ENTRY 1206 | DECEMBER
want to begin my continued comments begun
on Thanksgiving day by critiquing the verses of a Hindu hymn published
then in this space and submitted for our consideration by Bud Book.
Its first line:
was neither non-existence nor existence then.
what my Jonalthan-Edwards-amateur-theologian-friend (whom I shall
from now on refer to as "the Edwardsian") would call a nonsense
assertion. If there was a "there" or a "then,"
something had to exist. Both space (there) and time (then) are defined
by their content; if there is no content in either, neither of them
But as the Edwardsian argues and which I find logically sound, nonexistence
is utterly unthinkable. He likes to say, "it may be sayable but
not thinkable," which is nonsense in its way as well, but he
means of course that when you say this you are talking nonsense. One
of the primeval "logical proofs" for God, the ontological
argument, speaks directly to this, to existence. If there is such
a thing as existence, which you could only doubt if you yourself did
not existbut then you couldn't either, could you?if any
thing exists, there must be a God, defined as the Creator and the
Prime Mover. How else could matter, from which I have been begotten,
have come to "be" or to exist, if not for the existence
of something beyond materiality?
Hindu hymn continues with a re-enforcement of the initial nonsense
was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond
what? And then:
In whose protection?
could anything stir if there was no existence? All that has come thus
far is unthinkable in a biblical frame of reference. The Bible from
its first verse on assumes the eternal never-created existence of
God, as well as His immutability, and it never wavers from it. God
told Moses to think of Him as "I am that I am," which biblical
philosophers compare with the idea that His existence is eternal and
self-revealing. And the Psalmist had these precepts in mind when he
wrote, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God,'"
(Psalms 14:1 and 53:1). And the Apostle Paul takes this to its next
step in the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, especially
Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that [those who claim
ignorance of God] are without excuse."
this is saying not much more than that I prefer the Judeo-Christian
scriptures to their alternatives from the competition. And the next
lines in the Vedic hymn seem somewhat biblcal
there water, bottomlessly deep?
There was neither death not immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor day.
That ONE breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
of the mysteries of the biblical account of creation is its references
to the firmament and the waters below and above the firmament, which
Judeo-Christian theologians have speculated about for millenia. But
if this creation narrative means to suggest that water was the first
matter created (or, as a good Darwinian might say, "the first
thing to accidentally appear"), again it is logically and scientifically
suspect. But before the creation of the differentiated earth and its
contents, it is logical and biblically consistent to say there was
neither death nor immortality, no night nor day. And the ONEwhat
ever that might be or where ever it might have come from if there
was no space before this pointresembles the Creator introduced
in the first chapter of Genesis, as He also breathed the material
world into existence. And if space was a vacuum it may be true that
His breath made no "wind," but I'm wondering if "windless
breath" is cut out of the same cloth as one hand clapping.
passage looked at last time has one more verse:
this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the ONE who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.
what sense does it make to speak of it being self-created and yet
beheld by "the ONE," much less than that "the ONE"
was person enough to have eyes to see and a mind to reflect on His
seeing...much less that He is great enough to look down on all creation
and yet not know whence it came.
sounds to me like someone is trying to trick or fool us. As the Church
Lady would now be asking: "Could it be Satan!?"
do you think?
Webmaster Jon Kennedy