Theological Physics and an Apology for the Existence of God

Posted on Updated on

I know only a little about theology. Even less about physics. But I’ve been thinking about the idea of contingency, and that idea brings theology and physics together for me.

Think for a moment about the idea of contingency. What does it mean? Look it up if you have to because you’ll need a working definition. The basic idea I’ll be working with is this: Contingency is the idea that something… whatever it is… relies on something ELSE for it’s existence. On the other hand, if something is “non-contingent” then it relies on nothing else for its existence.

So of course, I started thinking about the different dimensions, what they are and how they are contingent upon each other.

Now, we typically think of the higher dimensions as being the “loftier” or more “mysterious” or even the “greater” dimensions. However, I want to suggest the opposite. I’ll try to illustrate.

Let’s say, for a moment, that we want to talk about something that is 3 dimensional. That means, at least from what I remember from my school-boy days, that it exists with the properties of width, height, and depth. Up down (one dimension), Left right (a second dimension) and forward, backward or in, out (a third dimension). What I am suggesting is that for something to exist as a three dimensional object, it is completely contingent on the existence of all three of those dimensions. Three dimensional objections cannnot exist without up and down, left and right, in and out. Therefore, I am suggesting that the three dimensions that make up a three dimensional object are actually GREATER than the object itself, because they (the dimensions) do not rely on the object for existence, rather the object relies upon them.

And so it is even with the 4th dimension, if we can assume the fourth dimension is time. And let’s do.

Time requires four dimensions, up and down (one), left and right (two), in and out (three) and perspective one to perspective two or “movement.” It is marking the difference between perspective one and perspective two that I’ll use to define time. We see a three dimensional object from perspective one… (and with only one perspective it remains a three dimensional object), but as soon as the object is set in motion and a different perspective is observed the object has become four dimensional.

What then, is the conclusion?

I conclude that a 4 dimensional object is lesser than a three dimensional object because the 4th dimensional (time bound) object RELIES on the prior 3 dimensions. And so a 3 dimensional object is lesser than a two, and a two dimensional object lesser than one.

Which brings me to the most exciting part of this particular article.

The ZERO dimension. Which is, and what else could it be, but ultimate NON-CONTINGENCY!

Or, dare I say it. . . GOD.  To me, dimensional physics are proof of God. God is the Zero dimension. God is non-contingency because God relies on absolutely NOTHING for his existence. God does not require up and down, left and right, in and out, movement, matter, energy or anything else. God is not even contingent upon the existence of reality, because without the existence of the other dimensions, reality itself cannot even be defined. Therefore, reality is contingent upon God, not the other way around.

What I may do, in a part two article, is talk a little about how the creation story itself proves the point.

Think about it this way…

Which was created first, and here you’ll need do your own investigation… light or the sources of it (i.e. sun, moon & starts)?  For the direction I’ll take, please refer to Genesis 1.

Let me know what you think?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Theological Physics and an Apology for the Existence of God

    David Ochabski said:
    December 24, 2012 at 1:49 am

    I don’t fully agree that one dimension is less than another; I believe they’re all mutually contingent. But I really like the analogy and the tease to Genesis 1 at the end.

    That’s the Great “I AM” for you. :}

    God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14)

    “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to Him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. (John 8:57-59)

    Lee Keele responded:
    December 24, 2012 at 8:21 am

    HI David… You make a good point about the idea of mutual contingency at least from a very practical standpoint. I suppose my argument comes from a more theoretical or conceptual standpoint. But I don’t disagree with you either. But in thinking of the dimensions as mutually contingent, one wonders how might an argument for a hierarchy of contingency be built? But I digress… as I mentioned in part … I know only little about theology and even less about physics. Thanks for your comment David!

    David Ochabski said:
    December 24, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Haha. Don’t worry man, I’m just as ignorant about physics. I just take physicists word for it.

    I wrote an article discussing all these things here though if you’d like to read it. :}

    God bless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s