group animals have many similarities; their focus is on living and survival and that is the way their frames are structured - to account for these endeavours. There is not going to be any evidence to show that one is any better than the other I do not think, nor any real evidence to show that they were " created " differently. They simply evolved differently, from species to species. The Christians need to ask: What was God thinking when he created all of these animals with all of these various complexities? Why make things so difficult when things are really so very simple? Animals developed differently and under different conditions. But, they are all still animals. They developed differently from the plants. Evolution makes more sense for me because if you look at the vast array of animals and plant life it just seems there hardly seems to be any consistency at all in the design, but yet they contain many of the same features. Why does a God need to fiddle with all of these complex biological and psychological things just to make them different? Doesn't nature provide us with a better explanation for the animal differences, I mean, if you want to be truthful about the matter? I think you will find upon closer inspection that design by a Divine Hand is not at work in the animals, but rather, that the inherent laws of nature and how it affects the things that surround it and consume it are the more likely answer.

.

From Ecclesiastes Chapter 3:

.

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

.

So much for the Christian explanations. They try hard, but unfortunately they are simply not convincing. And, they really are missing the main point about life. The purpose of life is to live, and then to die. Again, take heed of the lessons learned from the Bible:

.

Ecclesiastes Chapter 9:

.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

.

.

.Let us assume that God woke up one morning from a deep sleep, turned on his bedroom light and decided to create a universe and everthing else that is imaginable to the human mind. And, also those things which are not so easily imaginable to the human mind, without discovery, that is. The Christians do not believe in the idea of infinity since everything must have a beginning. Well, is that so say I to them? If you do not have your infinity then I humbly suggest to you that you do not have your God that you so admire. For consider the question: what was God doing before he woke up, turned the light on and then decided to have a creative day, so to speak? If you maintain that nothing produces nothing, then where does this God or the Entity arise from? This is not meant to be a trick question. Quite the contrary. I am simply suggesting that infinity would have to exist, even if you cannot imagine such a thing. ...

.

Carl Baydala,

Sunday August 10, 2008

.