chapter 5 proving god’s self-existence, eternality, &...

Chapter 5 — Self-existence, Eternality … page 1 of 44

Chapter 5

Proving God’s Self-existence, Eternality, & More

[a transcription of the Sunday Bible class by Bill Karavatos, Sept. 21, 2014]

(Please review the Notes at the end before beginning.)

Side Comment —

One thing I’ve become concerned about is how you-all are going to remember all this stuff, otherwise it’s wasted. This has to be used whenever you can! Bring up ideas on this as we go along, any time. So far, the best idea is to just write it all down, and it was meant that I should do that. Imagine that!

Now for this chapter, we’re going into unknown territory for some, and it’ll be a little tougher than you would expect. It’s necessary that we get through it, though. Otherwise I can’t uphold your request for a proof of God without using the Bible as evidence.

End Side Comment

In A General Sense, This Continues The Prior Subject

What Scientific Evidence?

Now, sometimes we find ourselves cornered by non-believers. They claim to have scientific evidence that God does not exist or that God did not create everything. And sometimes their babble can sound convincing.

It also hurts when you see a supposed Christian falling for some faulty argument from them. It hurts to see anyone’s faith get shaky.

Can you imagine how God feels if you’re just standing around watching it happen to somebody? Jump in! Jump in! That’s what God expects! We shouldn’t have any excuse for backing off.

Christians, you see, stand on real solid ground, and most of them don’t even know it — scientifically… logically… morally… legally… evidentially… everything.


Ongoing discoveries in the sciences should make us even more certain. They continue to point to God’s existence. It’s the scientists who’ve become more and more uncomfortable. You’ll feel more at ease as soon as you accept that by proving it to yourself from here.

The point is we’re fighting a war that started from the beginning of time. It involves man’s plain defiance to God. There’s nothing new under the sun, as Solomon said in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

So we either fight well, with truth, wisdom, and courage or we choose what ultimately is the losing side. There can only be winners or losers. And God does, in fact, win it all in the end. It says just that in the Book of Revelation, and we’ll prove that out in a later chapter. If we later prove, as we will, that the Bible is God’s word to us and is true, then Revelation is true and God winning in the end is also true.

So each of us has to make a choice. Be a participant in the winning side or be a participant in the losing side. You’ve only two choices in this. It’s due to that Law of Noncontradiction again.

The Propaganda Of Unscientific Evidence

There’s a particular area where this sentiment against God and creation is quite disturbing and it’s real blatant. One illustration is by what’s called The Humanist Manifesto. That’s the document most evolutionists sign to signify a person’s faith in evolution as the source of everything, not God. It writes in part — “Human beings are a part of nature, they have developed [by] evolutionary [processes] and they have not been ‘created’ by a God.”

The problem is where all this shows up. Many evolution (Darwinism) leaders are very open about using public schools to spread their faith. And they succeed because not enough people stand up to them. Some evidence of this is that 49% of the population told a Gallup poll that they believe in evolution. And that’s with the fact that it’s scientifically unsupportable. Undoubtedly, it’s that high because they didn’t receive any alternative teachings.

This might surprise some parents, those parents who think schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination. We must help them understand that evolution is a religion. It’s a religion because, for one, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer in God. We’re showing that here, loud and clear. We’re showing why it’s a completely alternative religion.

So, to say this subject is not critical, is putting on blinders.


No True Arguments Support Atheism

Now this is what you generally encounter, today.

It’s very rare to find a skeptic who gives a well-formed argument for atheism. It’s so rare that most will wait a lifetime for it.

They’ll usually just gesture in a direction, like the problem of evil, e.g. — “How could an all-powerful and all-loving God permit all the horrible evil in the world?”

Discussion Question — Is this a logic argument?

No; this is just a question.

They’re often content with poking holes in Christianity this way. But they can’t give a positive case for their own atheistic point of view. When they try, it’s usually laughable in its set up. Like, “The big bang happened, therefore there’s no God.”

Challenge them, so you’re not on the defensive. “Is that the only thing that keeps you from Christianity?” OR “Let me tell you why your thinking is messed up.” OR the one I like, “If I prove the right answer, what will you then do?”

Keep in mind there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. And know this — it’s virtually impossible to prove a negative. If you want, we can go through why this is, later. Let me know.

Overall, you should note that unbelievers are not very good at responding to questions. Reason — Christians have the better position regarding proofs and evidences. That’s why unbelievers will “hem and haw” a lot. Be aggressive in your questioning.

This Is Apologetics

For the third and last time . . .

Here’s the definition of the field of apologetics under which this “proving God” falls — It’s putting up a defense through reason and logic of what is true regarding Christianity. This is what God instructs us to do.

1 Peter 3:15-16 — 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (Gr. apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason (Gr. logos) for the hope that is in you; yet do it


with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

2 Corinthians 10:5 — With these weapons we break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God. With these weapons we conquer their rebellious ideas, and we teach them to obey Christ. (NLT)

Why These Processes

As I said in the previous section, logic, aka reasoning, can produce absolute proof. Evidences, on the other hand, can only produce an assurance of 99.999+% to the open minded.

A person can’t be closed minded to logic. You see, logic is transcendent like God is transcendent. It exists whether the universe exists or not. (That’s what “transcendent” means.) It’s the same as God. So is mathematics, the offspring of logic. The concept of 2+2=4 was true before the universe came into being. Could you possibly think God didn’t know math in doing Job 38?

Job 38:4-6 — 4 "Where were you [Job] when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,”

The only difference is that God understands “2+2=4” infinitely, and we don’t. He doesn’t need to “think it through,” for that or any equation or for any “this,” or for any “that.” So logical absolutes are therefore eternal and uncaused.

Logical absolutes, then, are not dependent on time, materials, space, nature, or people. That’s why you can get absolute proofs when you use logic properly.

I might add that the Bible uses logic, extensively.

When Paul said that God cannot both be God and a lying God at the same time, he was using the Law of Noncontradiction. Paul constantly used forms of argumentation to demonstrate from the OT that Jesus was the Savior.

Jesus’ famous teaching of Matthew 12:30 demonstrates the Law of Excluded Middle.

Matthew 12:30 — Anyone who isn't helping Me opposes Me, and anyone who isn't working with Me is actually working against Me. (NLT)

There is no neutral ground in this and in our lives.


Something Has To Be Self-existent

We’ve been viewing some options for explaining the reality we encounter. The reason why is to prove the existence of God without using the Bible. You understand now that you can’t prove God by using the Bible until we get to it, later. At this point, it would be a circular argument when used alone, as I’ve said before. It doesn’t stand up to any direct inquiry unless a lot of groundwork is laid, first. We have to be absolutely persuasive from a number of directions.

Now we looked at the first option, that reality is an illusion, and we eliminated it. This is the main teaching of the Christian Science denomination, by the way. It’s thinking is that all material things, sin, sickness, and death are just illusions.

The second was that reality created itself. We saw from an analytical perspective and logical analysis that this is a self-defeating idea. That is, it is absurd by definition because it’s rationally impossible.

Now the third alternative, what we’ll now look at, is that the universe is self-existent in any form. And keep in mind, the universe means our reality. And also remember, “self existent” means it had no origin. It always was and always will be; in other words, eternal. It’s dependent on nothing for its existence in any form. And it will never be any less than it’s always been.

Then, you’ll see that, after we’ve trashed that the universe has pure self-existence, the alternative will be that reality had to have been created by something that is self-existent.

What Is Self-existent?

So the task, now, is to settle what it is that’s self-existence, and where is it.

But first, we need to look at the concept of self-existence from this aspect — Why do we want to address this at all? Well, the reason is because it’s the primary position of skeptics, evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, anti-Christian agitators, and all. They have the opinion that the universe is self-existent in some state or another. This position is shop-talk for “there is no God because He isn’t necessary.”

To this, again the first specific we need to answer is this — Is it possible for anything to actually be self-existent? If the answer is “no,” then there’s no God and no universe. If the answer is “yes,” then we need to show what it is.


We already saw that it’s not possible for something to be self-created. Recollect that for something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was. It would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. So logic eliminates this as a rational possibility. Reality, or in other words the universe or its forms, cannot create itself.

So then the question is — Is the idea of something being self-existent, a rational possibility? We only have two choices on this. It’s either possible or not possible.

So, if it’s not a rational possibility, we’re not really here. And all this we think we see is an illusion.

But since we’re not an illusion, we have to conclude that self-existence is possible. It’s the only alternative. If there’s only two choices, it has to be one of them. It’s the Law of Noncontradiction again.

Also, there’s no logical argument against self-existence. We had one against self-creation, but we can’t put one together here.

