Natural Transcendence

c.2007.09.12
ed.2010.02.02.01 (Concept Draft)

If every cause is truly an effect of a previous cause, then the only resolution for that paradoxical "First Cause" is that this "First Cause" must have transcended all natural law--must have even transcended that which is ordered, creation itself. Only by not being bound under natural law can that "First Cause" not be required to be preceded by another cause.

That which is above Nature, above natural law, evidences a greater and much higher "Transcendence".

If there is order--and no randomness--in everything I see, then reasonably, I must conclude that I am not random. And if I am a "result", then it is reasonable for me to believe that I have been caused into an "ordered" existence by something much greater and "transcendent" than myself, greater even than this universe.

This transcendence above and within nature, is what I call Heaven.

Order and Inspiration

c.2007.12.30
ed.2007.09.27.01 (Concept Draft)

How could it be possible for me to ignore the possibility that Nature testifies of God when I find myself face to face with this incessant contemplation:

When I look above at the heavens, and look below into the Earth, I wonder: "If there is a right and a left, a forward and a backwards, and an up and a down, then why can't there be an "Above" and "Within" that orders and inspires all things?"

All nature observes a governing order, but where is this law written that all creation abides by? That there is order and law is irrefutable. That this order and law are not written or cataloged, but still observed, if even more evident. If this governing law is not cataloged within nature, then where is it and by what decree was it given?

And what life is there that does not articulate the very nature of life itself, the nature that inspires more life? Is not the fundamental nature of life to bless and increase those and that which is around. Is this not the definition of love and the antithesis of pride? That this breath, this passion, grows in glory and defines our every perception of beauty is evident. But that which is given life is not life itself but only a partaker. And if all Nature is filled with life, then where is the heart that breathed this breath of passion?

And once asked, how could my contemplation not draw me straight back to God.

Seven Day Creation

cmp.2007.12.17
ed.2009.06.08.06 (Public Draft III)

Organization
1.The Dilemma
2. A Resolution
3. "What If" Scenario
4. References

The Dilemma

As with most every argument, the source of many disagreements at their very core pertain to semantics, the definition of terms. This is why you can know that any evolutionist is intentionally trying to deceive you when/if they claim that the ancient geological record of Earth directly contradicts the "Creation Story" found in the Bible. There really is no contradiction.

The Tanach, (the Jewish Bible) claims that God ceased from creating in six days. However, it must be clearly understood what we mean when we say "day". In the "modern" world, a day is a 24 hour period of time--relative to the Earth's rotation--not orbit--around the Sun. The Tanach also defines "day" in view of the Sun illustrating how a "day" is a combination of both the absence of sunlight, and then its presence, (evening and morning). The key to resolving this issue, is to ensure that it is understood that regardless which definition we use for "day", all definitions rely on the presence of the Sun.

The Resolution

1. According to the Tanach, a Day is a combination of evening and morning, never a literal 24 hours.
2. The Tanach never defines a day as a literal 24 hour period.
3. From the first Day until the fourth, there was no way to distinguish a Day or year from the next because the Sun and Earth did not have a defined relationship until then. Until then, a day was defined solely by proclamation.
4. This Bible does not say why this relationship did not exist; it just states that this relationship was "set" on the fourth day. Some reasons why this relationship could not have been established are: the Earth may not have been in a stable orbit around the Sun; or, the Sun may not have existed at the time. Personally, I believe that the latter is a much more consistent understanding.
5. Biblically, God proclaimed the first several days without the aid of stellar events or 24 hours clocks. Essentially, they were days just because God said so.
6. Therefore, since, the definition of a day in the Tanach and in modern science are both relative to the Sun, and since the Bible says that there essentially was no relationship between the Sun and Earth until the fourth day, then the believer who cites the evidentual ambiguity in this passage is not making an irrational claim when they say, "Scripture and scientific evidence for an older Earth do not seem to be contradictory on this point."

"What-If" Scenario:

1. It is evident that according to definitions of "day" that are relative to the Sun, (sequences of night time and day time), that there are certain regions of the Earth that have incredibly long days, some days last many months in some cases. This is true the closer that you travel to the North Pole, for example.
2. There is evidence of incredible climactic events in both the geological record as well as in the Tanach, floods, meteors, etc.
3. It is possible and even probable that meteors caused many of these environmental events.
4. It is reasonable to conclude that some of the these impacts could have caused environmental changes and effected the Earth's rotation, axis, weather, etc.
5. If it is possible that the Earth's axis or even rotation have changed, then it is possible to conclude that there may have been a portion of the Earth that witnessed a full "day" only once in a very long time, possibly only once in thousands or millions of years.

References

Day Is The Combination of Evening and Morning

Bereshit, (Gen.) 1:5
ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד
And called, God, Light "Day" and Darkness He called "Night". And there was evening and there was morning, Day One,

Note: Literally: Day of Unity is more accurate because "Echad" does not imply a numerical value, but a unity.

Bereshit, (Gen.) 1:8
ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני
And there was evening and there was morning, Day Second.

Note: Here the Hebrew begins counting according to placement or cardinality, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.