Thoughts from the Garden; why there must be a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Posted in Logical Theology on February 24, 2010 by jetthodle

There are two separate cases that we will examine in this work. The first is a situation in which “it” was done right. The second is a situation in which “it” was not done correctly at all. We will then examine the implications of both accounts, and eventually determine that a. humans cannot, not sin, and b. that Jesus recreates the bridge that existed in the Garden of Eden. If this sounds as enticing to you as it did for me, I pray that it will be communicated clearly, for it has the power to change the way we view Jesus and, perhaps even more so, the way we view Jehovah.

Case One: The man from Uz

In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. (NIV, Job 1:1)

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” (NIV, Job 1:6-8)

At this point I want to pause and begin our examination. Job was a good man. What does it mean to be a good man though? I want to present a view that is heavily influenced by Boethius. Man, humans, have two wills. They have the “good” will, which is the will to live in harmony with and please Jehovah. They also, however, have the “evil” will, which is the will to please themselves. Now in order to have a freedom in our total will (which incorporates both wills) we must be able to act on both wills. Here’s an illustration: Let’s say that your mother has just told you not to eat the cookies. At this point, your will is conflicted. You want to eat the cookies to please yourself, but you don’t want to eat the cookies so that you can please your mother. So you walk into the kitchen and find that there are no cookies. You check the pantry, the fridge, the oven, everything. But nowhere do you find cookies. You content yourself with the thought that you have satisfied your will to please your mother, and go about your business. Really though, did you satisfy your will to please your mother? Were you ever actually capable of acting on your “evil” will anyway? This is the question that Satan poses, and it seems to strike at the very heart of the free will that God has given us.

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything thing he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (NIV, Job 1:9-11)

Where are the cookies God? You certainly do take pride in this Job for not eating them, but how can he if you have never presented them to him. Go whip up some double chocolate chip cookies and set them on the counter. I bet you anything he’ll jump at the chance to nibble at just one. Satan is screaming at God: He doesn’t have free will! Of course he will serve you, he doesn’t know how not to! So what does God do? He bakes cookies. He lets them waft into Job’s bedroom, then Jehovah goes to take a nap.

At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” (NIV, Job 1:20,21)

Job smelled the cookies. He saw the temptation. His mouth began watering a little bit, so he stood up from his bed and set his comic book down. He walked into the kitchen and saw the cookies sitting on the table. He wanted them, wanted to eat one so badly. But he couldn’t. He had heard Jehovah’s words. So Job returned to his room. Hungry I have come from my room, and hungry I will return. Blessed be the name of Jehovah. Job did what very few humans can do, and only one did perfectly. He conquered his “evil” will and instead made his “good” will one with God. We now, however, must turn to the much more consequential act of free will. Let’s turn the clock back to its beginning, and open up in a scene that escapes even our greatest imagination.

At the beginning of creation, the earth was good. There was perfection, and peace. There were pretty bunny rabbits sitting with fierce lions. There were man and woman, who felt no shame. And there was God. The Bible says that God walked through the garden and even talking to Adam and Eve. Think about this for a second. The Creator God was capable of walking in his creation. So what happened? Where is He now? He was kicked out by the free will that He gave to His creation.

Now in the title, I claimed that there was a reason as to why the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had to exist. At this point, I think it would be best if we diverged from our current line of thought and examined the need for the tree. As I hinted at earlier, in order for there to be true free will, we must have both the desire and the ability to act on that desire. So whenever God created this garden, He gave us a way to act on both of our desires. You have the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and you have the Tree of Life. Because no human ever ate of the Tree of Life, we need to step back another dimension into the world of angels. In the middle centuries, angels were a broadly discussed topic. One of the conclusions that was reached is that angels, like humans, had complete free will. They wanted to act on both their own will for happiness and their will to concede to God’s will. Some, led by Satan, chose to act on their own will. They decided that they wanted to pursue their own happiness. These angels were cast out of Heaven, and have been concreted in their decision. They no longer have a will to please God, nor will they ever. The rest of the angels chose to concede to God’s will, and experienced perfect happiness. These angels, like the evil ones, are now concreted into God’s will. They symbolically ate of the Tree of Life and will enjoy contentedness and oneness with God for all eternity. We as humans, however, are no longer given the choice between the literal Trees. Adam and Eve had our one chance, and they blew it. Truthfully, very little, if any, of the blame should lie on them though. If anything, we must blame God’s perfect justice and Satan’s craftiness. So Adam and Eve are actually off the hook. There are several implications of their decision that came into being though, regardless of their blame. I want to examine two major ones in particular though. First, the thought that God was kicked out of His creation when we sinned, and second, humans are now incapable of fusing our will with God’s will while we live on this earth.

Let’s begin with the first implication. As I pointed out, God dwelt with His creation in the Garden. He walked with and communed with man. There was, so to speak, a bridge between God’s dimension and our dimension, in the form of a Garden. In this place, we could be one with Him. Whenever Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, however, God, being Holy, had to create a chasm between us. Our dimension could no longer be connected to His dimension, as that would put God in direct contact with the sinners. This was not an act of self-righteousness on God’s part though. He did not spit in disgust as He closed off the gate to His dimension with a burning sword and an angel. Even then, He loved us so deeply that He knew that when the time was right He would send His son, in the form of one of us, to redeem us. While He personally could never again enter into our dimension, He had, and has, ways to communicate with us. Let’s put it in terms of the cookie analogy in order to clarify. Say you eat the cookie and your mother comes into your room to ask you about it. Did you eat a cookie? No reply. Why are you covering yourself up with the blanket? Your little head appears from beneath the covers. I am ashamed mom. I ate the cookie, and I cannot hide it from you.

This is the position God was put in. He could not simply allow us to eat the cookie and get away with it. Yet He loves us so much that He couldn’t just get rid of us. So your mother leaves, closing the door behind her. The bridge from her world to yours is broken. Except, unlike in our analogy, God cannot be in your presence so long as a crumb is on you. Physically, it is impossible. So He sent a son, one that could operate in this world, one whose will was perfectly attuned to God’s because He was God, to remove our crumbs. The sad part is though, that while our crumbs may be gone, we continue to eat the cookies. Satan continues to slip them under the door and we continue to indulge, regardless of the fact that God has cleaned us. So what can we do to finally rid ourselves of the cookies? We must leave the bedroom. We must get up and walk out of that door. And one day, when we find ourselves no longer chained to the bed, we will walk over a bridge. It is not a clean bridge though. For cast all along the bridge are crumbs. There are bits of chocolate here, a chunk of peanut butter there. But as we walk, something amazing happens. Our crumbs begin to fall. These crumbs that we are so proud of sticking to ourselves begin to fall to the ground, joining the billions of others. And when we reach the end of the bridge, a man by the name of Jesus is standing there, holding up a mirror. He embraces us in a hug and he says look child. Look at how you were designed to be. And as we gaze into this mirror of our true selves, as the crumbs over our eyes begin to fall, we see beauty, beauty modeled after our Creator. And we will weep. And then Jesus will step to the side and say behold, my brother, our Father. And sitting on a throne with a smile and a tear will be our God. The God who has been working our entire life to ensure this one moment. The God who has been laboring against Satan to open our eyes to true happiness. The God who has been hoping that we would choose to mold our will to His so that one day, we could experience this moment. And when He sees us He will say: You. You are my son, in whom I am well pleased. And we will run forward and embrace our Father and for once we will truly understand. The meaning of our life on earth was simple. We were to conform our will to the will of God, and to act, in our free will, in accordance with His perfect will. And when this is done, and our life ends, we will be able to open a door and gaze at a bridge. And on this bridge, there will be crumbs.