How Deep Is Too Deep?

I hope we’re not getting too deep, here.

But remember, you-all (or “some-all”) questioned whether it was possible to prove the existence of God without using the Bible because you’re asked for it. Also keep in mind, I’ll be condensing all this into one sentence for you.

This maybe brings up a point for some feedback — What do you think, are we to deep for a Sunday Bible class? Let me know with some opinions, later.

A Self-Existent, Eternal “Something”

So, there’s nothing illogical whatsoever about the idea of a self-existent, eternal “something.”

The big question, now, is — What is its form, this “something?” Is it the universe itself, as some say, like atheists and scientists? And that’s in whatever state we want to think of it in. It doesn’t matter which, for right now. Can that be the self-existent “something” we’re talking about? Or, alternative to the universe itself, is its form the something else?


And keep in mind, we’re using the universe as a front for physical reality as we know it. Its reasonable to view it this way since the universe is, well, universal. It includes everything there is in this dimension we’re in.

We should reemphasize something claimed in evolution’s position– that the matter/energy of the universe is self-existent– that it’s eternal, uncaused, indestructible, incorruptible, etc. That position regards the universe, itself, as the so-called “creator” . . . that it’s just there in some form, and that's all there is; period, end of story.

Reading between the lines, they’re basically saying it created itself forever ago. (The “it” being the universe, itself, or its core energy.) We’ll cover shortly that it would be dead as a doornail, forever ago, if it did that. It’s a bad scientific argument.

Is The Universe Self-existent and Eternal?

Let’s eliminate the most obvious of the propositions. Then, what’s left is the answer.

So let’s eliminate that the universe, itself, is self-existent and eternal. I’ve picked that first because you can’t eliminate the other one — that reality was created by something that is eternal.

Now understand that an eternal universe in some form is, of course, the most comfortable position for most who are in the sciences.

Discussion Question — Why do you think that would be important to them?

It avoids the problem of an actual beginning or ending. This dodges the need for any “first cause” such as by a Creator.

Why This Doesn’t Work

Now this just doesn’t work for a number of reasons —

1— This specific theory fell into conflict with direct observations, long ago. And we’re talking about the universe largely as you see it now. New theoretical concepts like the “big bang” were at odds with it since 50-60 years ago. And we’ll cover more about the big bang later.

2— Einstein’s Theory of Relativity shows that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal. His theory proved that the universe is one big effect– that it was


brought into existence, somehow. Einstein’s stuff carries a lot of weight in science.

3— The biggie – This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It means the universe has to be running down like a windup clock. Science has proven it’s running down its usable energy. So it can’t have existed forever; otherwise it would have exhausted all it’s usable energy forever ago. (This is called the ‘heat death’ of the universe.) E.g., all the uranium would have turned to lead forever ago. Therefore any matter/energy in the universe could not be eternal.

So, summing up this last point — As everyone knows, eternal things do not run down. Self-existent things do not allow themselves to run out of power. That violates what self-existence means. Furthermore, left to its own, the universe is going to end at some point in the future. And eternal things do not have either beginnings or endings.

The Bible, of course, signaled this Law to us in about 1000BC.

Psalm 102:25-26 — 25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,

One-sentence Take-away

So we’ve now knocked off both self-existent and self-eternal as possibilities that the universe, or reality itself is self-existent and eternal, on its own, with no outside help.

Now you’ll get skeptics who won’t hear a word you said or won’t quit trying to make you back down. They’ll just blindly go on repeating their mantra — “The universe has to be that self-existent something.” So if you get challenged this way or another, just say — “Hey, the Second Law of Thermodynamics kills that idea of yours.” Then change the subject. Jack-the-Critic isn’t willing to listen to you. Consider that you may be spitting against the wind at this point.

Here’s our “one-sentence take-away” on this at this point —

That the universe is self-existent and eternal is plain bad science since it violates current scientific knowledge, violates Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and above all, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which confirms that anything that is eternal cannot be running out of energy as the universe is doing.

Sorry for the too-long sentence but it was a promise.


The Only Way The Universe Can Be Born

Here’s what’s left for explaining reality.

The universe, or reality, has come into being as a result of the work of something that is self-existent and eternal. In a way, it’s kind off strange that both theology and science demand the presence of a self-existent, eternal something. Without that, nothing can exist.

(Hold on now, the departure between theology and science is coming.)

There’s no other choice left. We must have the actual existence of a self-existent, eternal something. We’ve proved that without this “something,” no reality is possible. And that “something” cannot be the universe, itself, or its stuff. This is where evolution’s position diverts from theism and strikes out.

Now I’m going to switch to using the word “being” in place of “something.” The noun “being” merely means a “state of existing.” So it’s an okay word to use in this context. Don’t think of it as necessarily meaning something personal, yet.

Now, a self-existent being is dependent only on itself for its existence. It’s that way because it was not caused by something else. It didn’t need some other being to bring it into existence, e.g. And it has to be eternal, by definition. And, of course, it had to exist outside of this universe because the universe didn’t exist yet. This confirms it’s in a “super-natural” location, in another dimension. (There’s other familiar words for this word “dimension” like reality, existence, realm, and domain. “Dimension,” though, nicely captures both location and intent of that state.)

We’re making big progress, here. Right?

Discussion Question — Are we making big progress, here?

Law of Cause and Effect

But a skeptic like Jack won’t quit because he knows we’re headed toward God in this.

So he says, “Wait a minute, doesn’t the Law of Cause and Effect say everything must have a cause? Like this being that we’re talking about, here. What caused it?”

Now this is going to come up. We’ll answer it in a minute.


But first, it’s bad wording if someone says this to you — “everything must have a cause.” That’s not how this Law works.

Let’s understand this Law because it’s the most basic law to mankind. It applies in the physical world, in the personal world, finance world, most everywhere. It’s the most universal and most certain of all the laws that apply to any aspect of reality. Hence, it’s labeled as the universal law. And understand, when something is finally labeled a law, it has no exceptions.

Simply put, the Law of Cause and Effect states that — Every effect that begins must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. It says you cannot have a material effect without a proper cause. E.g., the dish did not fly off the table because you blew on it. It fell of the table because you hit it with your elbow. The Missouri River didn’t turn muddy because you stuck your foot in it.

We can look at it spiritually, too. It applies to the ultimate justice in the universe.

Galatians 6:7 — Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

This tells us that the Law of Cause and Effect is, in fact, one of the most important systems of morality for mankind. In fact, all science… history… law enforcement… finance… anything, would collapse if this law wasn’t true. It’s the supreme law among all of reality.

Now and then, you’ll run into someone who says, “I don’t believe in the Law of Cause and Effect.” Silence him with — “What caused you to come to that conclusion?” (A little wit doesn’t hurt at this point.)

You see, the best way to deal with skeptics is to startle them a little. And the best way to do that is with questions wherever possible. Deep, piercing questions . But do it with a smile. This is a key part of a tactical approach to defending the faith.

What Invented God?

So Jack-the-Skeptic, then says — “Wait a minute, not so fast; why does it have to be self-existent, then? Why does it have to be without origin, eternal in other words? Why couldn’t this “something” have been caused by some other super being?”

This comes up a fair amount and sounds reasonable on the surface. It’s often put in the form of — “Who created God?”


Now, you’ve got to have more to say than just “nobody.” Generally, that satisfies nobody. You’ll notice that when he tunes you out.

How about this response —

“Well now, Jack, you’ve gotten yourself into quite a mess? What created the super being you just brought up? And then, what created that one? See, what you’re now caught up in, Jack, is what’s called an infinite regression. You can go backwards with inquiries forever with no answer. That’s why it’s also called a nonsense situation, you see. And that’s just part of the problem.”

“Jack, let me tell you what else is wrong with that. Think about it. Each super being doesn’t go out of existence when it produces the next one in the series. So this infinite number of regressions would produce an infinite number of super beings out there. This is even more nonsense.”

And if that’s not enough for Jack, talk this out with him —

“Another aspect of your problem, Jack, is when that key Law of Cause and Effect comes into play. Remember this law says that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. (An “adequate cause,” by definition, must be greater than the effect it produced. E.g., if I only have 10 lb. of rubber, I can’t produce a 20-lb. rubber ball.)

Now, Jack, follow this carefully on that super-being regression we just went through —

If each event caused the next one, and that next one was less than the previous, what have you got after an infinite number of these steps?”

Discussion Question — What do you think?

By mathematical definition, you end up with a being with zero power, and it happened forever ago.

Discussion Question — And what would you have left, if you try to say this self-existent being is the universe?

You’d be left with a dead universe forever ago. And you and I aren’t here. So this is more nonsense.

