Robin

Ha, you must forgive me. I had in mind someone else, triggered by your name. When I saw yor other posts, I was like, “this isn't that person! I agree with this guy!” Sorry bout that! See what induction does!

However, here is a cool thing to ponder:

Since the 1950's scientists have discovered that the moon becomes more distant from our planet by about 1 1/2 inches per year. In a few billion years, it will be too far from our planet to maintain any gravitational attachment to our planet, and then when it flies away the earth will spin out of control without any regular rotation. If this happens, life on earth will end as we know it. Unless God, or some natural or manmade event gets in the way and prevents this calamity, it will happen.

What say you guys to this science?

Blessings,

Joseph

I don't believe in an end of time, or of history. I believe that most scientists conclude that this is so because of their observations in the universe. I used to argue that, since we can observe the universe running down (entropy), that we can therefore conclude that it had a beginning (since entropy requires a process wherein the reversal would return back to an original perfect or starting point). However, all that entropy really proves is that once energy is released, it either must be regenerated and formed new, or it must take on another form. Where energy comes from no one knows. It's just there. Of course, it is my belief that God sustains all life, and the universe, and that entropy is a natural outworking of life (decay, death, pain, cell mitosis and necrosis, etc.); and that regardless of this fact, entropy does not lead to an ending universe.

I believe that the universe, and life in general lasts forever if a person is in Christ. I do not believe in the end of all things, or an end of the planet, or the end of our solar system, or any consumation outside of what has already in 70AD. My belief is only that when arguing with an atheist, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any such thing because they are working with humanistic assumptions which require a natural explanation for everything, even when there is none that can be had, and we (Christians) are working with supernatural assumptions which require a divine explanation for everything, even when we cannot prove the validity of the origins scientifically. Both views can neither be proven nor disproven, and they are both taken on faith.

It is my opinion that the 70AD events validate the Christian view because it is possible to make a very strong case that the books of the Bible were all written prior to 70AD, and if this is true, then they are prophetic since they predicted events which took place after they were written. Since this is true, it proves (to me) that the message contained within the books of the Bible are indeed true and accurate (along with the many other evidences). This is not proof, but it is stong evidence; much stronger evidence than any natural explanations, or any other religious explanation; and certainly provides answers to life's tough questions which no atheistic paradigm can possibly answer (like, why do we have a consciouse and why are we able to reason?).

1. is there a possibility that the “law of entropy” (which in my view is not a law per se but merely a conclusion based upon repeated observations) was reversed at the cross/resurrection? If sin/death was defeated and the curse was reversed, is it not possible that it may have physical as well as spiritual ramifications?

2. Sam wrote: “If, however, one removes themselves from this dogma, and reads Scripture with an alternative in mind, it can be shown that history is something God never intended on “ending.” Why would He have to? What would be the purpose of it?” When a futurist (and I don't believe I was alone on this) my desire to see sin and physical death eradicated at the end of time was tantamount. In other words, the way I KNEW the 2nd coming was future was due to my observation. I looked around…sin and physical death still reigned supreme upon the earth, so therefore the end had not yet come. A no-brainer right? Since I believed the world, and that included the seas, animals, plants etc. was corrupted by the fall, the only redemption was it's annihilation followed by a resurrection in a NH&E.

Isn't that one of the reasons futurists react so violently to preterism? We have the audacity to believe that earthly sin and physical death will continue into perpetuity. However, if we consider the flip side…our legacy will continue…it will not die. Isn't it exciting that relatives and those impacted by our commitment to Christ 5,000 years from now, will continue to populate heaven.

If earth is supposed to end, wouldn't it have been possible For God to have made that a Biblical certainty? Passages that we used to believe spoke of the end (Acts 2:16-21, Rev 6:12, Mt 24:31, 2 Pet 3:10-12) we realize has nothing to do with the dissolution of planet earth. It's definitely God's divine prerogative to end life as we know it, but wouldn't that violate His promises to the contrary?

“And He built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has founded forever.” Psalms 78:69

“You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,” Psalms 104:5

“One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.” Ecclesiastes 1:4

Okay. Sounds like we are agreeing. I guess, then, what we would disagree on is this notion to an “end to history.” I used to believe that. It's easy to read some of the language of the Scriptures that would imply an end to planet earth. However, we note the usage of language and Hebrew idioms here. I know that the Greeks envisioned a conflagration at the end of time, and so did the Jewish apocalypticists. These two influences, I believe, helped form the Christian Western tradition, and it has remained a dogma ever since. If, however, one removes themselves from this dogma, and reads Scripture with an alternative in mind, it can be shown that history is something God never intended on “ending.” Why would He have to? What would be the purpose of it? Those are the questions I would like to see answered from a futurist perspective.

I would point out that the scientists are wrong, and the Law of Entropy is a theory, not a fact. Second, God does not “intervene” in His universe. He runs it. There are no “laws” we have discovered about the universe that operate independent of God. If God wants the sun to burn forever, it will burn forever. Even in the scheme where some posit a restoration of a new heavens, what would that mean? Will the “restored” Sun be subject to different laws? This is the problem we encounter when we trust science as having “discovered” realitiies about how this universe works. I tend to think with the God of Job: these things are way, way, way, beyond our reach and to pretend that mortal man has “discovered” laws of reality independent of God's revelation is the height of the arrogance of Man operating on his own knowledge of “good and evil.”

I know what you are saying concerning the “Law of life,” however, ultimately, the naturalistic laws of our solar system show that at some future point the Sun (which allows our planet to regenerate life through it's heat, light, and energy), will someday run out of fuel (or so the scientists say). The atheist will argue, “yes, you can fill up a tank of gas in a car and continue going, and even when your energy is used up, you can fill up again, and continue once more. But eventually, when all the fuel is used up, the car will not continue to drive…and thus, the law of entropy continues to work as a consistent fact. Without divine intervention, all humans decay (even though their cells divide, grow, and recreate themselves, eventually, all human cells die because of decay). The same laws exist for our universe. It is expanding at an increasingly rapid rate all the time, and the “energy” only lasts as long as the fuel burning it. If our sun eventually burns out (which all scientists universally agree will happen long in our future); then our planet will die, along with all life on it.

The way I see it is that either God will intervene at some future date to prevent this process from happing as scientists propose, or the scientists are wrong about their “laws” and “theories,” or humans will find a way to travel to other inhabitable planets to continue their existence for eternity.

These are questions that I don't really know if the Bible addresses…or even if we should be inquiring about. Even if these things “might happen,” they are billions of years from our knowledge or time, and so what benefit do we have in even thinking about it?

The atheist cannot address the resurrection of Jesus' body because he cannot explain where life originates from. Therefore he thinks he has only the law of entropy to explain what he sees in this world. Death is working here, but Life is too though it is orginating from a wholly other place. If the empiricist were honest, he could be shown there is another law at work in this world that trumps what death is doing. Death may be taking its toll but life keeps renewing the earth

The fact that life continues thru birth and seeds, ought to show him that his law of entropy will not bring the world to some final end because the law of life continues here as well.

But before anybody thinks my argument supports that our bodies will be returned to life here like was the case with Jesus, one only has to see where Jesus has gone to know that coming back to earthly life, is not what our resurrection is about. And trying to get an atheist to discuss spiritual things when his focus is only on earthly things, will doubtfully end up to be a fruitful discussion. But it might give him pause to think about the fact that not all that he sees in this world is all there is to consider. Life in this world has a beginning and an end, but the resurrection AND ascension of Jesus shows that this world is not all there is. For he doesn't know that the power to give life and take it away belongs to God alone, though he witnesses that power at work daily in the world around him.

Robin

The obvious answer, which they will flatly deny, is that a higher power or source which exists outside of time, space, and the laws of the universe is the ultimate cause of it all…and this creator or cause cannot be explained within the laws of our universe or our existence. Science cannot explain it, and therefore, the atheist is left to their naturalistic wiles without any answers to the primary question at hand. Their answer is this: We just haven't figured it out yet, but there has to be an explanation.

Great stuff. you give the atheist no where to go. There is no common ground (evidentialism). Not even can the atheist claim the universal rules of logic. They have no grounds. Reductio ad absurdum. There is no common sense, common understanding, rational laws of the universe. Even UNIverse has to be established. It could be a MULTIverse, with multilogics (polylogics – as C. S. Pierce argued), etc. This is why you don't see Clark responding much in his writings to atheists. At least with an agnostic or a religious person, you have something with which to begin – but with an atheist, the Bible simply declares: “Fool!” That's where you start. A fool can be reduced to absurdity.