On the Punishment of the Wicked

Posted in Logical Theology on February 22, 2010 by jetthodle

This work will be dealing, as the title implies, with the punishment of the wicked and the justification of the righteous. The thought evolved from a work by a middle century philosopher by the name of Boethius. The book is titled The Consolation of Philosophy, and was written by Boethius after being imprisoned wrongly and sentenced to death. While the entire book is certainly fascinating, the part we are going to focus on is sub-book four: Good and Ill fortune. I want to begin with a quote.

But, lo! Herein is the very chiefest cause of my grief – that, while there exists a good ruler of the universe, it is possible that evil should be at all, still more that it should go unpunished. While wickedness reigns and flourishes, virtue not only lacks its reward, but is even thrust down and trampled under the feet of the wicked, and suffers punishment in place of crime. That this should happen under the rule of a God who knows all things and can do all things, but wills only the good, cannot be sufficiently wondered at nor sufficiently lamented. (Boethius, Translated by James, 78)

This question, which has been posed since the ages of recorded history began, rang specifically true with Boethius. He had been a man of great power and integrity. He was imprisoned, and sentenced to death, under false crimes. How could he not keep from crying out “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani!”? Why, O’ God, have thou forsaken me? Why, Perfect Goodness, do the wicked prosper over me? Why, why does evil prevail? The response that is given to Boethius by Lady Philosophy (the book is written as a dialect between Boethius and the embodiment of philosophy, Lady Philosophy) is extremely paradoxical. It is not logical, at first glance, and even frustrating.

It is because thou knowest not the end of existence that thou deemest abominable and wicked men to be happy and powerful. (Boethius, Translated by James, 18)

The first reply from Lady Philosophy is simple. Certainly, they appear to prosper. But the only reason the wicked seem to gain reward is because you have a warped sense of reward and justice. I want to expand on this point with a story.

James and Linn come home from their vacation to find their home ransacked and looted. They go in and find their forty six inch plasma high definition television gone, along with the mock Van Gogh that ran for a couple grand. Three hundred miles away, Miles just sold the painting and is currently sitting on his stolen couch watching a stolen forty six inch plasma high definition television drinking a stolen beer from the six-pack. He suddenly remembers and goes to a safe behind a painting, putting the six thousand dollars he got into the safe. He smiles as he nestles it safely, bringing his total value up to almost half a million dollars. He sighs with contentment and sits back down.

Now by our standards, how would we define justice? How would we define punishment?

In one version, the police would pay a visit to Miles. The television and couch would be returned, and the six hundred thousand dollars given back to those to whom it belonged. Miles would get six to ten and a year of therapy for his problem. He would then re-enter society a new and changed man, and make himself an honest living. Justice.

In another version, Miles never gets that knock on the door. He never repays the money, he never returns the couch. He lives in contentedness till he dies of old age in a nice retirement home. Justice?

Boethius argues that both cases, justice is served. The paradox occurs, however, when Boethius claims that in the second version, better justice is served. How, you ask, can Miles get away with his crimes and be even more justified? The answer lies in the shallowness of our perception. We think that righting the wrong will create justice. Boethius, however, claims that the very nature of going un-righted causes the evil (Miles) to become more evil. Simply put, the punishment of evil is to become more evil. Again, I want to rely on a section of The Consolation of Philosophy to explain my point.

“Then, all men, good and bad alike, with one indistinguishable purpose strive to reach good?”

“Yes, that follows.”

“But it is certain that by the attainment of good men become good?”

“It is.”

“Then, do the good attain their object?”

“It seems so.”

“But if the bad were to attain the good which is their object, they could not be bad?”


“Then, since both seek good, but while the one sort attain it, the other attain it not, is there any doubt that the good are endued with power, while the bad are weak?”

“If any doubt it, he is incapable of reflecting on the nature of things, or the consequences involved in reasoning.”

(Boethius, Translated by James, 81)

Everyone is striving to reach good. The good do it through natural means, by virtue. The evil do it through unnatural means, by evil. The good are able to reach their goal, and as such, have power. The evil, however, are incapable of reaching their goal, and as such, have no power. Before we go back to our story, we need to establish one more precept. God is the ultimate goal of every life. As I stated, everyone is trying to reach good. Good is, by definition, God. It then follows that, whether or not men recognize it for what it is, God is the ultimate goal of our life. Now we can get back to the story.

At the end of the age, James, Linn and Miles are present. James and Linn are able to discern God, they are able to see Him and love Him, because they recognize good for what it is, and understand how to attain this good. The reward for the virtuous is increased virtuousness. Miles cannot see God, for he cannot recognize Him. He has spent his life seeking good through evil, and now, with the Perfect Good present, Miles passes Him by. The punishment of the evil is to become more evil.

We can now see clearly that, when the veil of improperly defined justice is lifted, the wicked are indeed punished and the virtuous rewarded. There is, however, one last point I want to clear up. I stated earlier that case two of the punishments is the worst of the two. I want to explain the reasoning behind that. In case one, however unrealistic, Miles is redeemed. He calls evil out for what it is and learns how to find good in a virtuous manner. Case two, however is the opposite. Miles continues to act uncorrected, and eventually leads himself into such a pit that he cannot discern between good and evil. You see, this is why God punishes His people. He knows that if we begin to engage in evil acts, we will fall quickly into a pit from which He cannot help us, at least not without removing our free will. Evil is a slippery slope, one that is filled with large drops and a dark hole at the bottom. God does not want that for us. He wants us to be able to discern good and evil, because He knows that when we can call it out for what it is, we will choose good.

So let’s conclude what we have discovered.

  1. The punishment of the wicked is to become more wicked. The reward for the virtuous is to become more virtuous.
  2. Unpunished evil is more dangerous than punished evil.
  3. Satan veils us with evil so that we cannot find God.
  4. God must punish us for our evil so that we can learn to love Him better.

God is good. In order to understand good at the end of the age we must first understand good on the earth. So I pray that we continue to search for good. I pray that when we are presented with the chance to perform good with no reward, we perform it. I pray that when we commit evil, we allow ourselves to be punished so that we can learn to find good. I pray that we become a people searching for good in a world cloaked in evil.

Complexity Theory: a look into a not so closed closed system

Posted in Logical Theology on February 10, 2010 by jetthodle

Part I: Establishing the Base

Before we begin, there are a few points that need to be understood.

Point A: I am not a Complexity Theory scientist.

Point B: Complexity Theory is not a developed science.

Point C: Because I don’t have full knowledge of the field, and full knowledge of the field doesn’t even exist, a lot of this will be based purely on reasoning and logic, not empirical data. Sorry Tim.

Now, let’s start with an explanation of complexity theory. Most, if not all, of my quotes and references will come from a book entitled Simply Complexity, a clear guide to complexity theory by Neil Johnson.  Therefore, I think it is fitting to start much in the same way he does.

Complexity Theory is, essentially, the reaction that occurs when you get a group of individuals competing for a limited resource. I think an example would do more than a definition though.

Imagine that you have dropped a one hundred dollar bill [in a busy shopping mall]. You organize a search-team, stating that they will all share the money when it is found. If the search-team is a large one, you will have great difficulty in coordinating everybody’s actions – hence you might never find the money. By contrast, if you tell everyone that the money is theirs if they find it, their individual selfish drive will likely be so strong that the money is found very quickly.(Johnson, 8 )

In that example, complexity theory would examine the action of the individuals searching for the money. Eventually, we hope to be able to understand what drives each individual and their interaction with each other and therefore control the situation. Take a stock market as a better example of this point.  If we could understand what drives each of the individuals involved, and their interaction with each other, we could essentially stop drastic market crashes. Now, using these two examples, imagine the millions of other areas in which it could be used. Traffic jams, cancer treatment, counter terrorism, the housing market, competing companies etc. So I’m sure you now understand the vastness and usefulness of complexity theory.

Part II: Orderly Disorder, and Other Incorrect Assumptions

With the basic understanding out of the way, I want to present, explore and expand on a more specific area of complexity theory; disorder. This is where I will deviate from the book, and perhaps even disagree. But for the reader’s sake, I want to present the specific passage that caught my eye.

We have seen that a collection of objects will, in the absence of any feedback, tend to become increasingly disordered. Unfortunately, it turns out that the same is true of the Universe as a whole, and everything in it – including us.

Let me explain the background of this horrifying news. All the evidence gathered so far by scientists suggests that the Universe is isolated. It doesn’t touch anything and nothing touches it. Most importantly, there is no feedback of any kind from other Universes. In technical jargon, the Universe is a closed system – and unfortunately there is a fundamental law of physics which states that; The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by.

This tells us that no matter how hard we might try to stop it from happening, the Universe as a whole is heading towards total disorder. (Johnson, 28)

This is a chopped version, but the main point is there. We are headed for disorder. I found three basic premises in this passage and I want to lay them out, in order to prove that we are indeed headed for disorder.

Premise A: The Universe is a closed system.

Premise B: The Universe has been in existence for an extremely long amount of time.

Premise C: The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by.

Conclusion: Because the Universe is closed, and because extremely large quantities of time have gone by, the quantity of disorder must be extremely large and ever increasing.

The conclusion is where I found myself diverging from the reasoning of Mr. Johnson. Let me explain why. According to these premises, we should be in a state of disorder. Such a vast quantity of time has gone by that, statistically speaking, we should not exist. Unless the law of physics (The amount of disorder increases as time goes by) is rewritten as; The amount of disorder increases in an extremely slow and sometimes even nonexistent manner as time goes by, we have to conclude that (given the extreme amount of time that has gone by) disorder should rule right now. I, however, do not see this disorder. I look around me and I see quite the opposite in fact. What we have is a world in which civilizations thrive (maybe not thrive in some cases, but exist nonetheless), and are capable of rebuilding themselves. Take, for instance, the earthquake in Haiti. While in no way am I being insensitive, I want to point out that life will indeed go on. They will rebuild themselves. Certainly disorder ruled for a month, year, maybe even ten years, but in the end, they will resume order. This seems the exact opposite of what our conclusion is telling us though. Because the Universe is closed and disorder has been increasing for all this time, surely Haiti should not be able to reorder itself. Once something drops into chaos, it should not be able to bring itself out of it. However, time after time this proves not to be the case. Hurricane Katrina, Haiti, every war ever fought. The point is, there is chaos. But it is not the fundamental state of being. In fact, it seems that order is the state of being, and disorder simply intrudes on it sometimes. So the conclusion we have reached is that our previous conclusion is incorrect. Therefore, one of the premises has to be incorrect. The surprising part, though, is which one exactly.

Let’s start with premise B. The Universe has been in existence for an extremely long amount of time. While this is certainly an ongoing debate between theologians and secular scientists, we are going to grant them this premise based on the empirical data of carbon dating. Exactly how long ago is under question though. The most common response is between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Either way, the Universe has been in existence for a long time.

Premise C: The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by. This one is most easily proven with a simple example. Take five molecules, and put them in a five inch by five inch box. The molecules are going to randomly fly around, and definitely won’t arrange themselves into a pretty pentagon shape. Now imagine that you have five million molecules in a five foot by five foot box. The longer you leave them in there, the less likely you are to find them in their original position. So without going into technical detail, we assume the law of physics is indeed a law.