All this is why that often-made comeback of — “Well, who made God, then?” is considered a nonsense inquiry. But it’ll come up, often. And your answer will help someone become a thinker.


So, in summery, there was never a time that a single, self-existent, eternal being did not exist. This being had to exist. Without that, there’d be no universe, no reality.

Putting that into a “one-sentence take-away” — A single, self-existent, eternal being had to exist over all time in order for any reality to exist, now.

Proving This Is God Of The Bible

And now for us, the only remaining step is proving this is the God of the Bible. And for this we have to go into personal characteristics of God. How were they eternal? Or did they came into being only at creation? This is coming up, shortly.

There Was Actually Nothing Here!

Let’s make sure a big point is getting across right. And I’m going to over-stress this because it’s at the core of arguments by skeptics.

As a reminder again, what is the answer to this question?

Discussion Question — If there was ever a time when there was nothing, absolutely nothing, what could there possibly be now?

Only nothing, unless there’s an external creator. Reason– because out of nothing, nothing can come unless it creates itself. And we showed that’s a rational impossibility.

Now science people are going to try to fool you with this. They’re going to say, in a clever way, that nothing actually is something. When I say “clever,” I mean clever to a fifth grader.

They’ll make the case that the universe was in a total chaos state that balanced out to zero, “nothing” in other words. They’ll also possibly say that “anything with no structure is a definition of nothing.”

But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything.” Nothing is not a type of something. It is not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.

And to Jack’s weird-o definition of “nothing,” say this to him —

“Jack, you’re nuts. You’re trying to say, if I have the same amount of assets and liabilities, my net is zero, and that means nothing exists for me? And besides that foolishness, a cause had to happen to create both


of those, didn’t it Jack? So there’s not “something from nothing, at all. There’s a cause and effect going on, here, Jack.”

Help Jack out on this. He needs it.

Are We “Over-killing”?

Now to the average person, it sounds like we’re over-killing this. Not to those hanging their hat on anti-God issues, though. The next day after hearing this, they’ll still be telling people that “something can come from nothing.” You see, they enshrine the words, “The universe came from nothing.”

You can’t stand quiet when a group is trying to put across such an absurd position. So don’t ever forget, they’ve redefined the word “something” to mean “nothing” in their distorted view.

So if Jack tells you the universe came from nothing. Just ask, “Define ‘nothing’ for me, please.” When Jack comes up short, help him out . . . with a smile.

Now don’t get the impression I’m an anti-science guy. I’ve got a science-based education. I just hate when science is being used against God.

Quantum/Multiverse Solutions From Cosmologists

Now, about today’s direction of how this “something” may suddenly come about. Jack may bring up the subject of quantum physics.

(Dictionary — Quantum physics is the body of principles that explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of subatomic particles.)

Don’t panic; he probably doesn’t know much about it.

Their empty claim is you can have something coming from nothing, the whole universe in fact. Multiple things can just suddenly pop into existence with no cause. In our focus, it proposes that an infinite number of universes already have popped into existence. But the only one we know of is the one we’re in, and it’s the only one we could ever know of.

How convenient!

Now understand, there is absolutely no experimental evidence, at any level, for this so-called multiverse concept. This is just the latest wingding.

So science can’t show us any such thing as something coming from nothing. It’s a bogus claim from all directions.


Should we be surprised? No! Realize that science speculates on things that are mysteries all the time. It’s always coming up with ideas on ways to not need a creator God. This is just the latest one. And it’ll keep doing that because that’s its religion.

But to argue for something from nothing is real stupidity. It’s not only not good theology and philosophy, it’s not good science either. Reason — it’s plain absurd. We showed that. Getting something from nothing is just a plain ole self-creation claim. Can’t happen on its own.

We’ll abuse this quantum and multiverse thing some more, later.

Where Are We, So Far

So far we have not yet demonstrated that it’s God we’re advancing. At this point we’re only arguing that there must be something that caused all this. Something that, within itself, has the power of self-existence, self-sufficiency, and eternality.

Reason demands the existence of this class of being. It’s necessary for everything else to exist, and that’s very important for a Christian who’s defending his faith.

Cosmologic Argument for the Existence of God

We should pause and take note of where we are in our argument for proving God exists since we’re closing in on it.

What we’ve been doing is proving out what’s called the “Cosmologic Argument for the Existence of God.” Arguments in this class begin from the existence of the universe.

All teaching you get on this subject will include this particular argument, early-on. It’s considered a sound argument, has wide appeal, and very high use. I believe, though, we’re doing it a lot clearer than you’ll study it elsewhere. We’ve had to take some detours to make it clearer but that’s good. The subject can get dicey at times. For all we do, here, the #1 of my objectives is — simplify, simplify, simplify.

It’s worth quickly going over the five steps in the logic sequence of the formal proof of this argument.


It concludes that an “uncaused causer,” God, is responsible for our creation. Now I believe that final step in this widely-used equation is not quite right, and I’ll comment there.

1— The universe has a beginning. — This position is okay because the physical evidence supports it.

2— Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else. — We know this from the Law of Cause and Effect.

3— Therefore, the universe must have a cause. — That certainly follows from the previous step.

4— This cause must be eternal and uncaused, i.e., self-existent. — If not, it too would have a cause, and then we are back where we started. This is about that infinite regression that we showed is absurd.

5— The cause is God.

I disagree with this conclusion in the last step. The equation doesn’t prove God of the Bible. It proves the cause was a creating mechanism that’s eternal self-existent, self-sufficient, all-powerful, super-naturally brilliant, and on.

It’s getting there, but God of the Bible is a ton more than that. What about holy, merciful, benevolent, grace, just, love, provider, comforter, goodness, sustainer, healer, etc.

So the conclusion fails, in a sense, because it’s incomplete if it’s applied to God of the Bible.

Rounding Out The Cosmologic Argument

With clear, simple steps, let’s now fix up the cosmological argument to show how this creator can have those kinds of personal characteristics.

First, let’s stop and note where we are in our society regarding these subjects.

The reason it’s important is because we’re defending against society’s positions. And you have to understand where society sits so you’re not caught off guard.

You see, the big guns against Christianity are focused almost exclusively on the idea of a creator with evolution as the alternative. Reason — If they can discredit the creation as put in Genesis 1 & 2, then the whole concept of God and the Bible collapses. And people would have no reason to listen to anything coming from Christianity. In fact, why would we, ourselves, believe


any of the Bible if Genesis 1 & 2 isn’t absolutely true? (I’ll show how it is in a later chapter.)

Now, there’s another area that’s almost an equal target for critics. It’s the subject of God being a cruel avenger and the producer of suffering. Critics point to the mass executions ordered by God in the OT, e.g. This is also a future chapter for us. Wait for it.

So our job is to turn these arguments around. Our job is to point out exactly how the critics are the ones irrational and absurd. Our job is to point out how reason demands there be a necessary being just as God is described. It’s straightforward, but we have to touch on a lot of subjects for understanding. Otherwise, you’d be presenting “swiss cheese” arguments.

I can’t stress how important it is for you to learn this. It’s easy. I’ve simplified it so you only need a zero level of science knowledge.


Claiming that this quantum stuff can cause a universe to pop into existence from nothing is sheer madness because this “nothing” that’s claimed is actually something. Plus, it’s also just a disguised description of self-creation which is proven to be impossible.

Neutralizing the Big Bang Concept

Now we have to spend some time on the big bang (BB) concept, not because its true but because it’s so widespread. Quite honestly, I’m really tired of hearing about it. It seems to be the first thing out of someone regarding creation.

The reason for our extra attention is — It’s the most prominent topic that creationism has to address at this time.

Discussion Question — When the word “creationism” is used, what’s meant?

Primarily that God did the entire creation as Genesis 1 & 2 says.

A better term that’s becoming popular is “biblical creation.” That nails down exactly what we’re talking about.


The Prominent Claim by the BB

One of the big claims that’ll come up is the BB caused the universe. That the BB is it’s creator, in effect. And remember, when we talk of the universe, that means all of reality.

First, a one-sentence overview of what the BB is — This concept proposes that there was a instantaneous, single event from which sprang all time… space… energy… matter… life. Everything in our universe evolved from that explosion-like event. And they then say — that’s all you need to know, folks; don’t question it, just believe.

This concept is the mainline thinking by a good deal of secular society. And, unfortunately, by too much of the religious world. They don’t know why.

It’s amazing to see Christian leaders accepting it. If you ever asked them why, most say something that translates to– “it’s popular.” Or possibly some other foolish reason that has little to do with actual truth.

What you’ll typically find is that these kinds of supporters claim that either the BB is the sole creator, or they try to fit it into Genesis 1 & 2.

