God: What We Believe, II

   The clear hypothesis that God exists is on the table. It is there, in front of you.

   The Hebrew Bible, accepted (some say abducted) by the Christian writers whose work superseded it, plainly assumes the existence of God and begins to describe divine activity, cf. Genesis 1:1. The writer has God as Creator, the propositional head of all creative activity. 

   Now, how we do prove this hypothesis, if the original statement of the existence of God is based on divine creative activity? That is, the first time we see God is when God creates time because time exists only when and if it can be measured. If, then, we spend our time trying to prove the existence of God by some naturalist focus on the material world, we miss the Biblical point. It is the measurement of time, or passage of time, the existence of time which posits the reality of time by its measurement, that describes and defines God's creative interactivity with humankind.

   Stop looking at the dirt. Watch the sun move. The Creation declaring the handiwork of God is everything that comes from God and all that goes back to God in the culmination. The beginning and the ending of the Created Order, which beginning no one disputes and which ending all forecast, suggests time is of God, not of the natural order, for when the natural is not, God is, on both ends of time.

   So, the clear hypothesis "God exists" is on the table, there in front of you. Now, what test can we give to this hypothesis? 

   Let us say what we cannot do to prove this hypothesis, in order to set boundaries.

   We cannot say that reality contains only those things we immediately recognize as familiar. Mankind is limited in all his ways of knowing and forgetful, too.

   We cannot say that all reality exists in that which is measurable. If there is intuition, the zig-zag streak of genius, there is some application of truth that must come after reality is measured and the application, which may not be measurable itself, may be more important than the first measured truth. 

   We must not assume hard truth might be non-therapuetic, and so non-directional. The end of ethical conversation is not the end of ethics.

   With these boundaries in mind (or heart) we can start to look at the clear hypothesis, "God exists."

 

Opinion expressed here are mine alone.

 

 

Comments

[Robert]

In response to your satetement, "We must not assume hard truth might be non-therapuetic, and so non-directional. The end of ethical conversation is not the end of ethics."--I wonder, "What have YOU been reading?" LOL I mean it fits right in where I have been reading!
*_*

[aintsobad]

reading you, bro, reading you

[RobeFRe]

Well,

I had meant to posting rethank Gary for the link to gutenburgpress.com and Orthodoxy by Chesterton, but as the weekend of football, or lack thereof, was, I see my retraction of thanx must have been a bad dream.

[RobeFRe]

I found this in Chesterton' Ninth chapter of Orthodoxy.

"If we want to uproot inherent cruelties or lift up lost populations we cannot do it with the scientific theory that matter precedes mind; we can do it with the supernatural theory that mind precedes matter."

But then we must use the pregnant dust at our feet or the looming stars at our head to realize an active God.

great post!