So that leaves premise A. The Universe is a closed system. From our previous work, we have concluded that the conclusion is wrong, but premise B and C are correct. Therefore, premise A must be incorrect. Not only must premise A be incorrect though, we must somehow come to understand the force or forces acting on the Universe. So let’s break it down. If the Universe is maintaining order, there must be a force (or forces) causing this order. The first step is to determine whether it is A. one force or B. two or more forces. Let’s assume that it’s fifteen different forces acting on the Universe. The problem now is that these forces, because they are competing for a limited resource (maintaining balance in the Universe), are going to act in a way that will benefit them. This will, essentially, create a whole new level of complexity which will have to be governed by a whole new series of forces. This will turn into a vicious never ending cycle. So because a complex system cannot govern a complex system, without having an entirely different complex system governing it, the Universe cannot have multiple governing forces. Please allow me to elaborate. Let’s say, you and a group of 14 are put in charge of fixing a stock market crash. You all get together and immediately start arguing about how to best go about it. You have a few people with good intentions arguing with the selfish ones. You have a few dumb people arguing with the intelligent ones. The point is, a complex system has been created in order to solve a complex system.  While eventually, the stock market may be restored, it will be untimely and extremely consequential. The amount of damage done will perhaps even overshadow the success of fixing it. Now take the stock market, and add a billion more variables into it. Imagine having a complex system try to solve that complex system. It would never work. Therefore, in order to govern an extreme complex system (like the Universe) you must only have one governing force. Now that we have proven that there is one force acting on the Universe, we can begin to dissect what this one force must be like. Take into consideration that a force of this magnitude is going to have possibly infinite amounts of characteristics, and I in no way intend to cover all of them. I do, however, want to point out some of its characteristics and draw some parallels. Let’s begin.

Part III: The (real) Force

Characteristics of The Force which governs our Universe

A. It must be separate from our Universe.

In order for a force to be able to govern our Universe, it must be separate from our Universe. An example is our best bet here. Imagine that you are stuck in a traffic jam, and someone puts you in charge of un-jamming the jam. From your perch inside the jam, there is no way you would be able to whom to do what. Certainly you can do it, call a helicopter for a view from above, call each driver and tell him what to do, etc. But because you would be involving other factors competing for the same result, you would create another complex system, and as we have pointed out, complex systems cannot solve complex systems.

B. It must be incredibly intelligent.

This is a given. You cannot have a random force telling things what to do. It must be able to discern what needs to be done, and it needs to be able to process large quantities of information instantaneously.

C. It must be capable of producing and feeding energy.

In order for a system to come out of disorder, energy must be pumped in. In order for a car to move, it must have gas in it. The difference is, in our universe, the force puts energy in as opposed to us putting the energy in. The problem with energy though, is the waste produced. Gas produces fumes which create disorder in the ecosystem. Therefore:

D. It must be capable of producing and feeding perfectly clean energy.

The Force must be able to pump energy in without creating any sort of waste. Imagine if cars ran purely on water. You put H2O in; it uses pressure created by that water and then releases pure H2O. This is what The Force would have to do, except I doubt the Universe runs on Water.

E. It must be able to feed this energy in a way that it sees fit.

In the same way that if we put gasoline into our windshield wiper fluid nothing would happen, The Force must be able to put gas in the gas tank, so to speak. This goes hand in hand with B.

F. It must be capable of producing order through its feeding of energy.

Even if we put gas into our tanks, we cannot un-jam a jam this way. The Force must be able to put the precise amount of energy, in a way that will cause a reaction, into an object to bring about order.

We now have a list of characteristics of The Force which governs our Universe.  Now, however, I want to delve deep into a specific part of The Force; order. We understand that it is The Force which brings about order into our Universe.  Can we learn anything about this Force by examining the order it brings then? I have to say yes.

Part IV: From Star Wars to The Synoptics; Putting it all Together.

At this point, I would like to present my final (and most significant) theory. First, let’s sum up what we know as a series of premises.

Premise A: The Universe is an open system.

Premise B: There is only one acting force on the Universe, which maintains all order.

Premise C: This acting force must be intelligent, independent from the Universe, and omnipotent.

The conclusion is my theory.

Conclusion: YHWH, the God of Christianity, is The Force.

