Now We Can Hear God

By Will Myers
 >
In the Old Testament, we have the laws and the promise of the Messiah to come. The Old Testament has the New Testament concealed within. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed, and this is the coming of Christ Jesus with His teachings. The laws are to bring us to the Teacher who has the Holy Spirit from whom we learn all things. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and giver of God’s Spirit without limit.
>

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
>
The Apostle Paul is making an inquiry into the minds of his followers in the above scriptures whether it’s the law or the Spirit whom we seek. The law can not create life, only the Spirit can give life. The law can help preserve life and guide unto the Giver of life Who is in Jesus Christ.
>
One’s salvation is to receive Jesus and repent of sinning. The stronger one’s faith in Jesus Christ’s teachings then the more one can hear the Living God.
>

For the law of the  Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.
 >
We are saved not by our works but by the Grace of God; afterward, God judges our works and those who received Christ Jesus God shall use His Son’s works in you which are perfect in the sight of God. Truly, Christ Jesus is our Savior in these last days.
 >
Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
>
Not only can one hear God directing our lives through Jesus, but we can intercede with a prayer for something that we desire, and God shall answer our prayers.
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
>
The Spirit Of God is here in the name of Jesus and available to All. The true process of life is to listen to every word from the mouth of God and obey God in which we go from Glory to Glory without an end.
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH

 

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now shifted considerably. Part of the reason is the growing acceptance that the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the laws. If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life would almost certainly not exist.

A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very existence.

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe.

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
[First published as an OpEd piece by The New York Times, November 24, 2007]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God and Science: A Course in Due Course

BY ANJEANETTE ROBERTS – APRIL 19, 2018

Many fear to tread into culturally charged topics in an “us” versus “them” social media climate characterized by rapid escalation, rabid judgments, and character assassinations. What if a course on God and science could actually help us love one another, or at least be kinder to those who see things differently than we do?

I’ve just returned from Houston where I taught the first three lectures of an eight-session course on “God and Science.” I’m thrilled and a bit overwhelmed with the challenge and opportunity presented to me by The Bible Seminary in Katy, TX. How does one begin to develop and teach a course on two inexhaustible topics? My approach so far: prayer, perseverance, hope, humility, and lots of good authors, theologians, biblical scholars, and scientists.

The surprising thing to many, myself included, is that after the next lecture we’ll reach the halfway point—and we haven’t even covered a single piece of “scientific data” yet. What?! What kind of course on God and science is that?

Well, it’s one where I’m not trying so much to teach the intricacies of science to nonscientists or to convince anyone to see the data my way. I’m trying to help others see foundations for harmony or integration when thoughtful, committed people engage on the topic of science and faith in a culture where the two are sometimes pitted as polar opposite ways to approach life.

So, what have we looked at? In week one, we examined metaphysics and worldviews, as well as the roles of revelation and interpretation. Next, we considered the history and concept of dual revelation in nature and Scripture, ways of relating science and faith, and the types of reasoning we employ whether we’re involved in scientific endeavors or theological ones. In the third session, we spent most of our time discussing and contemplating the demarcation of science and the role of methodological naturalism in scientific research (and how critically different methodological naturalism is from philosophical naturalism).

The best part of covering this material is that I have drawn from authors who cover the gamut of interpretive positions. The next lecture will feature some of the most challenging material as we look at specific interpretive positions. In regard to the science, I am drawing from old-earth and evolutionary creationists as well as naturalists and biblical literalists. And in regard to scriptural interpretive approaches, we’ll consider those who take the creation accounts literalistically1, non-literalistically—but still historically (analogical and chronological approaches), and positions that could be described as more theological than historical (e.g., framework views, polemic views, and ancient Near Eastern mythical views). When we break it down and tackle the topics this way, we see areas of overlap in several positions and logical consistency within a variety of positions that try to harmonize God’s activities in nature and words in Scripture.

I’m not out to convince others of my position. I am hoping to help others understand how their philosophical (metaphysical) and worldview biases shape the way they interpret data (scientific and biblical) and to adopt their own view on how science and faith relate. By doing this, I also hope to help them understand that others may approach the interpretation of the data (scientific and biblical) differently. We’re all just trying to make the best sense we can out of life. We’re all just trying to fit those things we know via mathematics and philosophy, natural and behavioral sciences, human experience, and religious beliefs together in a logically coherent whole that helps us navigate and make sense of the world.

I hope this approach will allow us to be more accepting and loving of fellow Christians who have different views than we might. I hope it will allow us to view other non-Christians with a greater degree of understanding and acceptance, too. I really hope it will allow us all to dialogue with true curiosity and genuine kindness with one another.

Jesus calls us to seek truth and to be actively engaged in loving each other—and God—as we do. If we’re doing these things with a modicum of humility and a serious dose of self-awareness, I think we can build bridges and friendships with people who are very different than we are. What a beautiful vision, a kaleidoscope of diversity without character (or real) assassinations. If we could pull that off, maybe others would believe there really is a God and that Jesus is really who he claimed to be.

If we’re helping one another to consider things differently, we will likely understand our own positions better, and together, draw closer to the truth. As Christians we should never shrink back from the pursuit of truth as we trust in Jesus. Because all truth, after all, is God’s truth. On that note, I’ll close with a recent statement I heard that I wish was attributable to a fellow Christian, but is not. “In the end we’re all just walking one another home”—even in a course on God and science.

Endnotes
  1. Use of the word “literalistically” is intentional. Although not found in some dictionaries, literalistically is used in discussions regarding interpretation and refers to a particular commitment of an interpretive approach, one which is done in a literalistic manner; an approach to interpretation that adheres to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Philosophy’s Most Famous Quotations

via Philosophy’s Most Famous Quotations

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Philosophy’s Most Famous Quotations

I love ideas. And I love thinking about them. One of the fundamental reasons I study philosophy is that I believe ideas really matter. And philosophy is the discipline of big ideas: God, the cosmos, the mind, knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, logic, etc.

As a Christian, I also think it is important apologetically to understand how the big philosophical ideas through the centuries relate to the truth of historic Christianity. For much of Christian history, the discipline of philosophy was understood to be a handmaid (servant) to theology. But in the ancient world, as today, certain philosophical ideas posed challenges to Christian truth-claims.

In parts one and two of this series, I suggested that one way of coming to know and appreciate philosophy is to consider some of the powerful quotations made by great philosophers on ultimate issues. In part three of this series, we’ll look briefly at three famous philosophical quotations from three of history’s greatest thinkers. The three quotes relate to such topics as the mind, creation, and morality.

Three Famous Philosophy Quotes

1. René Descartes (1596–1650)

René Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Because of his break with the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian philosophy, he has been called “the father of modern Western philosophy.” He developed the first modern form of mind-body dualism. Thus, his famous dictum:

I think, therefore I am. (Latin: Cogito ergo sum.)

René Descartes, Discourse on the Method

Descartes affirmed that thought was indubitable evidence that a person existed, for one must be a thinking entity (mind) to even doubt one’s existence. And even if a person is confused about their existence, they must exist to be confused.

2. Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German philosopher, logician, and mathematician. As part of his argument for God’s existence, he asked the ultimate metaphysical question:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Gottfried Leibniz, Principles of Nature and of Grace

For Leibniz, all contingent (dependent) realities find their cause in God, who is a noncontingent, or necessary, reality. Leibniz’s question anticipated big bang cosmology, which implies a cosmic beginning.

3. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who deeply influenced Enlightenment thinking. He was a systematic philosopher who wrote in such fields as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political theory, and aesthetics. In developing his duty-oriented approach to objective ethics, he stated:

Always act so as to will the maxim of your action to become a universal law.

Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

In affirming a nonconsequential approach to ethics, Kant believed that one could, in effect, universalize one’s ethical actions. Thus, Kant believed in an objective basis for ethics, which he grounded in God’s existence.

I hope this very brief introduction to some of philosophy’s greatest thinkers and their most important quotes will help you appreciate the unique discipline of philosophy and part of its history. Join me once more next week for the final post in this series on philosophy’s most famous quotations!

Reflections: Your Turn

Which one of the three quotes above do you find the most engaging? Why? Visit Reflectionson WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

For more about the ideas of Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant in light of Christianity, see Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and Movements by Colin Brown and A History of Western Philosophy and Theology by John M. Frame.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

BY JEFF ZWEERINK – FEBRUARY 23, 2018

Except for John 3:16, this is probably the most well-known verse in the Bible, and it highlights a number of distinctives important for the rest of Scripture. Maybe the most significant, Genesis 1:1 establishes that the universe had a beginning that God caused.

If we were transported to the late 1800s, we would learn that the prevailing scientific picture of the universe was that it had always existed. Matter and energy moved around in absolute space and eternal time. Since that time, the development of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the discovery of the expansion of the universe, and the formulation of various space-time theorems (even ones that apply to hypothetical multiverses), strong scientific evidence points to a beginning for the universe. Given that I expect God’s revelation in Scripture and creation to agree, this result is entirely unsurprising—even though unexpected by scientists.

In Genesis 1 the Hebrew term for created, bara, carries the connotation that God brought something entirely new (the universe) into being rather than rearranging some preexisting stuff. Christian scholars through the ages have taken this description, along with many other passages throughout Scripture, to develop the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. This point warrants mention because skeptics will often dismiss the Genesis creation account by claiming it is derived from the Ancient Near Eastern myth, the Enuma Elish (see here and here). For example, both describe the transformation of chaos and the deep into a place for humanity to reside.

However, Ken Keathley (see video below) from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, articulates a more accurate view. Keathley notes that the author of Genesis—who I will assume is Moses—did a masterful job of contextualization. In other words, Moses allowed the audience to ask questions, used their grammar, but presented an answer that subverted the prevailing worldview. Specifically, where the deities of the Enuma Elish brought the heavens and earth into existence using the decapitated body of Tiamat, God brought the universe into existence out of nothing. Additionally, the Enuma Elish declares that humanity is created as slaves so the gods can rest. In contrast, the God of the Bible creates (bara, just like with the universe) humanity and then blesses us with dominion over the Earth and in fellowship with him.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 1:26

As described previously, Genesis 1:2 then moves the frame of reference from the universe to Earth’s surface and gives the initial conditions—formless, void, dark, and dominated by water. The rest of Genesis 1 (and all of Scripture for that matter) shows how time progresses in a linear fashion from that beginning. We take this for granted. However, many cultures throughout history thought time was circular, such that the events of creation were reactualized periodically. One recent example was the prediction of the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Since the Mayans operated with a cyclical view of time, this generated quite a bit of concern among many people.

We take for granted that things begin, move linearly through time, and then end. This way of thinking so pervades the Western mindset that it is almost impossible to conceive of anyone thinking differently. This fact emphasizes one of Keathley’s main points. Moses’s contextualization was so effective that Moses is closer to our modern way of thinking than to his original audience. And that point separates the Bible from all the other Ancient Near Eastern myths.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

General Relativity and Its Christian Implications Pass Yet More Tests

 

 

BY HUGH ROSS – DECEMBER 18, 201

General relativity ranks as the best description of how the universe behaves. It explicitly incorporates the principle that the laws of physics never change throughout both space and time.

Proving the reliability of general relativity to precisely describe the dynamics (movements) of massive bodies in the universe is fundamental to establishing the space-time theorems.1 The cascading implications continue from there. These theorems prove the beginning (creation) of space and time. The creation of space and time implies the existence of a Creator beyond space and time, which uniquely describes the God of the Bible.

Such theological significance has prompted astronomers and physicists to subject general relativity to rigorous, exhaustive testing. Even though general relativity currently ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best-proven principle in physics, astronomers and physicists feel compelled by its philosophical implications to subject it to even more stringent tests.

In the last month, three research teams have taken two important tests of general relativity to much higher degrees of confirmation. The first such test is a sophisticated version of Galileo Galilei’s famous drop test. Galileo’s student Vincenzo Viviani reported that in 1590±1 AD,Galileo dropped two spheres of different masses from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (see image below) and proved that both masses fell at the same rate.

blog__inline--general-relativity-and-its-christian-implications-1Figure 1: Leaning Tower of Pisa Where Galileo Proved Gravity Causes All Objects to Fall at the Same Rate. Image credit: Saffron Blaze, Wikipedia Commons

Equivalence Principle Test
All viable theories of gravity predict that objects of different masses, independent of air resistance, will fall at the same approximate rate. General relativity, however, predicts that the rates will be exactly equivalent. Physicists call this the equivalence principle.

Galileo proved the equivalence principle to about 1 part in 100. The best laboratory experiments establish the equivalence principle to about 2 parts in 10 trillion.2 We’ve come a long way since Galileo in terms of establishing the accuracy of the equivalence principle. A similar limit was achieved using lunar laser ranging measurements that showed a lack of differential acceleration between the Moon and Earth toward the Sun.3

On April 25, 2016, the Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES), France’s space agency, launched the MICROSCOPE satellite. On board the satellite were two accelerometers (see image below). In one of the accelerometers was a cylinder made of an aluminum-titanium alloy. In the other was a cylinder made of a much denser platinum-rhodium alloy.

blog__inline--general-relativity-and-its-christian-implications-2

Figure 2: Twin Space Accelerometer for Gravity Experiment (SAGE) Payload Canisters.Image credit: Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES)

As the satellite orbits Earth, the two cylinders are in continuous free fall. Electrodes keep the cylinders centered inside the accelerometers by applying tiny voltages to the cylinders. These voltages were accurately measured to determine if there are any differences between the two applied voltages. After more than 1,500 orbits the MICROSCOPE mission research team found no such differences. In a preprint accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters the research team comprised of forty-four physicists from France, Germany, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom reported that the lack of such differences established the equivalence principle to 1 part in 100 trillion.4 This measure is a factor of 20 times superior to the best previous test.

The MICROSCOPE satellite is scheduled for at least another 900 orbits. By then, the MICROSCOPE mission research team hopes to test the equivalence principle to 1 part in a quadrillion. A proposed Italian satellite would push the test to 1 part in 100 quadrillion. Stanford University physicists have proposed a satellite featuring noise-reducing cryogenics that would yield a test accurate to 1 part in a quintillion.

Is all this testing necessary? Lay readers may wonder, how much more testing of the equivalence principle does general relativity require beyond Galileo’s drop test experiments? While the overall validity of general relativity is affirmed by astronomers and physicists, several of them speculate about tiny adjustments to general relativity, some of which have significant philosophical consequences. Therefore, placing more stringent limits on such possible adjustments has implications for science, philosophy, and theology.

Lorentz Invariance Tests
General relativity also predicts a fundamental symmetry known as Lorentz invariance. Lorentz invariance, named after early twentieth century Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, states that the laws of physics are invariant under a transformation between two coordinate frames moving at constant velocity with respect to one another. To put it simply, it means that physical measurements will not depend on either the speed or the orientation of the laboratory’s reference frame. To put it even more simply, it says that while the universe is not invariant, the laws of physics are.

Two research teams using independent methods have now put the most stringent constraints on possible violations of Lorentz invariance. Three physicists at Carleton College, Minnesota, used superconducting gravimeter measurements to test local Lorentz invariance.5Specifically, they looked for local gravitational acceleration by carefully measuring the position of a superconducting sphere levitated in a magnetic field. (You can watch such an experiment here.) Compared to the previous best gravimeter results, the Carleton College team determined upper limits on possible violations of Lorentz invariance that were more than 10 times smaller.

The second research team comprised of six physicists and astronomers from the University of Bologna, Italy, the Paris Observatory, and the University of California, Los Angeles, analyzed48 years of data from lunar laser-ranging experiments.6 These experiments involve laser beams from Earth being bounced off mirrors placed on the Moon’s surface by Apollo 11 and 14 astronauts (see figures 3 and 4 below) to accurately measure the Moon’s orbital and rotational motions. This team placed upper limits on possible violations of Lorentz invariance that were 100–1,000 times better than the previous best determinations.

blog__inline--general-relativity-and-its-christian-implications-3

Figure 3: Lunar Laser Reflector Placed on the Moon by Apollo 11 Astronauts. Image credit: NASA

blog__inline--general-relativity-and-its-christian-implications-4

Figure 4: Lunar Ranging at Goddard Spaceflight Center. Image credit: NASA

What Do the Tests Imply?
General relativity passed all three tests described here with outstanding success. Physicists have speculated about alternate gravity theories to general relativity, but the three tests establish that all that remains of these alternate theories are the ones that adjust the predictions of general relativity only very, very slightly.

Thus, the predictions of general relativity relevant to establishing that the God of the Bible created our universe of matter, energy, space, and time stand more securely affirmed than ever before. No basis remains for doubting any of the theological conclusions dependent upon the reliability of general relativity.

Featured image: The MICROSCOPE Satellite Designed to Test the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity. Image credit: Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES)

Endnotes
  1. I discuss the space-time theorems in my book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. In the fourth edition of my book The Creator and the Cosmos (release date early 2018), I demonstrate why the space-time theorems are valid both for classical general relativity and also for the extremely early moment in cosmic history where general relativity is modified by quantum mechanics (the quantum gravity era).
  2. T. A. Wagner et al., “Torsion-Balance Tests of the Weak Equivalence Principle,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 (August 15, 2012): id.184002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/184002.
  3. James G. Williams, Slava G. Turyshev, and Dale H. Boggs, “Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of the Equivalence Principle,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 (August 15, 2012); id.184004, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/184004.
  4. Pierre Touboul et al., “The MICROSCOPE Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle,” preprint, submitted December 6, 2017, accepted for publication in Physical Review LettersarXiv:1712.01176v2.
  5. Natasha A. Flowers, Casey Goodge, and Jay D. Tasson, “Superconducting-Gravimeter Tests of Local Lorentz Invariance,” Physical Review Letters 119 (November 16, 2017): id. 201101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201101.
  6. Adrien Bourgoin et al., “Lorentz Symmetry Violations from Matter-Gravity Couplings with Lunar Laser Ranging,” Physical Review Letters 119 (November 16, 2017): id. 201102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201102.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment