Black Holes, Gravity, and God's Omnipotence

We have brains that function very well, but nevertheless are finite and limited in their ability to understand certain concepts with which we cannot have direct experience. It is impossible, for example, for us to fully understand the idea of infinity, or eternity. We can speak conceptually about something, but our brains are simply not designed to grasp it fully. 

The idea I have in mind presently is the difficulty of comprehending how powerful God is. It’s easy to use words such as “omnipotent”, but more difficult to grasp what this means in a tangible sense (besides a very general example such as the feat of creating the universe).   

I'm a bit of a science nerd, so I enjoy reading about physics and astronomy (and pretending to understand at least some of it). One of my favorite topics is black holes, and as I learned more about black holes, I realized they may provide a way to put the power of God into physical terms. Obviously I’m not a scientist, so my understanding and explanations likely are not complete, but I’ll do my best. 

The first thing to understand about black holes is that they are not holes. Black holes occur when a star with a sufficiently large mass runs out of fuel and collapses under the weight of its own gravity. Stars generally are in a state of equilibrium, a balance between the outward push of internal fusion reactions and the inward pull of gravity. Once a star’s fuel is depleted, there no longer is any outward push to counter the inward pull, and in an instant the star collapses into an extremely dense state. It is now a black hole.

The reason it’s called a “hole” is that its gravity is strong enough to pull anything into itself, even light. This is due to the escape velocity of the black hole. Escape velocity is the speed at which an object must travel in order to escape the gravitational pull of a large body (such as a star, planet, or of course a black hole). The stronger the gravitational pull, the faster the escape velocity must be. The escape velocity of earth is about 7 miles per second (25,000 mph). Light travels much faster, about 186,000 miles per second, so it has no trouble escaping earth. 

However, a black hole, due to its extreme density, has a much stronger gravitational pull than the earth or even the most massive stars. To get an idea of the density of black holes, consider that in theory a black hole doesn’t need to have formed from a star. Any object, if shrunk to a sufficiently small size (while still maintaining the same mass) would eventually reach sufficient density to become a black hole. The earth, for example, would have to be squished down to the size of a pea for this to happen. Imagine how dense this would be, and you have an idea of the density of a black hole.

The gravitational pull of the black hole, therefore, is so strong that even light, with a speed of 186,000 miles per second, is not fast enough to reach the required escape velocity, and is sucked back towards the black hole. This is why it appears black: no light escapes for us to see. Imagine trying to pull apart an object held together with such a strong gravitational force! 

Now consider what we know about the beginning of the universe. For much of history, humanity believed that the universe had no beginning, that it simply existed and was not undergoing any change on a universal scale. Everything changed when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe actually is expanding. This implied that the universe had a beginning (which, of course, Christianity had said all along), because of the following inference: if we were to “rewind” further and further into the past, the universe would become increasingly smaller, until ultimately it would converge to a single point at its beginning, known as a singularity. This would be a point of infinite energy, infinite heat, infinite density, and an unimaginably small size. It is believed that at this singularity all of the laws of physics would break down (and I certainly don’t blame them!). 

Hopefully now my reason for talking about black holes earlier is becoming clear. This singularity is similar to a black hole, but certainly much more extreme. This point was even smaller than a pea, but contained not only the mass of the earth, but all of the matter in the entire universe. 

Though it’s impossible to comprehend, consider how strong the gravitational pull of such a dense point must be, and therefore, how much energy would be required to pull it apart.  

God pulled it apart. 

And He did it with such force that it exploded to a size 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than its initial size, within the first .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of the universe’s existence. 

If there was ever an appropriate time to say “Mind Blown” this is would be it! 

My 12 Favorite Christian Books

This week, I've decided to take a break from deeper topics and simply share my twelve favorite Christian books:

The Case for Christ (by Lee Strobel)

Formerly an atheist, Lee Strobel set out to use his journalistic skills to prove that the events in the Gospels never happened. Rather than accomplishing his goal, he followed the evidence where it led and concluded that the historical evidence supports the accuracy of the Gospels and the truth of Christianity. This is not the strongest or most comprehensive book on this topic, but it is a great place to start. It uses an interview format that is easy to follow and quick to read. I try not to say this often, but because of its easy format and the importance of the topic, I believe this is a book every Christian should read.

Mere Christianity (by C.S. Lewis)

This is one of the classics of Christian literature. The first portion is spent defending the truth of Christianity, primarily by using the moral argument (that moral laws cannot exist without a moral law-giver), and makes the case that the universe does not make sense generally without God as an ultimate foundation of meaning. Lewis spends the remainder of the book offering his take on many of the basic Christian doctrines as well as issues pertaining to how we live as Christians. In my opinion, there is no more brilliant writer and defender of Christianity than C.S. Lewis.

The Case for Faith (by Lee Strobel)

In this sequel to The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel attempts to find answers to some of the most difficult questions regarding God and Christianity: why God allows suffering and evil, how we can know miracles are possible, whether it’s narrow-minded to say that Jesus is the only way to God, how a loving God can send people to hell, whether doubt is an obstacle to our relationship with God, and more. He uses the same interview format that made The Case for Christ easy to read and understand.

Who Moved the Stone? (by Frank Morison)

First published in 1930, this book is one of the most detailed arguments I’ve read for the resurrection of Jesus. The author began with a deep reverence for Jesus but thought that the Gospels had become overgrown with legends and embellishments, and he set out to write a book that could clear away all of the supernatural elements and reveal the great, though ordinary, man that Jesus was. In the process, however, his investigation led him to the conclusion that the Gospel accounts aren’t embellished at all, but are accurate historical accounts, and that Jesus did literally rise from the dead. This book is more advanced and detailed than The Case for Christ, but a little more tedious to read. It explores every nuance of the Gospel accounts and makes a very effective case.

Real Christianity (by William Wilberforce)

This book was written at the end of the 18th century and played a role in the abolition of slavery in England. Wilberforce covers a variety of topics, but the main focus is the contrast between what he calls “Cultural Christianity” and an authentic relationship with God. It is a practical, no-nonsense call for Christians to avoid going through the motions and to live a life fully surrendered to God. This is a refreshingly challenging book that leaves no room for excuses!

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek)

While I wish they would have chosen a different title (one that would not be as much of a turn-off to any skeptics who may pick it up), this is the best comprehensive defense of the truth of Christianity in a single book that I’ve found. The chapters follow a logical pattern consisting of 12 premises, each chapter arguing for one of those premises and building on previous chapters. It begins with the assertion that truth exists and can be known, and proceeds to scientific arguments for the existence of God, the possibility of miracles, the historical reliability of the New Testament, and the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. By the conclusion, there is little room to doubt the truth of Christianity.    

Is God a Moral Monster? (by Paul Copan)

One of the strongest tactics used by opponents of Christianity is to condemn some of God’s actions and commands in the Old Testament as immoral. In this book, Paul Copan attempts to answer tough questions about the less easily understood portions of the Old Testament, such as the near-sacrifice of Isaac, the many seemingly arbitrary laws, the tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the commands to conquer cities and kill the inhabitants. He includes details on historical and cultural context and analysis of the original Hebrew. This is an advanced and sometimes tedious book, but a very important answer to challenges that often go unanswered because many of us simply are afraid to attempt it.

The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (by Norman Geisler)

This is not the kind of book you read straight through. It contains a vast number of entries on nearly every topic that has to do with Christian Apologetics, arranged in alphabetical order. It includes bios of influential apologists throughout history as well as famous atheists and opponents of Christianity; explanations of the foundational principles of philosophy, logic, and argument; arguments for God’s existence; traditional apologetics topics such as the reliability of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus; overviews of different religions and worldviews, tough questions such as what happens to people who never hear the Gospel; difficult concepts such as how Jesus can be God and man at the same time; and much more. It is an excellent reference for personal study or to assist in engaging in productive conversation with those who are seeking answers.

Seven Days that Divide the World: The beginning according to Genesis and Science (by John Lennox)

This is a short, easy-to-read book that addresses the controversial debate between a young and old universe. It sets out to make the case that it is not necessary to interpret Genesis to mean a literal six-day creation, but does so in a way that is respectful to those who hold that view and upholds the supremacy and truth of the Bible. In addition to discussing the scientific and biblical evidence, he also argues that Christians need to be careful about placing too much importance on our particular interpretation of this puzzle in a way that may turn people away from God. I believe this is a great book for people on both sides of the issue to read.

The Practice of the Presence of God (by Brother Lawrence)

Brother Lawrence was a monk, specifically a cook, who lived in the 15th century. Being a monk, he lived a simple life, and wrote about how he learned to cultivate a constant awareness of the presence of God during his mundane, ordinary activities. His writing is simple yet profound, and shows what a natural, ongoing relationship with God looks like.

Man: The Dwelling Place of God (by A. W. Tozer)

This is one of Tozer’s best books. The chapters are short and cover a variety of topics on how to live as Christians. Tozer has a way of exploring topics that make us feel slightly uncomfortable because they directly address issues in our lives that we may be trying to avoid facing. This book is great for people who only have a few minutes at a time to read but want something that is deep and challenging.  

The Problem of Pain (by C.S. Lewis)

This is one of the top two or three books I’ve ever read. This book provides an extremely comprehensive and philosophically solid answer to the question of why God allows evil and suffering in the world. It is best read slowly, as Lewis builds his arguments very gradually and precisely. He has a way of anticipating every possible additional question the reader has and answering it so thoroughly that it seems as if he’s in your head as you read it. This book is simply a masterpiece and the highest quality argumentative writing I’ve ever seen.

Obviously there are many other good ones, but if I had to choose, these would be my favorites. If you would like, comment some of your favorite Christian books (either on the blog itself or on the Facebook page) and why you’ve chosen those. I would love to expand my reading list (and I’m sure others would as well)!

Pascal's Wager: Why Believe in God?

Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician and Christian philosopher from the 17th century, is perhaps most famous for what has become known as Pascal’s Wager. The Wager is sometimes put forth as an argument for the existence of God, but it would be more accurately classified as an argument for belief in God. A paraphrased version of Pascal’s Wager is the following:

Either God exists, or He doesn’t. Each of us must choose whether we believe He exists. 

Suppose we choose to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve lost very little, but if He does exist, our gain is infinite (eternal life in paradise). 

On the other hand, suppose we choose not to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve gained very little, if anything at all. But if He does exist, our loss is infinite (eternity separated from God). 

          While it is unlikely that many (if any) of us have come to believe in God based on this type of reasoning, nevertheless, I believe we may sometimes employ a similar thought process without realizing it. I will elaborate on this in a moment, but first, I’ll comment on what I believe to be three flaws in Pascal’s reasoning. 

          First, which God? Which religion? What if we chose the Christian God, but that turned out to be the wrong one? This doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to believe in the Christian God over others, but the Wager does not help us distinguish between them. It assumes there are two opposite choices: either God, or no God, while in reality there are many more theoretical alternatives. 

          The second problem is that belief alone is not sufficient for salvation. It is possible to believe in God without accepting His free gift of salvation. But even if belief were the only condition, is it possible to choose to believe something? If I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that something is true, I will believe it automatically whether I want to or not. I can tell myself, or others, that I believe a particular thing, but that doesn’t mean I actually do. 

          The final problem is that the Wager suggests we make this choice on an entirely rational, impersonal, and self-interested basis. We would be making our choice based not on a genuine love for God and a desire to serve him, or even because we genuinely believe He exists, but rather, based on which choice places the odds most in our favor. We want to be allowed into Heaven, and we have calculated the most likely way to get there. This might be similar to, for example, a young woman marrying an old man with a lot of money, pretending to be interested in him merely for the opportunity to inherit his wealth. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to have a desire for Heaven, but we ought to give our lives to God primarily because they are rightfully His, not only because of what we can gain by doing so. Besides, if our intentions were motivated by nothing more than self-interest, certainly God would see through it. God cannot be so easily fooled. 
  
All of this does not mean that there is nothing good about Pascal’s Wager. However, it is best used as a motivator for each of us to put sufficient time and effort into investigating the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. The stakes are too high for any of us to dismiss the issue without looking into it. The Wager serves this purpose much better than as an argument for believing God exists. 

          This is the reason I believe discussing Pascal’s Wager is important: when asked why we have decided to become followers of Christ, we need to be careful about the answer we give. It can be tempting simply to list all of the benefits we’ve experienced, such as hope of eternal life, greater happiness, or the ability to live a more moral life. Certainly these aspects of the Christian life are significant; however, this answer might imply that we have chosen our beliefs based not on the truth, but on what we want to believe or what benefits those beliefs provide us. There is nothing wrong with making known the hope Christianity has given us. But when giving a reason for our beliefs, we need to make clear that we are concerned about knowing the truth, and have not merely chosen whatever belief is most encouraging, hopeful, or beneficial. 

Did God Create Evil?

        If there is any question that keeps us up at night puzzling, this may be it. We believe God created everything, but intuitively we are uncomfortable with the idea that God intentionally created evil. But if God did not create it, where did it come from?

The dilemma can more easily be analyzed by framing it according to the following syllogism: 

Premise 1: God created everything that exists.

Premise 2: Evil is a thing that exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God created evil. 

According to the laws of argument, in order to prove that this conclusion is not true, we must show either that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, or that at least one of the premises is false.

If we reject premise 1, we assume that something came to exist on its own (or was created by someone else), as well as the fact that something came into existence against God’s will. 

If we reject premise 2, why does the world include such things as natural disasters, terrorist attacks, disease, and brussels sprouts?

The conclusion does logically follow, so there must be a problem with one of the premises. Indeed, it is found in premise 2. But how is it possible that evil is not a thing that exists? What exactly is a thing? And what does it mean for a thing to exist? This may sound like philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but bear with me.

       The answer I’ve often heard is that God created that which is good, and whatever is evil is merely a perversion of what is good. The analogy offered is the fact that “cold” does not exist, but is merely a word indicating the absence of heat; or that “dark” does not exist, but is merely a word indicating the absence of light. This answer may seem effective, especially because it relates complex concepts like the nature of and contrast between good and evil to things that are familiar. However, I think it’s incomplete. I don’t believe “evil” is merely a perversion of the “good” that was created, because I don’t think that “good” is a thing that exists any more than “evil” is. 

        Before you begin preparing a list of good psychiatrists for me, allow me to explain. The solution is found in the fact that the words “good” and “evil” are primarily adjectives. Asking whether good or evil exist, then, would be similar to asking whether “walking” or “angry” exist. These are not “things”, but rather, are descriptions of the nature of things that exist, or actions performed by things that exist. 

After all, we wouldn’t say that God “created” good; He simply is good. So it makes sense that He didn’t “create” evil either. He created beings who have the ability to choose to become evil and do evil things (a possibility that must be present if we are to have free will), but this means “evil” simply is a description of the choices or actions of those beings. But, we might object, isn’t Satan the personification of evil in the same way that God is the personification of good? I don’t believe so. In order for this to be true, God would have had to have created Satan evil initially. But we know that God created Satan inherently good, and Satan later rebelled. This must mean he isn’t inherently evil, but chose to be that way. Besides, Satan is not an “equal opposite” of God. He is not an “evil god” in opposition to the good God. He is nothing more than a fallen angel. Therefore, I don’t think it makes sense to say he personifies evil in the same way God personifies good. 

        In light of all this, what is it that makes something evil? I think the answer might be something like the following: 

Something is evil if

1. It is contrary to God’s nature to the extent that we ought to reflect His nature, or 

2. It is contrary to the purpose for which a thing was created, or involves the use of an object that is contrary to the purpose of that object in a way that causes harm. 

       This second point brings to mind Paul’s statement in Romans 14:14 that “nothing is unclean in itself.” All things that God created can be called good. Unfortunately, sometimes they are used in ways that are not good, but this does not mean they themselves are not inherently good. 

Of course, the logical follow-up question is why God tolerates evil actions at all, but this is a topic for another time. For now, we are only concerned with whether evil was deliberately created by God. Evil was not created because it is not a “thing” that exists in the ordinary sense of the word. But it most certainly is real.