Advent: Day 8

Today is the second Sunday of Advent. Throughout this past week we have been looking at the story of Redemption. We started in the beginning with creation, the Fall, and the first promise of Redemption in Ge. 3:15. Then, we looked at how God prophesied that His Messiah would be a prophet, God with us, and a righteous Judge. Today, we will see that He is also our King, the King God promised to David that would rule on an everlasting throne:

⁷ "Now, therefore, thus shall you say to my servant David, "Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be prince over my people Israel... ¹¹ When your days are fulfilled to walk with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹² He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. ¹³ I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, ¹⁴ but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.'" (1 Chr. 17:7, 11-14)
²⁶ In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸ And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" ²⁹ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. ³⁰ And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹ And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Lk. 1:26-33)

This King, however, is unlike any king this world has ever known. In fact, He is so different that the Magi (the Wise Men) almost missed Him. They went looking in Herod's castle, expecting to find an earthly king. Jesus' Kingship, however, goes beyond any earthly king in two important ways. Let's ready what Paul says about Him in Col. 1:9-17:

⁹ And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ¹⁰ so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. ¹¹ May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, ¹² giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. ¹³ He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ¹⁶ For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. ¹⁷ And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This is obviously a theologically dense passage, but in it Paul shows us that Jesus the Universal King (vv. 15-17) and our Personal King (vv. 9-14). His universal Kingship is absolute, you can't not be under it. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, so everything in it is in Him, through Him, and for Him. His personal Kingship, however, is over those whom God has "qualified" (the good news of the gospel) through the work of redemption that He accomplished.

Advent reminds us that the Universal King became poor, was born in a stable, so that He could accomplish redemption and forgiveness of sins and bring those who repent and believe under His personal Kingship. You won't find this kind of king in a castle. He is ruling and upholding the universe, and He lives in the hearts of His people through the Holy Spirit.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Beginning of the Universe

"He asserts that the universe came from 'nothing' rather than from God. However, the different 'nothings' that Krauss appeals to for his explanations are really 'some things'—'some things' that demand nothing less than the existence and involvement of the biblical God." ~ Dr. Hugh Ross, "Universe from Nothing?: A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1"

Another set of Big Bang news articles have hit the popular media. This time with headlines like "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say." This is similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Grand Design, which I wrote about a while ago. The impetus behind such assertions is the desire to remove God from the equation when it comes to the origins of the universe. This has been a problem for naturalistic scientists ever since the first indications that the universe is expanding. So, let's talk about Big Bang cosmological theory and see if the above claims stand up within that framework.

Why is this such a big deal to Big Bang cosmologists? Well, it is often believed that "Big Bang" automatically means an atheistic world-view, but, while that may seem to be common now, that was not the original response to Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the Big Bang was originally seen by steady-state cosmologists as an inherently religious idea. Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, once lamented that his fellow scientists were running off to join the "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Sir Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC broadcast as a pejorative name because of its religious significance (though he did later recant). Why did they see it as religious? Because saying that the universe has a beginning means that it must have had a Beginner, and they did not want to admit the possibility of a Beginner.

Recently, however, many noted scientists have begun theorizing how the universe could have created itself from nothing. That is, of course, the holy grail of a naturalistic world-view--if you can show that the universe did not need a Beginner, then God is not necessary (at least, that is the assumption). So, we get articles like the one list above and books like Hawking's The Grand Design. As I have already written about Hawking's work, I will make a few comments about the recent articles.

The basic premise of such arguments is that "the Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes." What I find most interesting about this is that the scientist quoted (Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley) admits that the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. He even admits that they would require a divine Creator, though he goes on to ask who created the divine Creator, which he believes leads to a never-ending chain of causes. But does it really? Basically, Filippenko is showing the validity and necessity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a classic argument for an uncaused Cause or a Creator. Eventually the chain of causality throughout the history of being has to have a beginning. String Theory posits a type of multiverse to explain the beginning of our universe. Filippenko and Hawking posit that the laws of physics cause the universe to create itself. Both of these simply push the need for a Creator back a step. They simply add another link to the chain of causality. Where did the multiverse come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? Believing they are simply "brute realities" takes as much faith as, if not more than it takes to believe in a Creator (I have written about this here, here, here, and here). Such theories do not solve the problem but are basically mathematical ways of skirting the question.

Furthermore, Filippenko positing quantum fluctuations as a creative event has problems. (Warning, this is going to get a little bit technical.) A consequence of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time will generate particles out of "nothing" (it is not really nothing as we will soon see). Seth Shostack from SETI asserts, "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos." In the article, Filippenko draws on this idea and says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." The first problem with this, that is not mentioned in the articles, is that while the uncertainty principle allows for the random creation of particles, it also requires that these particles revert back to fluctuations before they can be observed. They will not stick around long enough to create anything, about a quintillionth of a second (that is 0.000000000000000001 seconds)! The second problem is even larger than the first. The article and the scientists call this creation from nothing but it is in no way creation from nothing. It is creation from other "some things" (as the quote from Dr. Hugh Ross above states). When he says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way..." Filippenko reveals a major problem in his theory: quantum fluctuations require space-time (which is something, not nothing) to already exist for any type of particles (or universes) to be created. Rather than coming from nothing, they come from pre-existent physical laws and pre-existent space-time. Space-time must already exist for quantum fluctuations to create anything. So, one must again ask, "Has the need for a divine Creator really been removed from the situation?" Not hardly. If the fabric of space-time is necessary for quantum fluctuations to create anything, then space-time first had to be created by something or Someone else. Again, this pushes the need for a Creator back a step but in no way rids us of that need.

