Monday, September 7, 2015

9-7-15 A Theory on Theories

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
1 John 3:19-20

Gravity is a force that exists in a relationship of attraction between all things in the universe. Larger objects have more gravity, smaller have less. The closer two objects exist to one another, the greater the gravitational attraction. These are facts supported by evidence; indisputable. There is Law involved with Gravity.

The Laws of Gravity are good ones—some of the best. People support gravity. It’s easy to buy into Master, because gravity holds us accountable. Without gravity, we would float away; nothing to anchor our purpose.  Gravitational laws are sound and provable.
Such as?

On this planet: What goes up must come down…unless the force of escape is greater than the force of attraction.

I’m fine with Gravitational laws. But to You, Creator, I pose a pressing question. Where is gravity? How does it function? I can measure it and obey its constraints, yet I can’t put a piece of gravity under a microscope to watch it work. I can’t peer at gravity through a telescope. Al l I can do is observe its results. So, Lord, I confess to being a little sketchy on Gravitational theory.  
Theories are not laws. Laws require only obedience:

  If I walk off the roof of a building, I will fall like an anvil to the ground.

But regarding Gravitational theory, I have to demonstrate great confidence in something unseen:

  Because of gravity, I do not need to wear my anvil outside today.

It seems as if gravity is much like…well, like You God…

…but not exactly.

You are the force that created relationships of attraction between all things in the universe. You are the greatest attractor of all. The closer any object comes toward You, the greater the Godly attraction. This is a fact supported by evidence; indisputable. There is Law involved with God.
The laws of God are good ones—the best. Strangely people don’t always support Godly laws. It’s an odd paradox, Master, because You hold us accountable. Without You, we would float away; nothing to anchor our purpose.  Godly laws are sound and provable. Such as?

On this planet: We have fallen…unsuccessful in our attempt to escape the force of Your attraction.

I’m fine with Godly laws. But to You, Creator, I pose one more pressing question. Where are You? How do You function? I can measure and obey Your constraints, yet I can’t put a piece of You under a microscope to watch You work. I can’t peer at You through a telescope. Al l I can do is observe Your results. So, Lord, I confess to being a little sketchy on Godly theory. I even call it by another name: Faith.

Faith is not a law. Laws require only obedience:

  If I reject Your love and desire for my wellbeing. I will fall like an anvil into darkness.

But regarding Godly faith, I have to demonstrate great confidence in something unseen:

  Because of You, I do not need to fear the anvil of spiritual death. Today or any day: Not ever.

Why do I offer this weighty subject, Lord? I came across a theory recently posed by a well-known physicist who suggests: The data necessary to define a black-hole is trapped gravitationally inside the black-hole itself. So the hidden data can’t be used to define the black-hole; thus by evidence of the unobtainable information within, the black-hole is by definition…defined. (My paraphrase)

Excuse me Savior, but that one of the stupidest things I have ever heard posed by someone who is supposed to be one of the smartest beings trapped by gravity on this earth. The theory behind that theory is unprovable, unsupportable; appearing to be based on weak theory and seemingly weaker faith.

It reminds me of a time long ago, when I believed something to be a truth—that You did not exist. I set out to prove my theory and discovered that to do so, required me to build upon my unbelief with more and more unbelief: Theory supported only by more theory. There was no evidence I could find that validated my theories. The data I needed to prove my point, I found to be non-existent or totally unprovable, seemingly hidden within the black-hole of my flimsy justification and reasoning.

It took quite a while for me to realize I had never tried to test the strength of my theory by honestly pursuing the opposite position; that You do exist. Then came the real surprise.

When I started seeking You as a reality, I found more and more light shone on the possibility. There was, and is ample evidence of who You are and how You make Yourself known. You even made Yourself tangible in the form of Your son’s earthly presence and sacrifice. I began to see You (No, I have not met You in physical form, but by the increasing gravity of Your Spiritual presence). Your desire for a relationship of attraction to me drew me closer and closer to You. My understanding of Your purpose for me increased.  And so my old theory collapsed and was replaced by a very old law of life, newly and patiently revealed by the greatest Spiritual Physicist of all.

I understand that some people choose to focus, speculate on and question the darkness. It’s so easy to make up one’s own answers; no law is necessary, no results are required. But by that approach, where is the gravity? There is no purpose. Is the church’s faith so weakly founded? Do we chase You through scriptural and present day evidence as passionately as You have pursued us?

Lord, why would I or anyone choose to theorize on that which does not exist, when You offer anyone who chooses to believe in You, such a clear and non-theoretical relationship? I would love to hear any theories on that!

Mark C.

PS: To those who do not believe that the God of Creation exists, I pose one last set of questions:

If there were only one object and not two, would gravity or faith exist? Is such a concept provable? Why speculate on the unknowable? Might the question only be important in pointing to a greater truth; that we live in a universe of relationships, one to another; greater to lesser: Is the evidence disputable and if so, how?