If you run across someone like this, you could use a stopper like following — “Do you really believe that? Okay, so where’s all the anti-matter? I’m asking because there’s none to speak of in the universe.”

Right about then you’ll probably get a blank look.

Here’s some optional side information to back up that taunt — The concept behind the BB says that, whenever matter is created from energy, equal parts of matter and anti-matter must be produced. There are no exceptions.

Anti-matter is like “regular” matter except with an opposite charge.

Here’s a little more help — If you’ve got 10 pluses, you need to have 10 minuses for everything to balance which it must do.

Then flip this into the conversation after that blank look. — “You know, Jack, the BB expansion requires equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. So where is it?”

Here’s some more conversation filler for you — “Actually, Jack, the universe was uniquely created to have very little anti-matter. And it’s a good thing it was. You know, of course, that matter and antimatter violently destroy each other when they come together. Life would be impossible as a result. So let me tell you what’s really going on, here.”

You’re taking control of the discussion at this point.


This is just a little tactic to get the ball rolling in the right direction. Create some heat, as they say.

Does The Big Bang Follow The Bible?

Now, start your thinking about this BB with the fact that it’s very unbiblical.

But BB supporters will immediately then say — “No, no; this event is, in fact, that moment of creation that you think is the one in that Book of Genesis.”

Then you’ll, of course, offer this — “Well, if that’s true, then, wouldn’t the Bible speak in language consistent with that concept?” It doesn’t, and we’ll show the details in a chapter that goes deep into Genesis 1 & 2.

And make sure you add, “Hey Jack, what about that anti-matter question I posed?” Wait for him to finally say he doesn’t know.

Actually, most in the know concur there’s no agreement between BB science and the Bible. You don’t get much argument about that from veterans from either side. You’ll get it from novices, though.

Is The Big Bang Scientifically Sound?

Keep in mind that the BB is absolutely not a law of science. So don’t even hint at acknowledging that. The fact that it’s labeled a “theory” is even unwarranted. It really should be labeled a “belief.” That would have a nice ring to it, the “BBB.”

Based on that, here’s something you can also flip into the conversation when appropriate. I’m adding this, here, in case someone wants more ammo. This works as soon as the BB is called a “theory.”

Just say —

“Jack, why do you call it a theory?”

It’s so weak it’s actually more of a concept than anything.

You’d hardly recognize the details compared to when it was first brought up in 1940s.

It was devised largely to explain how the universe could have been created without God.

Alterations are going on continuously.


It keeps needing continuous patching to agree with new observations, the real stuff.”

Here’s an example that you can use with Jack of how dumb it is. It was found that the equations describing it just didn’t work. So scientists invented a number to make them work and called it “dark matter and energy.” It’s sure a fitting label because it’s never been sensed in space. Nobody knows what it is. It’s just numbers that were needed to make the equations work out.

Let me tell you how ridiculous this “dark matter/energy” is. This accounts for 96% of all matter/energy in these equations. So 96% of the content of the equations that defines the BB is junk, basically. Whether you call it “unknown substance” or “junk,” it’s the same. And, by the way, there’s plenty more fudge factors added to make it appear okay.

Just this year, new discoveries are calling the whole concept into question. So many scientists are now saying, “Hey, we need a new concept.” Either that, or put a real big patch on this BB concept and put it on life support.

Now keep in mind that this is the primo theory of the scientific community. And it has all the signs of a dismal failure at this point.

But on the positive side, you should recall Gilligan’s Rule — Nothing is ever a complete failure; it can always serve as a bad example.

The “Big Bang” Is A Giant Leap Of Faith

Christians talk about leaps-of-faith in believing in God. When we get through, here, you’ll agree that leap is zero.

BB supporters, though, have a giant leap in their field. They’re forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real, observed science. As a result, a surprising number of solid, non-Christian scientists express severe doubts about the BB concept.

There’s a meaningful amount of real fiction going on with it. The average person doesn’t see it. So he thinks, “Well, this is just the way it is.” That is, until you start peeling back the roof. It’s a stretch to even classify it as a theory, as said. It’s an ongoing concept more than anything .

Bottom line is that the BB will remain a faith-based construct more than anything else. It has produced zero predictions that have been validated by observation. That’s why so many scientists raise serious questions about its validity. A replacement idea is badly needed by science.


It’s actually surprising the BB is the only model physicists take seriously. Know why? There’s lots of talk that the BB scientific community actively suppresses alternatives. This has actually been observed, and complaints have been raised. And they are not directed at biblical models; it’s directed at the science community’s alternative models to the BB. So that may be the reason it’s the only one on the table.

BB Support In Christian Churches

This whole thing about BB support in Christian churches is puzzling. How can these folks act so sure that God used the BB to create when there’s even so many doubts about its survival in the first place. Never mind the fact that it’s totally unscriptural!

Here’s what’s really bothersome about this attitude — People just don’t bother to go find out truth for themselves. So they just end up teaching lies.

Now don’t lose sight of the fact that the BB is, in fact, an alternative to the Bible. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise. This BB model teaches it was created as a molten blob. Nobody can deny that’s an alternative plan right out of the gate.

Wacky Birthing Of The BB

Here’s an overview of this BB; something you should know.

And keep in mind this is put across as the birth of everything; that everything evolved from that point forward.

Now I know there’s two explanations of the BB. I’ll cover the one most have heard. And after that, just define the second.

It’s proposed that about 14B yrs ago there was this little point in space. All of the current universe was compressed into that little thing. It was all energy. Matter (stuff) didn’t exist, yet. And by a little point in space, they mean something like a mile wide, probably less. Some put it at the size of a sub-atomic particle, some a soft ball. Whatever it is; relative to the size of the universe, it was a tiny dot.

Here’s the big question to ask Jack right off — “Hey, where did that little thing come from; and then I have a bunch more questions , so don’t go away? Other questions like — And where did the space it’s in, come from?” Wait for a response.


Discussion Question — How do you suppose Jack would answer?

Here’s the choice of answers you could get from Jack for these issues —

1— It all created itself.

2— It was always there, i.e. forever there.

3— It doesn’t matter.

4— I don’t know.

Let’s cover each one in our usual 30-second round. Ha.

First — It created itself.

Remember these three points as your response — “But things don’t create themselves. We just showed that to be a rational absurdity. Again, it would have had to already exist so it could do the creation of itself.”

Now Jack might disguise it with — “It just naturally came about.” That’s just self-creation in flowery language. Tell Jack — “Natural forces cannot exist until a universe exists. The effect cannot come before the cause. That’s a big law, you know, Jack.”

Second possible response — It was there forever.

How about this response — “The Second Law of Thermodynamics says this point of energy would be “out of gas” forever ago. You do recollect that law of science, don’t you, Jack?” So, there’s ‘no sale’ on this try. We’ve covered this one before.

Third — It doesn’t matter; we don’t have to answer that.

Now this calls for a very polite tirade by you. “Wait a minute, here. They’re trying to give an explanation for all of reality? Then why don’t they answer the basic question of what caused it? Scientific theories are absolutely concerned with matters of causality. Now Jack, doesn’t this make you wonder if there’s anything to it at all?”

Now if you don’t remember all this, just say — “This is the biggest question of causality there is! What a cop-out to say, ‘I’m not going there.’”

So, if you get that one; pounce on it.

Fourth possible response — I don’t know.

This last one is Jack’s only possible truth. Outline to him why self-creation and forever-there are not possible. Don’t make it too complicated.


And then ask him a simple question, “But how about the solution of a super-powerful something that made it?” A “maybe” response gives you an opening. Elaborate on it, OR “here, read this” OR get his email so you can follow up.

You see, when you back a critic like Jack into a corner, he’s only got five answers — These four and God. And the first four can quickly lead to God.

Why Did The BB Even Happen?

Next in the BB scenario is a real head-scratcher for Jack. It’s that this point of energy exploded out for some unknown reason. And out of that, it’s said came the formation of the material universe as we know it today.

It’s expanding and moving from its original state of a “tight ball of energy” to eventual heat death. In effect, it’s unwinding like a clock does. That’s what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it has to be doing. It means the universe is wearing down and will die out at some time, not soon so don’t fret.

That’s why it cannot be self-existent and eternal. It’s dying out! Eternal things don’t die out!

Here’s the next questions for Jack —

“How did it became organized in the first place?

“Why was it in such a highly compressed state?

“Why did it suddenly start expanding, i.e. exploding out?”

By the way, here’s science’s answer to all that — Nobody knows; guesses only please. Try and get him to agree with that truth. The deficiency of his position will be real obvious, then. It’ll give you an edge in bringing truth to him.

Here’s a by-the-way question to ask if things get quiet — “The BB scenario requires near-infinite energy at that beginning. Where did this energy come from, Jack? Did it also create that, itself?”

Note that this is a “set up question.”

The fact is, no one really knows where the BB came from. Nobody has the foggiest idea what was going on the “Monday” before the BB.

Why All These Questions?

Here’s what you’re doing in all these questions —


! You’re showing Jack that evolution’s position makes no sense for the existence of the universe, earth, you.

! You’re setting up to show that Christian theism is a much more satisfying answer.

In all this we’re taking every opportunity to jab naturalists with reality. We plant seeds of doubt in their minds. You want them thinking of you every time they hear the word Darwin or Hawking or big bang or something.

And yes, I know we’re also taking care of your own questions , too.

Sidebar —

This is for those who would like a fuller emersion into this quantum stuff. It’s one more thing that’s likely to come into your conversations. Today’s popular view Is that the beginning of the BB was a “quantum fluctuation,” sort of like a “blip on the radar screen.” This is the second time we’re hitting on this but with few more facts to help nail its supporters.

Supporters say this answers the question of — How did nothing become something, and then produce a universe?

Here’s a quick definition that’ll help — Quantum physics is the principle that explains the interaction of energy with matter at the subatomic level. (Subatomic means stuff smaller than atoms.) So it’s just a fancy concept about matter and energy interacting.

Here’s what’s key. People use testimonials as expert proof that something can come from nothing. One that I ran into is from noted physicist, Paul Davies. They’ll often quote him as a proof thusly — “without specific causation … the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.”

The problem with this is that one page earlier, he said this is not actually true. Supporters gloss over that because they don’t want their case destroyed. So, in general, their claim is just a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics.

Seems that supporters fib a lot as cover.

End Sidebar


What Does Quantum Mechanics Produce?

Here’s the fact — quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Neither can anything else except for a self-existent, eternal being, as we’ve shown.

Don’t get caught flat-footed on this. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It’s as much sci-fi as anything done in Hollywood.

Here’s How Scientists Are Smokin’ You

We mentioned this before but it’s worth adding another poke for emphasis.

They’re slyly redefining what the word “nothing” means, and yes I know I’ve hit on this before but it’s very important. They’re saying the vacuum that’s needed (space) for quantum stuff to happen is a “nothing.” Well it’s a “something” because it has properties, it fluctuates, and it’s definable by equations. Equations describe properties or actions, and thus are describing something.

There are no equations needed for describing not-anything. If you wanted an equation for it, you’d put a big zero on the board. That’s the equation for nothing.

This Is A Reality Situation For You

Lets say you run across someone making a contrary case, and he mentions those in-your-face words, “quantum / multiverse.”

Realize it’s probably meant to show off that he knows lots more than you. After these lessons, he probably doesn’t.

Here’s a good response in three questions to him —

“Well if there’s no cause, why did our particular universe appear? This belief of yours is supposedly able to produce anything! So why did this universe appear and not, say, a lemon? Look, Jack, this is just that same ‘ole claim of self-creation, isn’t it?”

If you only recollect one, make it the second one — “And why did this universe appear and not, say, a lemon?” Understand, that’s what they say this quantum stuff does. Things just pop in and out of reality, and there’s no way to tell what they’ll be. It might as well be a lemon since there’s no reason why not. To me,


this sounds more like a Dr. Seuss book for kiddies than anything. In fact, it’s a good idea for that.

Adding To “Quantum”

We also covered the following about quantum in the last lesson but it fits to add some to it.

Keep in mind what Stephen Hawking said about his proposal of it — It’s so astounding that nobody can ever prove it. Repeating how I tagged it, before — “Well how convenient!” Let’s now add, “It’s just self-creation with lipstick on it.” We kill it in any form.

Here’s a good comment from someone to keep in mind about this whole BB thing —

Their strategy does NOT consist of replacing a theory that’s wrong, with one that’s right. It seems their progress consists of replacing a theory that’s wrong, with one that’s more subtly wrong.

That’s what we have going on, here. You’re going to see desperate tactics by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion.

One-sentence Take-away For This Subject

Too many scientists are now saying that a replacement to the big bang concept is needed since it has so many technical deficiencies.

17 Knock-offs For Why The Big Bang Is Nonsense

Let’s understand how damaging and unscriptural this BB is, so you don’t fall for it.

1— Too many religious workers automatically put the BB on a pedestal. Their reasoning is thinking it can imply biblical truth because it speaks of “a beginning” of sorts. They think that anything masquerading as “a beginning” is a winner.

But what they’re directly violating is 2 Peter 1:20.

2 Peter 1:20 — knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.


2— Genesis Chapter One teaches that the creation was done by a command from God. That it was not done by a natural process like the BB.

The BB teaches a naturalistic process taking billions of years. The Genesis creation is six literal days per Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17. And keep in mind that we’ll cover how the word “day” in Hebrew means 24 hours. That naturalistic process and God’s word are not equivalent.

I get mad when I hear Christians call God a liar about this issue. Here we have a direct quote from God in Exodus 31:17 about this. He was comparing Genesis’ days directly to the Jew’s normal work week including a Sabbath day. And Christians ignore it like it’s not even there!

Exodus 31:17 — It is a sign forever between Me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed [abstained from work].

Challenge people with this, along with everything else we’ve covered. God did not say He created in six eons of time. That would require a whole different Hebrew word!

Discussion Question — If God took six whole days to create, does it show He’s actually not so powerful?

No.

Discussion Question — Why the six days, then?

The six days was formulated as a lesson to emphasize and define the Jews’ work week followed by a day of rest.

Discussion Question — How long could it have taken God to do the creation?

Instantaneously, from our perspective.

On that, think about this question — Could God have created it sooner than that? It’s actually a hard question. Answer — He did create it sooner than “instantly”.

Think about that; it’s not a mis-speak. I’ll explain this in a later chapter.

3— The creation sequence is very different between the BB and Genesis. E.g., the BB claims the sun existed long before the earth. Whereas Genesis says the earth was formed before the sun.

4— If you believe in the BB, a natural consequence is to believe in evolution, in general.


It means you believe in the evolution of man from pond slime. Then, the reality of Adam being the first man is out the window. So the whole NT is also out the window because it referenced him as such in many places.

5— It’s claimed the word “day” in Genesis 1 can mean 500 million years to accommodate the BB.

Pure boloney! There’s no way that can be read into the text. It’s just pure fantasy. Wherever the Hebrew word “yom” is used in the Bible for a time period, it’s clearly for 24 hours. (It’s the word used in Genesis for one day.)

6— Genesis says God created the world as “good.”

It therefore makes no sense to understand Genesis as a parable of evolution. Evolution majors in cruelty. Evolution majors in the death of millions of animals over long periods of time. It even says it included some that were supposedly turning human.

So ask yourself — “How is this good, or was God lying.”

7— The Bible doesn’t make sense without the creation story, as is.

There had to be a “good” earth for there to be a Fall into sin by man. There had to be a “good” earth with a sinless man and woman on it to begin with.

8— If you want to believe in the BB, cut Noah and his episode out of the Bible. As a matter of fact, you need to cut out Chapters 1-11 of the Book of Genesis.

Discussion Question — Why would we have to do that?

For one, you can no longer have the present geology of Earth be due to a flood. The BB demands it be due to 4B yrs of evolution.

Plus, you’d have to call Jesus a liar since He referenced Noah and the Flood. That means you better also cut the whole NT out of the Bible. Reason — You could no longer believe what Jesus said.

9— How about this terrible contradiction that the BB demands we accept — The Bible rightly teaches that the power of God is infinite. The BB, however, makes you say this — “In the past, He was so weak He had use a creation process that took billions of years.”

Do you see how dumb that position is? It doesn’t correlate with this self-existent, eternal being’s never-changing ability. We concluded earlier, it has to be a fixed nature. And Hebrews 13:8 confirms it with Jesus Christ, the Creator, being “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Whatever God is today, He was forever into the past.


10— Evolution theory demands that everything has to be getting better, evolving. This is dumb. Just look around you, and you see decay just like the Bible says. Advise Jack on this — “Take away technological advancement and tell me what you see out there.” By the way, that Second Law of Thermodynamics says everything is decaying.

So why do evolutionists push so hard on something like the BB happening 14B years ago? They need to use time as the operator that fostered evolution. Time is actually the only “cause” they can point to for evolution.

We’ll be putting the evolution issue into its final resting place in a future section.

Discussion Question — For review — Can time be a causing agent?

No; we covered that in detail, and may again. We proved earlier that time is just a measurement, and not a substance. Measurements don’t cause things. So e.g., they need the time as that bogus reason for millions of mutations to produce new characteristics in animals. They actually don’t have anything else except faith to fall back on.

11— The NT confirms that the creation account in Genesis literally took place.

Jesus talks of man and woman and husbands and wives existing “from the beginning of creation” in Mark 10:6.

Mark 10:6 — But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

12— It’s obvious that the words are used in precisely the same way we use them today. There’s just nothing in the words to indicate other than what they say.

13— The expressions in Genesis for first day, second day, third day, etc., is commonly used for consecutive 24-hour periods. It’s precisely the same wording used elsewhere, e.g. in Numbers 7:12-78.

14— As covered previously, the word “day” in Genesis 1 cannot be symbolic for millions of years. Wherever the Hebrew word “yom” is used for a time period, it’s clearly for 24 hours. It’s the same word used in Exodus 20:11 where the creation is confirmed to be six days.

Exodus 20:11 — For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

15— There’s not millions of years between those 24-hr days as these critics will also allege. It’s obvious that “day” is not being used in some extraordinary


sense. There’s no way that can be read into the text. If someone says different, then what would “year” mean in Gen 1:14?

Genesis 1:14 — And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,”

They wouldn’t have an answer for that.

16— Days of creation in Genesis are divided by alternating light and darkness. If someone is claiming that a day was millions of years, the plants in “day 3” would all die due to the millions of years of darkness until “day 4.”

17— Plants of “day 3” would die due to no pollination. Insects didn’t arrive until “day 5.” Supposedly 100 million or so years later.

One-sentence Take-away —

There’s at least 17 big reasons why the Big Bang concept is very unscriptural and very wrong; so if you are going to support it, throw out the Bible. (There’s many more than 17; 100s have been produced.)

Accusation That Creation in Genesis Is Symbolism

(I’ll also be addressing this in more detail in the chapter proving that the Bible is literally God’s word to mankind.)

Okay, this subject can go on and on but we’re here to answer all the questions, so we go on!

Here’s one you had and a big one you’ll often hear, even in Christian circles here and there — “Genesis 1 and 2 is a metaphor, symbolism. Therefore, it’s not to be taken literally! Creation has to be something like the big bang.”

Don’t let anyone get away with this. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest anything in Genesis is not literally what God meant to be written. It discredits the whole Bible whenever this is taught.

Now this drumbeat of Genesis being symbolism may increase. That’s why we should have a basic understanding of Bible text that’s literal versus text that’s figurative. You’re going to have to address it sooner or later with someone so we need a short side trip, here. (Wayne Jackson at christiancourier.com did a nice, concise job of addressing this issue, and a good reference, here on for this.) Also, know that this is not the only text were you’ll have to defend this


charge. It’s throughout the Bible. This is also an important subject relative to your own understanding of the Bible, as you’ve noted.

What Is Figurative Speech?

Now figurative speech is wording that’s not it’s natural meaning.

First, an example of figurative speech, and let’s use Jesus’ “Sermon On The Mount” for it.

Matthew 6:3 — But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

Don’t be a show-off about it, in other words.

What’s the purpose of figurative speech, aka symbolic language? It’s purpose is to intensify the idea being conveyed.

Discussion Question — Why have symbolic language intensifying a point?

It makes a point more memorable or stresses its importance. It could be positive or negative, higher or lower, bigger or smaller. It’s whatever the author desires as long as the context is evident.

Some Rules For Interpretation

Here’s three basic rules to help in interpretation.

Rule #1— Interpret words as their literal meaning unless the sense implies something impossible. E.g., symbolism in John 21:25 says the quantity of Jesus’ deeds would not fit in all the books in the world. This is impossible to be true, of course. It’s hyperbole! Hyperbole is exaggeration for an effect and is used all the time.

Discussion Question — To our subject, is it possible for the creator that we’ve proven so far, to create in six days?

Yes! We’ve proven the cause of the universe was a creating mechanism that is eternal, self-existent; all-powerful, and supernaturally intelligent. Those qualify as sufficient. Therefore this Rule #1 says that Gen 1-2 is literal and not symbolic.

Rule #2— Interpret words as their literal meaning unless it produces a contradiction. Keep in mind there are no contradictions in the Bible. There


may be paradoxes that need to be solved, but no contradictions. (A paradox is something that seems contradictory but proves out after examination.)

Discussion Question — To our subject, are there paradoxes out there that seem to be actual contradictions?

Yes; earth became what it is, now, in either six days or 4B years. That seems like a contradiction. It’s one or the other. We’re proving, here, it’s actually a paradox, though.

Nowhere at all is it well proven that the universe is 14B yrs old and earth, 4B. Therefore this Rule #2 says that Gen 1-2 is literal until proven otherwise. And it’s not proven otherwise!

Rule #3— Interpret words as their literal meaning unless it’s an absurdity.

Probably the biggest example is the Book of Revelation. If you take that book literally, there’ll be a ton of absurdities.

But keep in mind, we’re told right off in Revelation 1:1 how to interpret this book

It begins with the notation that Jesus “signified” the message (ASV Bible plus others) via His messenger. The Greek word used for “signify” is semaino which, in the Greek, meant “to show by a sign, signify, make known.”

Yet people pull out phrases that are in the midst of figurative language and say, “Oh, this particular phrase is literal, never mind the rest.”

You can’t do this in proper interpretation. But understand that many who do this, have to do it to support their own theological bias.

So, a literal Genesis 1-2 would be an absurdity if the universe’s age of 14B years actually was true. And that’s 14B years by earth-based clocks, which we’ll address later. It’s never been true, and never will be.

To our subject then, is six days of creation an absurdity? Not for an eternal, self-existent, all-powerful, and superbly intelligent being.

Funeral For Symbolism

Okay, let’s have a final funeral for Genesis 1-2 being symbolism.

We might start by asking Jack some things about those two chapters —

“Is the reference to God a symbol? If so, what is it symbolizing?

Are ‘heavens’ and ‘earth’ literal or figurative? Representing what if they’re figurative?


How about ‘waters of the deep?’ Is that liquid water or some secret substance?

So Jack, if it’s all symbolism, what do these represent in that Genesis chapter — earth… sea… trees… stars… birds. What are they figurative for?

Speak up, now.”

Then second, if that’s not enough, go through those definitions of figurative versus literal with him.

And third tell him most all OT scholars say it’s straight-forward history and not symbolism. They point out that the recognizable traits of Hebrew poetry are just not there. So a critic can’t back up this claim unless a bunch of new experts popped into existence, somehow. Jack’s claim is baseless!

Bottom Line — Genesis 1-2 stands as well proven to be literally what it says.

The Starlight Problem For Everyone

Now we still have one more to cover regarding a literal six days of creation.

It’s a little dicey to cover. There’s no answer to it for anyone, yet, but most don’t know that. You need to know how to handle it since it’s usually brought up. It’s in an intriguing area by the way.

The Scene Set-up For Starlight

Here’s the scene set-up, along with a question for you.

The critic, Jack, says with a smirk — “You guys are nuts to think the universe is only 6000 years old! You wouldn’t see most stars for a “million years” if true.”

Discussion Question — What’s the core issue, here?

Light takes time to go between two points. It’s a wave, like a water wave moving across the ocean but faster, of course. You can watch a wave of light the same way. E.g., it takes eight minutes for light to cover the 93M miles from the sun to here.

When the sun comes up over the horizon, you’re first seeing it eight minutes after it actually arose.

Now multiply that distance to 26 trillion miles for the nearest star. It takes 4.3 years for light to get here from there. Light from the furthest


star we can sense takes 13 billion years to get here. But it’s here now, and that’s the issue.

Our critic, Jack, then says — “So when all the stars were made in the fourth day of the Genesis account, Adam should not have been able to see the nearest star for another 4.3 years. And furthermore, today we can sense the furthest star even though it should take 13B years for its signal to get here. And creation is only 6000-7000 years ago. What’s going on, here?”

Well, the time for light travel is the problem. As is, it takes too long to reach earth to fit with when creation actually occurred. So how do you answer this critic? On the surface, it looks like he’s nailed you with this. What do you do when Jack brings this up?

Look him in the eye and firmly say — “You ‘big bangers’ have a same kind of problem with light speed. Both models need a much, much faster speed of light. Of course, the creation model seems to need light from the stars in a few days. Maybe you heard, Jack, this is kind of the same problem for the big bang. — There has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. It’s the only way the very-uniform, current temperature in the universe could have been produced. It needs a much faster speed of light, too. Now there is meaningful work going on in this area to understand it.”

If you don’t remember all that, just say — “The BB universe needs a much faster speed of light, too. Go look up how its being worked on before you shoot arrows. And so far, the science is showing that the speed of light has been relatively constant, so there’s much work needed in this area. But then again, it depends on where you are when you’re talking about periods of time.”

