Give me a 50-page treatise from pretty much any period before the 21st century and I promise I’ll be content. Ecstatic even. There’s just something deliciously delectable about the documented progression of modern rationality; about deductive reasoning and empirical argumentation…
Even so, my pseudo addiction hasn’t quite convinced me of Reason’s infallibility. I’ve taken note of its entirely unavoidable presence in mathematics, physics, economics, astronomy, sociology and so forth, but I am no closer to believing in its flawlessness than I am to believing in an undeniably real tooth fairy. Aside from the fact that modern rationality seems to have been “constructed” throughout history, support of my denial also takes the form of recent scientific discovery. Philosophers and scientists alike are still having trouble–after almost a decade– explaining how Bose-Einstein condensates can reasonably exist in two places at once. It’s counter-intuitive. And even more shockingly: it’s irrational.
But most of us will contently wave this off as a mere stumbling block in the open, pitted road from inquiry to certainty. They just haven’t found the answer yet, but there’s got to be some logical structure to the way the material world exists in the atomic realm.
However, I wonder how many of us can comfortably entertain the thought that logic just might not be able to account for everything. Maybe there are some things that just aren’t meant to make sense, that aren’t meant to fit into our comfortable little system of hypothesis/premise-to-conclusion relations.
As I entertain such an arguably unconventional thought, I’m reminded of the contenders who have attempted to rationalize God’s conception. Even now, I can hear several proclamations and smug remarks:
So, you really believe God just popped up out of no where?
He HAD to have come from something! The laws of physics say so!
It just isn’t logical to believe that something came from nothing.
I chuckle inside. These spokespersons of science and logic really think they’ve got it all figured out. If it can’t be deduced and explained by empirical evidence, it and anyone that holds it to be true is literally ridiculous.
If God and His conception can’t be deduced and explained by empirical evidence, He and everyone that holds Him to be Truth is ridiculous.
To be arrogant enough to believe that we can really explain how God came to be is just hilarious to me. I liken it to a bunch of ants trying to explain how the heck a group of giant beings with no exoskeletons miraculously ended up making camp next to their miniature hillside. That’d be a rather ambitious endeavor, no?
But if we (and by “we” I mean “those haughty spokespersons of science and logic”) are really determined to even ATTEMPT to explain how God came to be, I’d venture to call our attention to a familiar God-reference: the Alpha, the beginning [Rev 22:13]. I find the subsequent line of reasoning rather simple. If God IS the beginning, He is HIS beginning and, therefore, has no OTHER (separate) beginning or source of inception. He has always been, always is and always will be.
That, of course, doesn’t “make sense”, but it’s what the Word says (…and, yes, I reserve the right to save my justification for believing in the accuracy of an anthropomorphic literary artifact for another blog post).
I’d even go so far as to say that its senselessness only adds to its beauty. Who or what else can attest to being responsible for its own conception? Nothing. And that’s swag and pretty dope. Or …. gangster [is that what the kids are calling it nowadays]?
Needless to say but nonetheless worth saying: I am thoroughly intrigued by and content with how God “came to be”.