Genesis and Sunlight

During the second week of our Genesis series, we dived deep into the story of Creation. Many of you were perplexed to learn that the Sun, Moon, and Stars did not become visible until the fourth day, after the creation of vegetation. As a result, many of you asked the great, and natural question, "Where did the light come from prior to the Sun?"

Answer:
The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Of course, the stars emit light. Nevertheless, that's not going to help because the sun and the stars were created on the same day. Light has to come before that. The primary confusion is over "light" meaning "visible light." Light is just electromagnetic radiation, and we only see a small fraction of the total spectrum. Besides what we see (ROY G BIV) there are, on the red side, radio waves, microwaves, and infrared waves. On the purple side there are ultra-violet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays. The most important for answer the question are the infrared frequencies of light. Infrared, as you know if you've ever seen Predator, is heat. Well, the Big Bang was immensely hot, and as soon as it cooled enough for the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity to all break apart (they were initially one super force), there would be light at least in the form of infrared radiation. There was very likely light from all parts of the spectrum. Most importantly, the required cooling took place within millionths of the first second. So basically it went like this: BANG! --> LIGHT. At the point this happened, the universe really was separated into everything that was light and everything that wasn't light. An interesting consequence of the Big Bang is the Cosmic Background Radiation. It's the left over infrared heat signal from the Big Bang. You can pick it up with special listening equipment, so you can, in essence, hear the bang. Although, since the light has traveled some 15 billion light years, it has been so red-shifted by the Doppler effect that it's a very very low frequency infrared source that the bang sounds more like static. Nevertheless, it's really there, and it's the best evidence, apart from the red-shift observed in stars (that's what told physicists that the universe was expanding), for the big bang.

j Green

All Dogs Go to Heaven.

Received this today from one of the guys in the church. I don't think this counts as "proof" for dogs having a soul. :)

UNcreated One

There are several points worth noting about Pastor Jeremy’s sermon, but I will only mention one. I want to offer some reflections on the idea that God has no beginning. Many skeptics argue that if everything that exists has a cause, then God, since he exists, must have a cause too. But since God doesn’t have a cause, then he can’t really exist. I suppose the skeptic is expecting a few responses. Clearly, the desired response is for the Christian to accept God’s nonexistence, but that’s unlikely (hopefully). On the other hand, the Christian could affirm that God has no cause, therefore denying that everything that exists has a cause. It’s a good start, but the skeptic has a response of his own. If we deny that everything that exists has a cause, why think that it is only God that is without cause? Why do we think the universe has to have a cause? If it is not necessary that the universe have a cause, then why try to explain the existence of the universe by appealing to God’s creative act? The Christian is now in the position of trying to explain why the universe, and not God, has to have a cause. The skeptic thinks he’s got you backed into a corner where you’re forced into special pleading.

Well, there is a good reason for thinking that the universe must have a cause while God does not. We have to distinguish between contingent entities and necessary entities. Contingent entities are those that come into existence and continue to depend on some other entity throughout its existence. A necessary entity is an entity that exists in and of itself. Such an entity does not depend on anything. In other words, a necessary entity must exist; its non-existence is impossible. Clearly, everything in the physical universe is the effect of some prior cause (quantum physics notwithstanding), and the universe itself began to exist. If it is reasonable to suppose that everything that began to exist must have a cause, then the universe must have a cause. Clearly, contingent entities, those that begin to exist, cannot be infinitely explained by past contingent entities. Such a regress is irrational. Therefore, contingent entities must be ultimately explained by a necessary entity, an entity that is self-existing that did not come into existence. I follow Christian tradition (which I’d be happy to explore further if someone wants me to) and say the necessary entity required to explain the universe is the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. If I’m right, then it’s impossible for God to have a cause. For the skeptic to claim that if the universe, a contingent entity, must have a cause, then God , a necessary entity, must also have a cause is like asking for a square circle. It is an utter confusion of concepts.

Here’s the upshot: if God is a necessary entity, then God could not have been caused.

-Jeremy Green