1 Kings 20-21

(August 1, 2014)

                There were two thoughts that I had as I read through these chapters.  The first was on the idea that the Lord is the God of only some things (the God of the hills, as opposed to the plains, in this instance).  There are, modernly, a great number of people who attempt to constrain God to be the God of only what they want Him to be God of.  The clearest example of that is the New Atheism that seeks to say that God is the God of theology but not of science – as if rationality were the plains, and God and His people dare not enter into that battleground.

                God is the God of the whole Earth.  He is the God of the hills and the plains.  He is the God of faith and of reason.  He can meet any army on any battleground, and He will prevail.  We seek to limit Him only out of our pride, rather than recognizing who He is and what He is capable of.

                The second thought was at the close with Ahab’s repentance in sackcloth and ashes, and how the Lord then said that ruin would come to his son rather than him.  At first this seemed very hard to me – after all, I have made mistakes and I don’t want my sons to suffer for those mistakes even if I am repentant.  But it dawned on me that had the sons repented likewise in sackcloth and ashes, they too would be spared.  In fact, each of us is required to repent in sackcloth and ashes or we will not be accounted worthy to stand.  So the best we can hope for is to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and to best teach our children and those around us to do so for themselves.  Then it is all left up to their efforts and the Lord’s Grace.

2 Nephi 13-14

(August 1, 2014)

                In the past, when I have read these chapters, my mind either drifted over the conclusion to Chapter 13 or I looked at it as something applicable to others (and tried to apply it accordingly).  But this time, I read it an entirely different way.  Sure, it might be talking about daughters of Israel, but I don’t know how literally Isaiah was using that term (and it is always safe to assume that Isaiah might not have been talking about things literally).

                What happens if we look at daughters of Israel in light of the parable of the Bridegroom and our understanding that Christ is the Husband and the Church (and each of us) are the wife?  Suddenly, the whole chapter takes on a new meaning.  How are we as a Church walking with stretched necks and wanton eyes (and I dare say that many of us are)?  In hard financial times, such as now, do we recognize that it is the Lord taking away the bravery of our tinkling ornaments?  Or do we wonder why we are being punished ‘unfairly,’ since we are of Israel?

                The good news, of course, is that if we persevere we will be washed clean and can dwell forever with Him.  But there is much for us to take from this chapter regardless of whether we are male or female.

1 Kings 18-19

(July 31, 2014)

                There are times when I wonder why Satan doesn’t exercise the powers that he has.  For example, we know from the story of Aaron and the Pharaoh’s magicians that he has the power to perform ‘magic.’  Why would he not call down some force in response to the priests of Baal (after all, he is ultimately who they worshiped)?  I had similar thoughts on Satan when I thought about the Book of Mormon and the Gold Plates.  Why, if Satan knew where they were buried, did he not ‘inspire’ a particularly wicked person to come and take them centuries before Joseph Smith was even born?

                Considering these two things, I think that the answer is that while Satan has great freedom to rampage across the Earth he is still tightly constrained in certain areas.  The Lord still holds dominion over him, and while Satan may not want to obey he is incapable of resisting.  There is great comfort in that fact – that though Satan may see and understand the work of the Lord, if we cling tightly to the Lord he will not be permitted to destroy us or the work.

2 Nephi 11-12

(July 31, 2014)

                I don’t do this often, but there are certain things in the Book of Mormon that just clearly indicate to me that it is a translated (rather than modern) work.  Nephi, for example, telling how he loves to use the Law of Moses to prove to the people that Christ would come is just one such thing.  I have only seen the inverse of that (proving Christ did come), but I can likewise see that Nephi would have spent his time in proving something that would happen.  It is a small thing, but it is something that would not have been mentioned in a modern work (especially one written so quickly by one so unlearened).

1 Kings 16-17

(July 30, 2014)

                These chapters hold a potent truth that we need to internalize.  It is that the miracles that we need in our lives (sometimes for the very temporal salvation of our lives) do not arrive until we are willing to give the Lord His portion.  Elijah blessed the widow and raised her son from the dead (and later called down fire from Heaven), but before that he had to go and live by a creek and rely on birds to feed him.  He had to exercise his faith.  So, too, the widow – she saved her life and the life of her son (twice, in fact), by giving up what she needed to keep him and her alive to the Lord.

                The Lord stands ready to give us more than we can imagine, but only if we are willing to give everything we have to Him.  It is as though we are a cup, and the promised blessings of the Lord are so plentiful that they simply spill over the sides of that cup.  But when we give everything to the Lord, we find that the process of sacrifice enlarges the capacity we have to hold the blessings of the Lord and by giving away what we have there is more room to receive more abundantly from the Lord.

2 Nephi 10

(July 30, 2014)

                It is difficult for us to be driven out of our own lands of inheritance.  Maybe it was the job that we had, or the home that we loved, or the family we thought to be with for eternity.  Maybe it was all three at once.  Maybe it was our health, or the health of those we care about.  Who knows what ‘lands of our inheritance’ we have been driven out of, or which we will be driven out of in the future.

                Going through such a situation is painful, but faith can carry us through it.  And the faith that we need is the constant understanding that regardless of how precious what has been taken away from us is, it pales beside the blessings that the Lord has to offer us.  Perhaps we have been driven out of the land we considered to be our inheritance, but if we trust in His guidance ultimately we will be led to a better land (whether in mortality or in the eternities).

The Teleological Argument for God

Of all the arguments for God, this one is probably the most persuasive to many who don't want to believe in God.  Hitchens and Dawkins, both advocates of the "New Atheism," have admitted that this is the hardest argument to refute.  And it is really true, because you quickly get absolutely silly results when you believe that life appeared spontaneously.

The teleological argument is the argument that the universe seems created for the purpose of life -- that there appears to be a design, or fine-tuning in the creation of a universe.  This becomes a probabilistic argument, meaning that it quickly becomes far more likely that God exists and created the universe than that it arrived in its present form accidentally.

The atheist will typically argue that given enough time and space, eventually any coincidence is possible and there would be some place somewhere ideal for life.  But the fact is that there is a limit to the amount of matter in the universe.  There are differing opinions on this, but the general consensus is that there are around 1.0 x 10^80 atoms in the universe.

In comparison to that, we can conduct something known as a Fermi estimation.  This is a process where we do not attempt to be precise, but we choose orders of magnitude to estimate just how probable an event is.  It turns out that the result of a Fermi estimation might be off my 25%, but it can still be highly instructive when discussing large numbers in comparison.  If the odds of natural formation of, say, Earth in a Fermi estimation is 1.0 x 10^40, then we can safely say that the Earth could have happened naturally.  If, on the other hand, it is 1.0 x 10^100, we can safely say that it is very unlikely the Earth could have happened naturally.  After all, even if we are off my 25%, it still only makes the probability 1 in 7.5 x 10^99 (in comparison to the number of atoms in the universe, which is much, much less).

For the Fermi estimation, we take those things that we know are necessary for life and we calculate how likely they are.  Mathematically, we can show that only G-class stars such as the Sun can support life (other stars either have too much UV radiation or no liquid water -- it is impossible to have a place that has both elements of life for non-G-class stars).  That eliminates 80% of the stars in the universe, but because it is a Fermi estimation we will look at that like an order of magnitude of 0.1.

We then start collecting these orders of magnitude.  Only certain masses of stars work (0.0001).  Only certain locations work (0.1).  Only certain distances from supernovae (0.01).  Only certain distances from the star work (0.0001).  Only certain surface gravities work (0.001).  Only a certain axial tilt of the planet works (0.1).  Only a certain rotational period works (0.1).  The separation between water and land (to support life) required a collision in the ancient past (0.1), but of something with a certain mass (0.001) at a certain time (0.01).  Just these few elements give us a number 1.0 x 10^21, but this is really just the beginning.

When all of these things are collected, the Fermi estimation for a planet like Earth developing is 1.0 x 10^105.  That means that if every atom in the universe was actually a planet, Earth would naturally form by accident (according to our best current understanding) in only 1 universe out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Long odds, indeed.

And that is just for the conditions for life to have formed with the underlying physical constants of the universe being what they are.  In reality, even those constants are all in a position favorable to life (arbitrarily -- a great mystery to the secular materialist), and the likelihood of that happening by chance is more unlikely than a planet such as Earth forming on its own.  And then we get to abiogenesis, which requires an equally long series of unlikely events to have happened.

So the question is, what is more believable?  We have an intricate series of physical laws and constants (arbitrarily established, to the best of our understanding), a wildly improbable set of coincidences to establish a planet such as Earth, and even after Earth is established a fantastically unlikely set of circumstances to generate life.  Is it more likely that God established this?  Or is it more likely that it was chance?  Keep in mind, the universe has an age and limits, so it isn't just a matter of enough time and enough space.  In fact, to put things in perspective, the odds on the universe having a planet such as Earth form at any point in its existence is approximately the same as the odds of winning at roulette.  53 times in a row.  Then winning another 49 times in a row for abiogenesis.  Then another 180 times in a row for the fundamental physical constants.

Hey, maybe the atheist feels lucky and should go to Vegas.  But given the choice between a universe where the dice were rolled at the very beginning and somehow we managed to luck into the most improbable situation that defies comprehension, or a universe established by God for the creation of life, I know which one seems more likely to me.