(We’ll be addressing this more in the future.)


It’s inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light travel time as an argument against biblical creation because their own notion has the same problem.

Sidebar

This Light & Time Problem


Very briefly, this is the “work-in-progress” on this light and time problem that we started. It’s quite fascinating.

The productive work is in a spooky area called “time dilation.” Time dilation means to stretch out time. Using today’s sci-fi language, you’d call it “time warp.” So the research question, here, is — can this actually happen and how does it?

What needs to be proven for a six-day creation is — A clock on Earth ticks off 24 hours. But in that same period, out in the universe, “millions” of years pass. That’s how light from stars appears to get here real quick, from Earth’s perspective.

Now don’t trash this as real imaginary stuff.

It’s important to realize Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says time is not consistent. Time warps, it says. And it’s been demonstrated many times in basic forms. Clocks run at slightly different speeds depending on where they are.

Discussion Question — E.g., tell me if this confirms it? — The length of a minute depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on.

Okay, okay; so the question then becomes, or maybe then becomes — God made everything in six days. But six days as measured by which clocks? Here, of course, but not everywhere else for sure. The thinking on this is early but is moving along. It’s been seriously going on since the 1990s, maybe earlier. The analytical work is starting to make sense for days passing here and long times in what we call “outer space.” That’s very long times, like a day here and billions of years at the edge of the universe. That means having the starlight we’re seeing now being the real starlight.

It’ll take quite awhile for this to get sorted out. Hard to tell how it will. There’s lots of stakes in the ground on this.

One more thing. You often hear talk of something being so many “light-years” away from us. Understand that this is a measurement of distance, not time. This may help your thinking.

So time warps in weird ways, you see. Stay tuned, we will be covering this in greater detail last Sunday.

End Sidebar

A Tempting Argument To Avoid


Here’s a tempting argument about this that you should not use. — “God made everything in a mature state in six days, including interstellar light.”

Here’s how this gets you into hot water. All starlight takes a long time to get to Earth. The further stars are so far away that we should never get to see their light. Yet we do.

Don’t claim the following is the answer — Therefore God produced counterfeit starlight so Adam could see stars.

If that were so, what about today’s instruments that decipher light from far-away stars? You’d have to allege that God counterfeits that information content, too. Reason — Because that light would not have actually got here, yet.

And why stop there? Why not fictionalize everything so it appears “old” even though it’s not?

This is not what God is like. It’s not in Him to deceive. This solution doesn’t represent God’s nature.

Now you may think this is also a problem with the biologic and geologic structures on Earth. Why do things appear older than 6000-7000 years? It’s all well clarified. We’ll cover that more than we already have in another segment on creation versus evolution.

Here’s a teaser to think about until we get there. There’s a big difference between being created “mature” and created “old.”

Here’s another teaser for that coming segment — Did you know you can naturally make oil from vegetation in six weeks, only by using pressure?

Closing Down Jack

We need to understand how very little is yet known about a lot of these major issues we’ve covered.

Most physicists really do understand how complex cosmic science is. But it doesn’t slow them down from fantasizing new solutions. That being the case, people need to be aware just how abstract and shaky the findings of modern cosmology really are.

Now, you have to say something to Jack on all this so he leaves with truth in his pocket. So, to a dissatisfied Christian or yourself; maybe it’s this? —

“Jack, what are you going to say when you stand before God? Are you going to say — ‘I just couldn’t believe Your words about origins?’ You


know, Jack, we have pinhead intelligence compared to God. So are you going to drift from truth, here, just because you couldn’t figure things out? Like how God managed to pull off the trick of making a universe that was both very young and very big? Are you going to tell God that’s too hard for Him? What do you think, Jack? What are you going to say?”

Get him thinking about eternity and destiny. Keep it in mind for yourself, too.

Personal Attributes Prove God

Now so far, we’ve addressed absolute proofs.

But we have to prove this creator had “personal” attributes for all this to make sense. The reason is that they’re paramount in the God we find in the Bible. Without personhood, this creator could have any kind of temperament.

Last Step Toward Proving God Of The Bible

Now we’ve come a long, long way with this. We’ve nailed down the absolute characteristics needed to qualify for being God.

Remember, those are the ones that belong to His nature independent of his connection with us, His creation. In other words, they belong to Him no matter what or when.

Keep in mind God has two classes of attributes. Those, and what we need to cover, now. So let’s now take the last step toward God of the Bible.

The remaining class of characteristics is personal attributes like feelings, love, will, mercy, etc. These are the ones mostly involved in God’s direct relation with the creation. They’re exercised as a result of the existence of the universe and man. We have to show those pre-existed within this self-existent being. And as soon as we do, then it truly is the God we know .

But, if these are not within His eternal nature, we’re in trouble proving this is God, here.

Now we don’t have to prove all of them. We could, but after a few, you’d be fully persuaded. (There’s so many!) So the key question is — What are some of the more important ones that we want to spend time on?

Those more important ones that define personhood are —

! Volition — the power of using one’s will; making decisions, e.g.


! Self-consciousness — knowledge of one’s own existence.

! Rationality — Able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically.

Proof of Personhood Using The Law Of Cause & Effect

Now we could immediately use the Law of Cause and Effect and conclude this whole matter real quick.

But folks usually want more than a “one-line” proof even if it’s fully valid. But let’s go through it, anyway, in 10-second style.

Now, if the creative cause is impersonal, it would be without standards, without purpose, and meaningless. But how could something like that create beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? That would mean the created was greater than the creator! That violates the Law of Cause and Effect which says the cause must be greater than the effect. So, as a conclusion, the creator has to be greater than the created. Therefore since the created has personhood, this creator must also have it.

Done!

Another Quickly Concluded Proof– Creation

Now, it’s also reasonable to outright conclude that the creator was personal based solely on the creation act. It’s not hard to conclude this.

Discussion Question — If we say that He created the universe, what single characteristic does this obviously imply?

You can tell by the verb, itself. He must be creative! This kind of mind is a requirement of personhood. The moment He designs something, He’s committed a personal act.

Then other qualities get added to the mix, like —

! A purposeful intention to create,

! A plan to do it,

! Knowledge of how to create,

! And the ability to actually bring this knowledge and intention to conclusion.


So it’s rather odd to call a being with all these properties anything less than personal.

But let’s confirm at least one of those key natures we listed. We’d bog down, time wise, if we took on more.

Key Natures Of Personhood– Volition

So, as just listed let’s look at volition, the power of using one’s will such as in the process of making and acting on decisions or the act of forming a purpose. This is one of the most important factors you would use in proving God. It’s a wide characteristic that takes in many others.

Working through this will also show some of the thinking you have to go through on all of them. Keep in mind you have to be convincing to yourself and others. It’s not something to slide over lightly.

So here we go. Now God’s decision to create the universe would be due to one of two possible motivations. If it’s not one, it must be the other.

Here’s the first one of the two motivations, the one that it’s not. If it was done by an impersonal being, it would be like a reflex action, an automatic action; something like an instinctive response.

Why this doesn’t work (#1 of 3) — It could not result in a creative action because there’s nothing there to stimulate one. There’s no cause. After all, this is taking place in a pre-creation domain where there’s no reality as we know it. Since God is infinite, He needs nothing but Himself. Instinctive responses require an external stimulus. If there’s no reality in the sense of something outside of God, there’s no possibility of an external stimulus. So any stimulus would have to be internal, self caused in other words.

Still another reason why it doesn’t work (#2 of 3) — An impersonal force has no ability, in the form of inclination, to make a choice. Making choices is contradictory to being “impersonal.”

Here’s still another reason why it doesn’t work (#3 of 3) — The minute an impersonal force begins to exist, its effect is experienced. E.g., take the impersonal force of gravity. As soon as the conditions for gravity were created, it was felt; it was effective. In other words, under this choice, as soon as an impersonal creator exists, some sort of universe has to then exist, or alternatively, no universe occurs. Therefore an occurring universe would be as old as its creator, making it eternally old since it’s done by an eternal being. As covered before, the result is a universe out of gas, forever ago. A dead


universe in other words. It’s due to that Second Law of Thermodynamics. Remember, a system has only a defined amount of energy and organization, and those are lost over time. Forever ago is plenty of time to run out of energy.

So it has to be the second choice.

Now For The Second Choice

There had to be a decision to make something exist. This showed the presence of will. “Will” refers to the property of a mind regarding acts intentionally committed. A will is the effect of conscious choice, decision making, intention, desire or purpose.

This is the only way an unchanging state can change. An agent with a will and mind chooses to step up and begin the process.

It’s important that you see something, here. This characteristic is not figured from theology, from the Bible. It’s drawn from the proofs we’ve gone through, reasoning it all out. In other words, proving God without using the Bible.

And as a bonus, this also helps prove the characteristics of consciousness and rationality. Those had to be present for what we just described.

Good God Versus Bad God

Let’s add a note about this ability of will that we covered.

It is not telling us if His “will” is rightly motivated, or is not.

This creator we’ve proven could actually be evil. Keep in mind we can’t go by the Bible yet because we haven’t proven it yet. Just because he created something doesn’t mean He’s good. And many will argue that point as valid. They’ll argue that based on what they see in the world, now, which is pretty bad.

So here’s the dilemma to solve — If God were unlimited in power but with no goodness, would we have a horrible universe?

Could He Have Created Just For Amusement?

Maybe he just wanted a bunch of pet-like beings. Now you and I can’t conceive of these but others can like critics with a mean streak.

So, to eliminate that path, we go to a familiar trait, and that’s “love.”


From 1 John 4:8 we get that “God is love.” But how do we know this was a godly trait before creation? Jesus told us in His prayer to the Father.

John 17:24b — … You [the Father] loved Me [the Son] before the foundation of the world.

This makes God’s residence a place of love and joy. So it’s a characteristic of the creator from all eternity.

Now you’re right in saying — “No fair using the Bible, you haven’t proven it’s God’s wording, yet.” So what that I’m jumping ahead a little! If that bothers you, wait for that later chapter for proof that the Bible is God’s literal wording. It really shouldn’t bother you, though, enough of the basics behind that proof are here.

Actually, you can just look at what our reality is, today, and the question is answered. The answer is, of course, that our reality looks to be done specifically for our enjoyment compared to other species.

Proof Of God From Morality

Anyway, if you wanted to avoid referencing anything from the Bible until later, we could also do it using what’s called “the Proof of God from Morality”. This is the one that also takes care of showing that God would not be a tyrant creator.

It’s firstly a proof of the existence of God without using the Bible, and well known by most. And from there, we can put points together ending with the goodness of God. But I’ll be merciful and not go through that whole process, now. Let’s just document the three steps in the proof because that does the job well enough.

But first let’s define objective moral values, aka absolute moral values — It’s that something is right or wrong independent of whether anybody believes it to be so.

The three steps in the proof are —

! If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

! Objective moral values do exist.

! Therefore, God exists.

That’s just the launch point. It’s a 100% solid proof, logically, but we typically want more explanation of things.


Here’s a quick way to wrap it up.

Discussion Question — If there are no absolute morals and values in place, can a decision be considered just?

The answer is “yes.” But only if the decision could be right by mistake. In this case, what’s “just” could merely be the popular opinion or the Government’s opinion.

But generally, it’s “no.” Without absolute morals and values in place, no decision can be considered just. Reason — No absolute standard for “just” is in place. Therefore God exists and absolute moral values exist.

Self-consciousness / Self-awareness

How about the second characteristic we listed — self-consciousness, self-awareness.

Not only is God capable of conscious, rational thought, but He’s also thoroughly self-aware. We concluded this was a necessary characteristic for personhood. Here’s four points backing this up, and we may be getting somewhat ahead of ourselves in the referencing used.

Firstly, there are many indications of this in the Bible. God reveals His name many times. (Exodus 3:14, Genesis 17:1, 31:13,46:3, Isaiah 42:6, Revelation 1:8) He reveals His own nature such as in Exodus 6:3.

Exodus 6:3 — I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai—‘God Almighty’ —but I did not reveal My name, Yahweh, to them. (NLT)

He couldn’t be revealing Himself this way without being fully aware of who He is.

Secondly, He also demonstrates self-awareness by telling people there is no god like Him. This requires that He both knows Himself and other concepts of so-called gods. Further, He can judge who is better.

Isaiah 43:10b — Before Me, no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me.

This is also interesting because it says that He didn’t come about from a previous “God,” a point that we proved.

Thirdly, on various occasions God expresses His emotions or speaks of His intention to act based on them. Anger, jealousy, mercy, compassion– all of


these and more have Bible references. These mean God is aware of His own mental state.

Fourth and finally, God has to be self-aware if He’s omniscient, all-knowing. He had to know everything that’s knowable. He had to, in order to know how to create the universe and all that’s in it. So if He knows everything, He also has to know everything about Himself.

Therefore, from these, He has all the ingredients for personhood for sure.

Undoubtedly, all this is enough to see that this creator has personhood and therefore qualifies as God of the Bible.


Proving that this creator is personal rounds out all that remains for showing that He is God of the Bible, and we’ve done that by proving He has will as well as other personal characteristics.

Parting Shot At a Skeptic

Here’s a parting shot for us to take home. Sooner or later, a skeptic says — “We must believe only claims that can be verified scientifically, period.”

Now you’ve learned your response, of course, is — “Then tell me, Jack, how do you go about scientifically verifying that claim of yours? Tell me how you’re going to verify that’s the only right position? Wouldn’t you have to prove every alternative is wrong? How do you plan to do that?”

At this point, Jack will likely either fade into the woodwork or want more from you.

Chase the fade, some.

Final Wrap

Okay, we’ve proven the lesson’s objective —

1— The need for a self-existent being to do the creation.

2— The creator’s core characteristics —

! Self-existence.

! Eternality.


! All-powerful, or what we call “omnipotence.”

! Supremely intelligent, or what we call “omniscience” (all-knowing).

! Personhood.

3— The big bang concept has enough holes in it to qualify as Swiss cheese.

4— The creation event in Genesis 1-2 is correct because the main alternative is incorrect.

And we did all this without using the Bible. So we’ve now done what 1 Thessalonians 5 told us to do.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 — but test everything; hold fast to what is good.

Now you may say — “Well I don’t want to test everything. Not me!”

Well yes you do! God just wants you to be absolutely sure of how to get into Heaven. So if you don’t test everything, you’re thumbing your nose at God. Don’t do that! He knows the value of gaining this knowledge even if you’re already a dedicated Christian.

And if we paid attention, here, we should then get the result promised in Romans 12:2.

Romans 12:2 — Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Our thinking should now be transformed! We should now be absolutely convinced that belief in God takes no leap of faith at all. And what should happen now because of all this? Instead of shrinking into the corner whenever someone asks a faith related question, we boldly go forward.

Conversations with skeptics should become fun, exciting. You’ll have a clearer mind to focus on the eternal benefits for them. Plus, we’ll all have a clearer mind to focus on the eternal benefits for ourselves.

Phew! … What a chapter!

Thanks for your attention and great discussions.


End Notes — 1) These Notes were not part of the class material. 2) Bible verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted. 3) Most section headings in chapters were added during the transcribing process

to help readers follow what’s going on. 4) The spoken form and style has been retained in the grammar. 5) Use of italics — Italics mean that the word or expression was vocally emphasized

in the presentation of the material during the class. 6) Abbreviations used in these chapters — OT = Old Testament; NT = New

Testament; e.g. = for example; i.e. = that is; M = million; B = billion; K = thousand; FW = free will; FK = foreknowledge; MK = middle knowledge

7) Contributions during class by attendees and associated discussions are not included due to limitations within the class environment.

8) The teacher’s answer to any Discussion Question serves either as the preferred answer or as simple prompts for class participation.

9) References (About references listed here — These transcriptions were done a long time (years) after the class. As a result this list of references is a “best estimate” of the authors used in that distant past. Admittedly, we are not good at keeping track of references for classes, speeches, or sermons at the time of preparation, probably because a publishing process was not anticipated, then. Here they are given by name of the author probably referenced during preparation of class notes.) —— References for Chapters 2-6, 8-12, and 15 — Barna Research, Pew Research, evolvingcreation.com, creation.com, sentry.quora.com, youthworks.net, icr.org, C Smith, F Graham, T Rainer, J Denison, P Davies, R Likabyo, B Reichenbach, P Nelson, C Hunter, D DeWitt, G Purdom, S Meyer, D Axe, K Ham, J Tour, T Pratchett, Q Smith, S Hawking, RC Sproul, R Zacharias, J Sarfati, J Mason, R Jeffress, M Matthews, M Behe, B Thomas, C Luskin, A Goel, G Bates, W Rossiter, D Berlinski, L Cosner, J Stewart, D Batten, J Miller, C Hunter, C Wieland, W Jackson, WL Craig, CS Lewis, T Stratton, J Mason, J Harnett, M Ambler, W Smith, J Tomkins, N Geisler, R Dawkins, F Zindler, F Turek, J Marks.

chapter 5 proving god’s self-existence, eternality, &...

Documents