Does everything have to have a beginning?

Pascal once wrote that belief in God is incomprehensible and disbelief in God is inconceivable.

The same can be said about the infinite/eternal, but I think of it in different wording. Imagining something or someone to not have a beginning is difficult to comprehend, but not as difficult to imagine.

Imagining something to not have a beginning or end, might be difficult because of our finite point of reference. Everything we humans observe in this world has a beginning, even the universe (see below). However just because everything we know has a beginning doesn't mean that everything HAS to have one.

Science has confirmed that the universe has a beginning. The logic goes that because of the doppler effect found in cosmic background radiation, we know that space is expanding. If space is expanding, then it must had a starting expansion point.

Science has also confirmed that the universe has an end. Our telescopes find dying stars all the time. Our sun has a very definite lifespan. When the sun goes, life on earth as we know it will cease as well.

This confirmation of the finiteness of the known universe begs the question: "What caused it all?" After all, if the universe were eternal, such a question wouldn't be necessary. But we know that finite things have causes/sources.

I only know of two possibilities. Either an eternal process caused it, or an eternal being.

Belief in an eternal being is a simpler explanation than belief in an eternal process. After all, belief in an eternal being also explains the order found in the universe. Order always comes from intelligence. No exceptions have ever been found.

Something else that Pascal observes is that God has revealed Himself with enough clues in creation to know of His existence, but He also hides Himself enough so that we may sense our unworthiness of Him.

If Creation testifies of this, then this begs the question: What can save us from this condition?

I Want to Believe

“Do not seek the because - in love there is no because, no reason, no explanation, no solutions.” - Anias Nin.

As I encourage the questioning process, do I seek reasons in areas where there are none? Anias Nin, was no Christian, but she had a glimpse into the Christian concept of grace. Grace is NOTHING if it can be stood up on the legs of reason.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast" - Ephesians 2:8-9

I've been reading Pascal's Pensees lately. In it, he argues that there are some things that we know to be true that can't be proven via the reasoning process. Believing tomorrow will come is one example that I remember. Love is another.

I've always believed, against the grain, that faith and reason are supplementary as opposed to the common view that they are antithetical to each other. I've written about this in other postings and therefore won't repeat old ground.

However, in light of the nature of love and grace, I have to ask whether or not I go too far.

Perhaps the skeptics who think they have refuted religious faith, are standing on piles of mud that they have mistaken for gold. They think they have refuted faith by showing that there is no reason to hold it, but in doing so, they are really no different than the delusional person who might say that airplanes can't really fly because everything must be supported by the terrestrial. Perhaps their minds are too earthly. Or perhaps mine is too much in the clouds.

If airplanes operate by different rules when set in motion, despite the fact they are physically heavier than air, wouldn't God do the same?

Perhaps all that we call faith is really a test of our volition.

Perhaps what we believe (and even skepticism is belief) is really the naked exposure of our will.... our heart itself.

I was made for another. I am "otherly".

I want to believe...

Guilt By Association

Blaise Pascal, in his brilliance as a mathematician, philosopher and scientist, arguably being the forefather of the modern computer, and applying his intellect to his faith as a theologian and Christian, certainly gives us evidence of the nexus between faith and reason that is a constant theme of this blog.

In his Pensees, he states that since our lives here on Earth are clearly transitory and death is eternal, we do ourselves an injustice to be distracted by that which is temporary, failing to focus on eternity.

If this blog is about having the boldness to ask questions, then I would have to add that boldness is necessary to ask questions about eternity. And since, as Pascal has confirmed, death is associated with thoughts on eternity, such questioning is avoided due to a guilt by association.

What are the questions you are afraid to ask?