Perhaps you have heard this assertion: the grave is the end. There is nothing beyond the grave. Perhaps you have heard this other assertion: the resurrection is a scientific impossibility. However, this is as much as to say physics is just as much magic as is the resurrection.
These assertions, when they are heard in discussions, are often heavily colored with choice expletives and cursing perhaps to create and enhance the impression of credibility. This is nothing unlike what Peter did in a frantic effort to boost his credibility after he had denied three times that he knew Jesus and no one believed him, right? You might say it's almost like a magic act when the magician utters the magic word abracadabra on his trick to make it seem real and true. Generally, the sole value of the other side of that two-fold cascade of expletives and cursing is nothing more substantive than to mock and deride the belief in the concept of an extension of life beyond the grave such as the resurrection from the dead. Christians, but also Jews, Muslims and even Hinduism with its cyclical reincarnation, all fall under the same derision, aspersion and mockery, not only from atheists, but between their respective interfaith beliefs.
Indeed. Is this true? Are those who make that assertion, scientists and atheists typically, being true to the claims of science with respect to their assertions about the resurrection being a scientific impossibility? The reality is that scientists and atheists are not much different than Christians and other theists in that one group peppers their speech heavily with claims of logic and reason and the other group with claims about faith, respectively. More often than not they both make the same or very similar claims and arguments in support of those arguments, but ego can be as blinding as staring long and directly at the sun.
what would you rather be
There is no need to subject oneself to such a painful and damaging experience as staring at the distant sun. One need only look at a nearby rock. Can a rock be subjected to such extreme pressure and heat until it disappears out of human sight, that is, that it ceases to exist as though it never existed? Basic physics tells, both the scientist and non-scientist alike that regardless of whether or not they understand it, believe it or accept it, that, yes, a rock can be made to disappear seemingly into thin air as though it never existed.
However, scientists also inform us that the subatomic makeup of the rock, that is, its stored, static energy matter can not be destroyed. It can only be changed into dynamic energy. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock -now in its changed state of dynamic energy- can be gathered together to compose the rock again. This is not physics magic. It is not a theological mystery. It is neither obscure nor convoluted. It neither suggests nor does it require that one believe or accept the concept of afterlife, heaven or the resurrection. It is basic, fundamental physics.
However, scientists also inform us that the subatomic makeup of the rock, that is, its stored, static energy matter can not be destroyed. It can only be changed into dynamic energy. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock -now in its changed state of dynamic energy- can be gathered together to compose the rock again. This is not physics magic. It is not a theological mystery. It is neither obscure nor convoluted. It neither suggests nor does it require that one believe or accept the concept of afterlife, heaven or the resurrection. It is basic, fundamental physics.
So how is it that an inanimate rock without any intelligence fares differently, so as not to say better, than a human being with all the knowledge that a human being amasses, its complex DNA information, and last but perhaps least of all _ the human being's physical body, subatomic makeup of stored energy matter? Literally, the skin, flesh and bones. What so-called scientific logic and reason does the scientist and atheist offer to account for such an inconsistency concerning the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock and the stored energy matter of a human being? If what, according to scientists and atheists, is true of a human being one should understandably rather choose (not that one has a choice) to be a rock, right? One can assert or hope (?) as did Stephen Hawking that one never existed. Ravi Zacharias (video time stamp, 3 min 40 sec) relates how Hawking at Lady Mitchell Hall at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge England in 1990 declared that since he, as a human being has been predetermined and is without freedom of choice he might as well not be. Hawking was not the first to utter that cry which, kind of like magic, is made null and void if for no other simple reason than that the person who utters that cry is, that is, the person by the name of the late Stephen Hawking exists. Regardless of whether or not one believes or accepts predetermination the fact is the individual exists and is alive to think and talk about his life condition and make his or her choice as to how he or she will respond to their life.
ain't it cool?
If the theory involving the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock into dynamic energy is true, and I have no doubt nor do I question that it is true, why do scientists not see, or reject, the same law as concerns, not just inanimate objects, but animate objects, too? Actually, the theory concerning the change of energy from one state to another is proved for us. It is not to be dismissed, as non-scientists are prone to do, as a theory or as not having been proved. We can see in H2O the outward substantive change with our own eyes quite routinely and regularly without human hands or human intervention or sophisticated, high technology gadgetry.
The stored energy in ice, when it is subjected to a small increase in temperature changes into the stored energy of water. If it is heated a few degrees more it will disappear into the dynamic energy of vapor, like magic, out of human sight. Then, not theoretically or virtually, but quite actually the vapor cools (with or without human involvement) and reverts back into water and then back to the stored energy state of ice. This is not magic. It's not just cool. It is not convoluted or concocted. It is simple basic physics.
the singularity
The change of energy such as from a stored state to a dynamic state involves a vastly different form of the energy which has been changed. One does not look and point to where the rock once was and say, see the rock! One does not look and point in the area where the water vapor was last seen and say, see the water, or see the ice! One can no longer see, not because of blindness, but because the stored energy has been changed into dynamic energy.
the transformation, not change, of death
After all the vast leaps in technology what should be the pinnacle, the high point feat of the Singularity? The leap is akin to a Microsoft software service pack, that is, it's nothing major like a new version. The Singularity being that near-future point at which computer technology capability exceeds that of human capability thinks, not only to circumvent death, but to defy basic physics. The change envisioned for human beings by Ray Kurzweil and Singularitians is not even the more radical transformation of human life through death, but it is the vast, but no less a whimper of change of energy like that of a rock or or like that of ice. The longing of Singularitians involves the physical uploading of human consciousness unto physical hardware so as to enable the individual to continue to life in perpetuity, or at least as long as the hardware can last.
Alas! This is the grand scheme of Singularitians to turn a deaf ear to the law of the conservation of energy and of basic physics to avoid the transformation of death? It may not be the fear of death, but it may be at the very least an obstinate flat-earth mentality akin to defying gravity in a mockery of nature and the reality of death, the ancient, ultimate nemesis of mankind.
the form of a man
The scriptures reveal the origin of death. One need not believe or accept that ancient account in the scriptures and still acknowledge the reality of death. Although the scriptures speak of death in various and different terms the only one which pertains to this discussion is the bodily, physical death of an individual who is laid into the ground. One need not believe or accept that an individual by the name of Jesus took on the form of a man to live and die among us. One need only be mindful that the life and death of Jesus was not extraordinarily different than that of any human being. He possessed an outward appearance, which according to human standards, was the form of a man. Definitely, and at the very least, his physical makeup was a mass of stored energy, but also a vast possession of knowledge. Muslims make the right and critical observation that what Jesus did, that is, the miracles, was not anything which had not been done by various prophets in Israel. Specifically, what they are referring to his the raising of the dead by Jesus. They are correct.
the actual transformation of the resurrection
What this critical observation fails to take into account is that the claims which Jesus made about himself went far beyond raising dead people. Jesus applied what He and the prophets did towards the raising of the dead to Himself. In other words, He claimed that He would lay down His life willfully and die. Then, He would take up His life from the dead again without human hands or human involvement.
This is nothing convoluted. It is not obscure. It is basic physics. It reflects what scientists have observed and informed us about the same law of the conservation of energy. It reflects the same transformation as of the energy in ice into water then vapor _ without human hands or human involvement. It reflects the similar predetermined, calculated plans of Singularitians, but with the critical difference that Jesus submitted to the virtual transformation of energy through death -not by circumventing death as is the grand scheme of Singularitians for man's eternal posterity- and then to the actual transformation (reversal) of energy through the resurrection.
conclusion
One would think the modern age of high technology is completely the sole accomplishment of twentieth century man. It is easy for scientists and technologists to acknowledge the thought and knowledge discoveries of ancient men from Aristotle to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others. It is not as easy to acknowledge the claims and fulfillment of the claims made by Jesus concerning his death and his resurrection. These claims and the observation of the fulfillment of those claims is no less than the required criteria of science on nature.
One need not like it, accept it or understand the law of the conservation of energy, but that does not invalidate or nullify the claims and the reality in the change of energy matter and the transformation of the resurrection from the dead. Mockery and denial may sound good and play well, but it may reveal either an ignorance of basic physics or a obstinate unwillingness to observe the same law at work in the conservation of energy as in the resurrection.
Alas! This is the grand scheme of Singularitians to turn a deaf ear to the law of the conservation of energy and of basic physics to avoid the transformation of death? It may not be the fear of death, but it may be at the very least an obstinate flat-earth mentality akin to defying gravity in a mockery of nature and the reality of death, the ancient, ultimate nemesis of mankind.
the form of a man
The scriptures reveal the origin of death. One need not believe or accept that ancient account in the scriptures and still acknowledge the reality of death. Although the scriptures speak of death in various and different terms the only one which pertains to this discussion is the bodily, physical death of an individual who is laid into the ground. One need not believe or accept that an individual by the name of Jesus took on the form of a man to live and die among us. One need only be mindful that the life and death of Jesus was not extraordinarily different than that of any human being. He possessed an outward appearance, which according to human standards, was the form of a man. Definitely, and at the very least, his physical makeup was a mass of stored energy, but also a vast possession of knowledge. Muslims make the right and critical observation that what Jesus did, that is, the miracles, was not anything which had not been done by various prophets in Israel. Specifically, what they are referring to his the raising of the dead by Jesus. They are correct.
the actual transformation of the resurrection
What this critical observation fails to take into account is that the claims which Jesus made about himself went far beyond raising dead people. Jesus applied what He and the prophets did towards the raising of the dead to Himself. In other words, He claimed that He would lay down His life willfully and die. Then, He would take up His life from the dead again without human hands or human involvement.
This is nothing convoluted. It is not obscure. It is basic physics. It reflects what scientists have observed and informed us about the same law of the conservation of energy. It reflects the same transformation as of the energy in ice into water then vapor _ without human hands or human involvement. It reflects the similar predetermined, calculated plans of Singularitians, but with the critical difference that Jesus submitted to the virtual transformation of energy through death -not by circumventing death as is the grand scheme of Singularitians for man's eternal posterity- and then to the actual transformation (reversal) of energy through the resurrection.
conclusion
One would think the modern age of high technology is completely the sole accomplishment of twentieth century man. It is easy for scientists and technologists to acknowledge the thought and knowledge discoveries of ancient men from Aristotle to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others. It is not as easy to acknowledge the claims and fulfillment of the claims made by Jesus concerning his death and his resurrection. These claims and the observation of the fulfillment of those claims is no less than the required criteria of science on nature.
One need not like it, accept it or understand the law of the conservation of energy, but that does not invalidate or nullify the claims and the reality in the change of energy matter and the transformation of the resurrection from the dead. Mockery and denial may sound good and play well, but it may reveal either an ignorance of basic physics or a obstinate unwillingness to observe the same law at work in the conservation of energy as in the resurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment