SCIENCE SPEAKS

Steven Hawking, one of the greatest scientists since Einstein said, "Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning." Einstein's Theory of Relativity proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe and time itself had a beginning.

Einstein's discovery proved that we live in a three dimensional world, time, space and matter (which is energy). Interestingly, the Bible starts out, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In the beginning (that's time), God created (that's energy), the heavens (that's space), and the earth (that's matter). Coincidence?

Since we know that the universe had a beginning, asking, "Where did God come from?" is a nonsensical question. It contains the false assumption that God was created or had a beginning and then asks, "How is that is possible?" The question itself is fatally flawed. It is like asking. "Where did the bachelor get his wife?" Or, "What does blue sound like?" Bachelors by definition do not have wives, and colors are not in the category of sound. In the same sense, God is not in the category of created things. Asking the wrong question can never produce the right answer. So, a better question to begin with is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Since the universe reveals time, space and matter, the first cause must be outside of time, space and matter. We can thus conclude that the first cause is timeless and eternal. We can also conclude that the first cause is immaterial since it or He transcends space.

To have created the universe, in all of its incredible vastness, out of nothing, the First Cause must be omnipotent. To have created the universe with such precision, and intricate design, perfect for the existence of human life on earth, the First Cause must be omniscient.

To have made an unending series of design choices requires that the First Cause be personal, for an inanimate, impersonal thing cannot make choices. God's personality is also evidenced in the fact that He created personal human beings. And, each of us knows instinctively, that it is morally wrong to murder, to steal, to lie, and to have another man's wife. The universal moral law is written on every man's heart. This is also known as conscience. Absolute moral truth is absolute proof of a universal moral law giver.

All these characteristics are consistent with what the Bible reveals about God. It takes far more faith to believe that no one plus nothing, equals everything.

IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

Just as mathematics is a perfect science, so is the moral law. Moral truth is as timeless and true for everyone of every age as the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4.

Incredibly, the moral relativist says, "It's wrong for you to impose your morals on me." That statement is in itself a perfect contradiction. Aren't they imposing their morals on us by saying that? How about when you hear them say, "There is no such thing as right or wrong." We must ask, "Is that statement right or wrong?"

Another common claim of the moral relativist goes like this, "All truth is a matter of one's own opinion, just like I prefer vanilla over chocolate." That is fine for food, but when you try and use that same rationale with morality, it completely breaks down. You can't say, "That was a wonderful evening," and in the same breath, speaking of Hitler's murdering six million innocent people, say, "That was a wonderful holocaust. Let's do it again soon!"

Relativists often argue, "Everybody can believe whatever they want!" Why then are they trying to get us to believe what they want?

The relativist claims that everyone should be free to do whatever he wants. Ask that same person how he feels if someone cuts in line in front of him, or if he comes home to find his house has been burglarized and his family murdered! Not one of these people would maintain such a ridiculous position and say, "Oh well, who am I to impose my views on this robber. His views on burglary and murder are just as valid as mine."

The relativist claims, "No one knows what truth is." Then he asks you to believe what he just said is true! That is complete contradiction! How can you make an argument against absolute truth unless your argument is absolutely true?

Consider the philosophy teachers who read books that say life has no meaning. Are these books meaningful? How about the nutty professors who teach their students "truth is whatever is true to you; there are no absolute standards of right and wrong." Then they turn around and grade their papers! Do these same professors want their wives to be relatively faithful? Would they mind if their bank statements were relatively accurate?

If there is no God, than there is no moral law. If there is no God, then life is meaningless and the world is an inexplicable riddle. Read the Bible and the history of the human race is satisfactorily explained.