For more on this topic, I would suggest you read Dr. Hugh Ross' review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss' book is a much more highly developed argument than the article I have been citing or even Hawking's book. Dr. Hugh Ross does a very good job of laying out the issues with it in part 1 and the theological explanations in part 2.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Heavens Declare

¹The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
²Day to day pours out speech,
   and night to night reveals knowledge.
³There is no speech, nor are there words,
   whose voice is not heard.
⁴Their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.
~ Psalm 19:1-4

I just recently ran across this beautiful time-lapse video of the earth from the International Space Station. In it you can see the lights of our cities, lightning flashing in storms, the Aurora Borealis, and so much more. It is glorious reminder to me of the beautiful design in our universe and how the heavens truly do declare the glory of God.



If you want a reservoir of images, check out my Space Images Picasa Web Album. I have collected images and captions from all over the web. I add to it anytime I come across an image I find particularly striking.

Also, one of my most popular posts has been "Mote of Dust in a Sunbeam," which is a size comparison to show you just how small you really are in this universe of God's handiwork.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Little People, Big Universe, Even Bigger God

"That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives... lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." ~ Carl Sagan

In a couple of past posts (here and here) I showed some images of our universe that demonstrated just how small Earth is in the grand scheme of the universe. The American Museum of Natural History has created a video that starts at the top of the world (Everest) and moves out to the farthest observed edge of our universe. It is a great example of just how small Earth is (and, by extension, you and I).



The universe is 156 billion light-years across! Makes me feel kind of small when I think about it. Fortunately, God holds all this in His hand and He likes me a lot.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Update to "Mote of Dust in a Sunbeam"

This is an abnormal post, I know, but I wanted to update a previous post. Back in September I quoted Carl Sagan and then presented a brief series of photos to show just how small we are in the grand scheme of the universe. I ended the photo series with the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) image. I noted that this was the deepest into the universe anyone had ever seen. At the time I would have argued that this image was the most important image in astronomical history. Now, however, that has changed. With its new Wide Field Camera 3, the Hubble recently recorded an even deeper image of the universe that required a much shorter exposure time (only 4 days as opposed to 11 for the HUDF). This new camera allows the Hubble to catch light nearer the infrared region of the spectrum. That may not sound like anything special but because of the expansion of the universe light from great distances is "reddened", which means that the wavelength of the light is stretched out as space expands pushing the light towards the infrared region. Since this new camera can detect light nearer the infrared it can catch the light from objects farther away than before. Below is what I call the NEW Ultra Deep Field image from the Hubble:
More amazing discoveries will come when the James Webb Space telescope launches in 2014. Then we will get an even better idea of how small we really are. That is okay though because, as I said in the previous post, God holds all this in His hands and He likes me a whole lot.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Mote of Dust in a Sunbeam

"That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives... lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." ~ Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan said this when observing a photo taken by Voyager in 1990 as it exited our solar system, nearly four billion miles away. "Mote of dust" however, makes the earth sound far too large in the grand scheme of the universe. Shall we take a look?

This is Earth as seen from the moon, taken by the Apollo astronauts. Looks fairly large still:

This is Earth compared to our Sun, a small and fairly insignificant star when compared to most:

This is the image that Carl Sagan was commenting on when he said the above. This is Earth from about 4 billion miles away, a tiny spec of light in a sunbeam (it is the pale blue spec between the two lines):

If that does not make it look small enough, consider this size comparison. The Milky Way contains about 100 billion stars (of which our Sun is only one, a small one) and they are nothing but specs of light that make up the galaxy. Below is an image of the Pinwheel Galaxy, a galaxy not too dissimilar from our own. I have marked with a red dot where our solar system would be if this was our galaxy. The dot is not to scale, of course, if it were you would not be able to see it:

Finally, in 2004 the Hubble Space telescope stared for 11 days at a rather boring patch of sky, collecting light. The image it recorded, however, is anything but boring. It recorded what is known as the Ultra Deep Field image. It is the farthest ever seen into the universe. In this image there are more than 10,000 galaxies, some larger than ours and some smaller. Each dot in the image is a galaxy, each galaxy contains billions of stars:

See what I mean when I say that "mote of dust" makes Earth sound too large in the grand scheme of the universe? The universe's radius is 46 billion light-years. That is 2.7×10²³ miles. Makes me feel kind of small when I think about it. Fortunately, God holds all this in His hand and He likes me a lot.

By His Grace,
Taylor