Now let me be clear. The jump from the premises to the conclusion is not the most obvious or even logical one. It is going to require quite a bit of rationing and stepping to get from premise to conclusion.  So if you have yet to lose interest (for which I would not blame you at all) just hold out for a few more points and we will achieve a rational proof of the existence of YHWH

We are going to skip premise A, as it is not relevant to the who question. Let’s start at premise B. There is only one acting force on the Universe, which maintains all order.  To prove that God is this force, I’m going to present two cases. Case A: Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. In accordance with the theory that there can only be one Force, the LORD God is only one God. For this reason, all polytheistic religions, all dualist religions and all pantheistic religions are thrown out. This alone narrows it down significantly.  But Jehovah is One God. Case B: The entire account of Genesis. Creation ex nihilo and with no negative release (think carbon release from cars), bringing order out of disorder, creating of a system which maintains order etc. Jehovah created energy with no side effect, created order and maintains order.

Premise C. This acting force must be intelligent, independent from the Universe and omnipotent. Again, I will use Biblical references in order to prove this premise to be Jehovah.  The first part, must be intelligent, is seen in 1st Corinthians 1:19: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. In order to frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent, you must be of supreme intelligence. Think about it this way. In order to beat the New York Yankees, you have to be better than them at the game of baseball. In the same way, God is smarter than the smartest human (which even that does His intelligence no justice). The second part, Independent from the Universe, cannot be proven with a certain scripture. Actually, let me rephrase that. To my knowledge, there is no scripture which says explicitly, God is independent from the Universe. Now if I’m wrong, please correct me, as that would only strengthen my argument. However, because I still want to prove this, I will go about it in a logical manner. In order to create something, you cannot be part of that which you create. For, if you were a part of it, you could not have existed when it did not exist and therefore could not have caused it to come into existence. If I am a page in a book, how can I create the ink and paper, which is what I am? This is certainly not the easiest thought to put on paper, but I think the gist is there. If God is part of the Universe, how could He exist before the Universe existed? He couldn’t have. Therefore, God is separate from the Universe. Finally, the force must be omnipotent. In the book of Job, we see the clearest demonstration of God’s power. Starting in chapter 38, God begins a list of rhetorical questions. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Who shut the sea behind doors? Have you ever given orders to the morning? Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Job then replies: I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. Based purely on authoritative knowledge we can prove that God is omnipotent.

So in conclusion to this section, there is no other being that fits the description of The Force. Oddly enough, YHWH holds up to all scrutiny, and matches all of the characteristics that are necessary for a force which brings order to the Universe.

Part V: Conclusion: What does it all mean?

So far we have identified what complexity theory is, we have looked in depth at complexity theories closed Universe,  and we have determined that this closed system is actually not closed, but governed by an individual, whom we identified as Jehovah.  So essentially, what we have come to, is yet another non-empirical proof of the existence of God. While it is certainly a broad exploration, and as such very susceptible to holes in our logic, it gives a stable foundation off of which you can reason, for yourself, the existence of God. However, because there is no way (yet) to empirically prove this method, it will still be cast aside by atheists and some agnostics. I hope, however, that it will become a tool with which we can have, at least slightly, intelligent discussions with our scientific friends.

An Explanation of Our Attempted (and ultimately failing) Explanation of God

Posted in Logical Theology on February 4, 2010 by jetthodle

How do you prove Gods existence in scientific terms?
First off, I want to say that you can’t. There will always be an explanation for the Divine. I present you with a burning bush, you present combustion and carbon release to me. I call it the Holy Spirit, atheists call it endorphins. It’s a never ending cycle. So allow me to present my answer in a story, which i will explain after I have presented it.

In a book called Flatland there is a particularly illuminating passage. I will paraphrase it from two different perspectives.

First, the Dot.
A dot was sitting in his den, enjoying the fire. All of a sudden, a small circle appeared in the middle of his floor. Perplexed, he watched from a distance. Slowly, the circle grew. It kept growing, threatening to take up the entire space of his den. The dot grew more and more concerned, as he could not explain what was happening. At the peak, right when the circle threatened the most, it began to shrink again. Just as quickly as the circle appeared, it shrank and disappeared.

Now, the Sphere
The sphere was passing through a plane, which happened to be two dimensional. He went through the plane, which had a square drawn on it and a rather timid looking dot, and continued on his way.

We are the dot, God is the sphere. Without overdoing the analogy, we are incapable of understanding God, as He is (in this case) in an entirely different dimension. So we are intimidated by Him, and concoct explanations for the phenomenal. The complexity of life is due to Darwinism. The existence of a universe is due to the Big Bang. Something different, which has an easy (yet non thorough and incomprehensible) answer (God did it, its a sphere) is turned into something ridiculously complex (atoms collided in random order which created life, the circle was absorbing water causing an expansion) because we fear the truth, and the fact that we cant truly explain the truth.

So in conclusion; God exists on a separate dimension than we do. We cannot interpret His attempts at communication, so we simply redefine them using “science”. Just because God does not communicate to us using our empirical definitions, it does not mean He does not communicate. We just have to quit looking for it through modernist scientific lenses, and look with our spiritual eyes.

The Meaning of Life

Posted in Logical Theology on February 4, 2010 by jetthodle

The Meaning of Life

The meaning of a life is not a question which has an answer. Look at how many years have been spent and how many brilliant minds have been tormented in search of “the” answer.  Surely, if there was an answer, by now we would have found it. I propose then, that one simple answer cannot cover every person’s thoughts and opinions on the matter. The meaning of my life, for example, cannot be the same as the meaning of a Middle Eastern, seventy three year old females meaning of life so long as we are using an exclusive, simple and direct answer. It cannot be such a thing as money, fame, or perhaps even the fleeting emotion of happiness or joy.  I propose that the meaning of life must come in the form of an equation, which gives some relaxation and flexibility to the answer, allowing the individual to input his characteristics and drive and therefore personalize the meaning. What, then, is this equation?


A simple algebraic formula used to define the slope of a line. For our purposes though, we are going to redefine the variables.

Y – The meaning of life

m – The individual

X – Perfect truth

B – Dedication to perfect truth

So in words, the formula is this:

The meaning of life comes when an individual finds a perfect truth and dedicates himself wholly to this truth.

Let’s break it down, piece by piece.

The individual – Easiest piece of the equation. This is you, a person, their wants, needs, background, intellectual capability, fears and other generalities which make you, you.

Perfect truth – The interesting part about perfect truth is that it is relative. Now, don’t take me out of context and assume that I run with the relative truth pack.  I fundamentally believe that YHWH is The God, and that is the truth. If you believe otherwise, according to my truth, you are wrong. However, as not everyone would agree with that statement, I cannot define YHWH as the “Perfect Truth” (Even though He is). We will therefore use the general (notice lowercase) perfect truth. With that out of the way, the perfect truth is defined as the truth which one believes to be the governing dynamic of our entirety. Evolutionists believe that nature is the perfect truth, Christians believe YHWH is. The perfect truth is the party responsible for the world, simply put.

Dedication to perfect truth – This is the fun part of the equation, as it is extremely hard to pin down.  By definition, dedication has to be wholehearted. You will not find your meaning in life if you pursue your perfect truth in an apathetic manner. Over-dedication, however, is just as dangerous as apathetic dedication. I highly doubt that extremist KKK members found their meaning as they were hung from a noose. Your dedication must be in check with what the perfect truth dictates it to be. Unfortunately, as seen in the case aforementioned, if your perfect truth is imperfect (racial supremacy) your dedication (no matter how much it follows the criteria established by your perfect truth) will ultimately fail to satisfy your need for a meaning.

Now that the formula has been given and the variables have been defined and expanded upon, I want to lay my conclusion on the table in a clear form.

The meaning of life is to find a perfect truth and dedicate yourself to it. Only when this has been accomplished will you find satisfaction and peace.

There is always the possibility, however, that there is no meaning of life and we simply made up the preposterous thought that there was one in order to appease our generally optimistic nature. But that’s for another time.