Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas From The Lukas!

Have You Every Wondered...

Why they don't dispense with the chocolate and just sell the INSIDE of the 3 Musketeer's bar?

Alright, Already!

Boy, you guys really know how to harass a guy into posting, dont'cha? Well, here's the thirty-second update on my life:

* 4 kids: Julianne (4), Marcus (3), Rebecca (1) and Carter (~3 months)

* I'm sick. Some kind of intestinal blockage that comes and goes. I've got pictures of just about every inch of the INSIDES of my intestines. One of these days I'll scan 'em and load 'em up.

* I've taken up running, you can see my 4-mile route below. I've lost about eleven pounds.

* We're busier than ever. Used to date my wife. Now I watch kids. We occasionally pretend we're out on a date and put the kids to be early so we can sleep.

There ya go. Pictures below:

Julianne, Marcus & Carter

Marcus & Carter

Marcus & Carter

Julianne & Carter

Elmer

Recent trip to the lake (Rebecca)

The Whole Crew

My running route

My Life In A Nutshell...

1. Go to work.
2. Wonder whether it's time to go have the baby.
3. Eat lunch
4. Wonder whether it's time to go have the baby.
5. Worry about how my wife is feeling.
6. Wonder whether it's time to go have the baby.
7. Have a cow instead.
8. Wonder whether it's time to go have the baby.

Anyway, you get the drift...

According To The LIBERAL LA Times...

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) areworking for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they arepredominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alienMexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexicannationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likelyillegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speakSpanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

Since We're All Talking About Limits...

Anybody have an issue with the advertising on Bebo?

An Open Letter To Congress & President Bush

I am writing today to express my deep concern regarding the current immigration debate occurring in our country. After studying the facts, I have come to the following conclusions and have determined that I will lend my financial, electoral and personal support to those candidates who adhere closely to my perspective.

First and foremost, I believe that any individual who can provide a positive contribution to the United States ought to be afforded the opportunity to come here and make a better life for themselves and their family. This is indeed the greatest country in the world, providing opportunity to all, and many people wish to come to the US to make a life for themselves and to experience the freedom that many of us take for granted.

I believe however, that immigration must occur in a controlled fashioned dictated by the policies of the United States and in the consideration of its best interests. We will only remain the greatest country in the world by taking measured and calculated steps to preserve that position. To the point, we need a open but sensible immigration policy.

I believe much of the rancor surrounding the current immigration debate stems from the fact that we are actually debating two different but related issues: immigration policy and the enforcement of that policy. The truth is, and current trends bear this out, an effective commitment to immigration policy enforcement is unlikely until we can agree on what our immigration policy should be.

So let's discuss our policy.

I believe that it is inherently unfair to those who are attempting to enter this country via official channels to allow those who have entered the country illegally to "cut in line." I also recognize that there are millions of people who now live in the United States illegally, and that they have made their lives and their homes here. I believe that we can arrive at an immigration policy that takes both of these views into account - a view that blends effective immigration policy with compassion.

President Bush and many in Congress insist that an amnesty (though they appear loathe to call it such) is the only means for dealing with the millions of people living illegally in the United States. I agree. I see no sensible approach that allows for the return of those immigrants to their prior nations without uprooting our economy and the impoverished economies of the countries to which they will return.

On the other hand, what do you say to those who for the last four, five, six or seven years have been waiting patiently to obtain immigration visas so that they can come to the United States? Certainly they have been "in line" for as long as many of those who came here illegally. Compassion for those here illegally must be tempered by a respect for and a compassion towards those who have an equally strong desire to live in these United States, and the fact that they are attempting to do so through proper channels ought to lend weight and credibility to their claims of preeminence over those that would break the law to do come here.

My suggestion would be as follows: freeze immigration requests into the United States through the end of 2007. Immediately grant visas to all those requesting them (provided they qualify for immigration to the United States) and bring them in via lottery over the course of the this year and the next. During the same time, register and admit legally those who are currently living in the United States. These people should pay a substantial fine for their violation of our laws and must adhere to a strict guest worker program to ensure that they are not a burden on the US economy. They should also forfeit any right to public assistance (with the exception of emergency medical care, which should be granted on a loan basis to be repaid over a period of time).

The above policy is just a starting point, but it allows for a compassionate stance toward both those who wish to enter the United States WHILE providing a means for those who have broken our immigration law to pay for their crime and be naturalized as well.

Of course, this IS an amnesty. We are forgiving their criminal debt to society, and as such it should be called what it is. And, as Reagan's amnesty failure proved, an amnesty is only effective provided that strong immigration enforcement occurs to prevent those who would take advantage of our leniency from doing so.

The risk of lax border and immmigration enforcement is manifold. Terrorism, increased drug trafficking, border skirmishes between drug cartels and immigrant smugglers and US nationals, not to mention exploitation of illegal immigrants will occur so long as we do not secure our border. I am in favor of a patrolled, technological-but-physical wall that will prevent illegal immigration so that we never have to have this immigration amnesty discussion again.

I do not understand the current inertia toward border security present in BOTH of the major parties. I understand that electoral and campaign finance incentives exist to maintain this inertia, but it has to stop. Those in the Senate and House take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our land, and MUST do so. They should also support strong workplace enforcement of immigration policy, including fines and jail time for those who violate the law by hiring illegal workers.

Finally, I disagree with President Bush's assertion that a guest worker program is necessary because jobs exist that Americans will not do. It is true, a guest worker program ought to be a COMPONENT of a much larger worker program that addresses the need for welfare and unemployment assistance. The truth is, those jobs are unfilled because it is more beneficial for unemployed US workers to draw on their unemployment insurance than it is to take the low wages these jobs offer. At the same time, it is foolish to insist that the US taxpayer continue to pay money to those who could be working instead of drawing unemployment checks.

A comprehensive worker program would not only include guest workers, but a part-time system that pays unemployed US workers to do these menial, unwanted jobs while providing them the time and opportunity to search for more gainful employment.

I stated at the beginning of this letter that my electoral, financial and personal support would fall to those candidates that enact the reasonable expectations that I have toward our elected officials: that they uphold the law, that they protect our national interests over the interests of their own campaigns, and that they demonstrate a willful commitment to the development and enforcement of an effective immigration policy.

I look forward to your comments and questions regarding this letter, and hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you,
Christopher Luka

OK, I'm Officially Upset...

At this stupid country! It's bad enough that I had to watch hundreds of thousands of criminals marching down the street yesterday. But after some of the things I heard after the fact, I have to speak out.

First, to our illustrious mass media. Those weren't "immigration marches." I'm fairly certain that those marching have already immigrated to the US. Those were "amnesty marches," pure and simple. A bunch of people broke the law and now they're taking to the streets, demanding that we forgive their crime and make them citizens.

Second, there was a guy in Seattle that called immigration. He tried three or four times to get a human on the line, and finally succeeded. When he told them that there were thousands of illegals on the street marching toward city center, and that they should go arrest them (by the way, that's their job), this guy was told to get off the phone and stop harrassing INS or they would file criminal charges against HIM for phone harassment! You've got to be kidding me!

Third, and not nearly last, the Bush-led justice department just ran a big raid two weeks ago, arresting several thousand illegals across several large businesses. So far, none of the companies have been charged with hiring illegal workers, or fined. And get this! Over 70% of the illegals they arrested were RELEASED and told to report back to court in a few weeks for their hearing. Yeah, SURE THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN!!!

I'm waiting for a single Republican ('cuz you know liberal Democrats would rather punch Capitol Hill Police Officers than stand up for the law) to do what's right. He (or she) will get my vote for President.

This has got to stop. I know you guys aren't into politics, but you're over 18 and it's time to pick up the phone and start writing letters. The vast majority of illegal immigrants vote (yes, they can register to vote illegally) vote Democrat. You want to see your country go down the drain? Keep doing nothing. Remember how close the election was last time?

Pick up the phone. Pick up a pen. Just do SOMETHING.

The Most FRUSTRATING Banner Ad In The World...

...just flashed across my screen. It was a long white banner with a big red circular button, kinda like the red buttons you'd find an an old standup video game machine at your local pizza parlor. It was just begging to be pressed.

Worse though, was the text. It read "The Fart Button. Go ahead. Press it. You know you want to." And the truth was, it took all of my very manly willpower to keep from doing just that.

Such banners ought to be illegal. I'm certain that most men would not have had the strength to resist...

Send Congress The Message

OK, this will take you an hour, tops, so do it already. Go to Toys R Us, and by a set of these cardboard bricks.



Write a short (and polite) note about how you'd like to see a wall built on our southern border, attach it to the brick, wrap it, and mail it to both of your Senators, your House representative, and the leadership of the Senate & House in Washington. If enough of us do this, the message will be heard.

You Asked For It, You Got It!

TOYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTA!!!

No, seriously, I'm actually posting. This is "Better Saturday" or whatever it's not called, because I don't think it actually has a name. Good Friday's "good," and Easter's Easter, but Saturday is a black hole.

So I'm gonna fill it up. With thanks. Here's a list of things I'm thankful for. Feel free to add to the list. Oh, and YES, the order is important.

List A
-------------------------

1) Jesus.
2) His sacrifice.
3) Grace
4) Salvation.
5) Power above sin.
6) Holiness
7) The Holy Spirit
8) The truth
9) Sound doctrine
10) The Apostolic Faith

List B
-------------------------

1) Love
2) My wife
3) My children
4) My family
5) My extended family
6) The saints of God

List C
-------------------------

1) Provision
2) A roof
3) A bed
4) A job
5) Food
6) Food
7) Food
8) Other needs
8) My awesome Mac-killing laptop

Anyway, there you have it. Feel free to add to the list, or start another.

Happy April 1st!

An Interesting Talk Yesterday Got Me Thinking...

It was a discussion about the nature of Islam and how by 2020 it's estimated that Islam will outstrip Christianity as the dominant religion in the world. The principal reason is that the birth rate in Islamic countries is much higher than in the West.

Which got me to thinking this:

"HEY YOU CRAZY SINGLE AF'ERS, DO YOUR PART TO SAVE THE WORLD AND GET MARRIED AND START CRANKIN' EM' OUT LIKE THE REST OF US! I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH BY MYSELF!"

It's A Boy!!!

Carter Worthington Luka is on his way!

Go South Dakota!

The South Dakota Senate and the House passed it, and the governor has pledged to sign it! What, you say? A bill outlawing ALL abortion. Planned Parenthood has already pledged to sue, but the bill will take effect July 1st and will kickstart the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. What a night!

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said that if this law holds, a rapist who impregnates a woman would have parental rights to the child, and that puts the mother in a terrible situation, therefore this law is bad.

Really, is that the best argument they can put up?!

Any thoughts on how they might solve that dilemma without killing the baby?

Deep Question Coming...

Runts. The little fruit-shaped candies. Favorite flavor? Anybody?

Banana rocks. Second is the little pink hearts.

I Never Thought THIS Would Happen...

But after some conversations with a friend this weekend, I think we've got another blogger on the way. Anybody wanna guess who? I'll give one clue. South of Portland, north of Medford and male.

He's A BOY!!!

Marcus just informed Jillian that he ate a booger and that it was "nummies in my tummy!"

Corned Beef Rehash

I've got a question. Maybe we can get an answer together as we all discuss it. That is, for those left in the AF blogspace -- those few being the only who read our blogs. It's so nice to see everybody blogging again...

Anyway, to my topic:

Lemme start with an illustration. And I'm choosing this example because it's clear, not because I' m picking something specific. I have friends who, if you start a conversation about the Lord, will dive in to the exclusion of all else and we can talk for hours and hours about topics like holiness, sanctification, the baptism, Christian living, the nature of God, etc. Online, I've got friends that would rather talk about the how hard it is to hold their blended drink during the Superbowl because they've got a blister the size of Matt's chin on their hand. (How's that for a rehash of recent topics?)

My point's not to pick on anyone specifically, but to ask a question. What is it about Christian topics that make us avoid them? And you can't use the "my brain's tired" line, because we 'fo sho' do enough writing to put to rest that lame excuse.

Just something I've been thinking on myself. It's so easy to be distracted by life to the point that my passion for the gospel kinda gives way to other things. Anybody else? Lemme know whatcha think.

Hey, What'cha Think?

I've got a question. Maybe we can get an answer together as we all discuss it. That is, for those left in the AF blogspace -- those few being the only who read our blogs. BTW, welcome back from the dead, Stacy. Your brother's still in the morgue, however. WE NEED MORE BLOGGERS!

Anyway, to my topic:

Lemme start with an illustration. And I'm choosing this example because it's clear, not because I' m picking something specific. Back in the thirties and forties, no AFer worth his/her salt would have been caught dead in a movie theater. The shows back then were considered immoral and unholy. Today, we look at those old movies and think "aw, that's cute..." We watch the movie "oldies" they so carefully avoided and think they're just fine. Further, we go to the theaters and/or watch DVD's with language and innuendo that would have sent an old-time AFer to their knees in repentance, and I'm talking about 'good' PG's and PG-13's, not the XXX stuff that passes for R these days.

My point's not to pick on movies or anything else specifically, but to ask a question. Do we determine the holiness of something on a sliding scale? As the world gets worse, do the things that we used to avoid look more and more OK? Is it alright to allow one "F-word" per movie because "there's just nothing good to watch any more and this isn't that bad except for a little bit here and there?"

I think there's a danger here. I hear a lot of young people these days talk about how hard it is to hold the line spiritually, how hard it is to stay saved, and I wonder. Brother Gilbert Olson used to (probably still does) testify about how it wasn't "hard to stay saved," it was the "only way." Does the fact that we compromise on the edge, that we allow our holiness to be the holiness that is just "not like the world" instead of "like Jesus" -- does that predispose us to failure? If so, then we need to get back to the old-time holiness that can keep a man or a woman on the gospel way.

Just something I've been thinking on myself. I've been studying holiness lately and it'll really make you think about your walk with the Lord. (BTW, thanks to M. Worthington and J. Baros for the book tips!) Lemme know whatcha think.

A 102-93 Debacle...

So I'm on vacation this weekend, sitting around Sunday afternoon in the middle of nowhere in Sequim, Washington (upper UPPER northwest, lots of water, lots of woods, not much to do when it's raining) and the Laker-Piston game was on. So Shawn and I watched it.

Got the sense that the Lakers pretty much stink this year. Haven't really followed them much, because I prefer watching basketball. They couldn't hit anything, except Kobe, who has completely forgotten how to pass. They should have him practice that. He's good, but he's not *THAT* good.

Anyway, pretty much confirmed by original theory. The Lakers came out slow in the first quarter, looked tired in the second, then Kobe tried to pull it out in the late third and fourth quarters all by himself, and the Lakers got trounced.

Again.

Deservedly.

Maybe I should have gone outside in the rain. A cold would have been more fun than watching that game. I gave up mid-second-quarter and started playing Mancala with Jillian. Much more enjoyable. She's awesome.

Maybe the Lakers should try playing basketball instead of playing "Let's Pass Another Prayer To Kobe."

Go KINGS!

Get Your Rational Icthus Merchandise Here!

Ok, I Photoshopped up a new background for my PC, and I really like it, so I thought I'd make it available to anybody else that wants it.



For PC users, click on the above image, then when it loads, right click on the picture and choose "Set As Background."

For Mac users, start by getting a real computer...

I've Got Just One Thing To Say, GO HAWKS!!!

So What's All This About Holiness, Anyway?

I've got a question. Maybe we can get an answer together as we all discuss it. That is, for those left in the AF blogspace -- those few being the only who read our blogs. BTW, welcome back from the dead, Stacy. Your brother's still in the morgue, however. WE NEED MORE BLOGGERS!

Anyway, to my topic:

Lemme start with an illustration. And I'm choosing this example because it's clear, not because I' m picking something specific. Back in the thirties and forties, no AFer worth his/her salt would have been caught dead in a movie theater. The shows back then were considered immoral and unholy. Today, we look at those old movies and think "aw, that's cute..." We watch the movie "oldies" they so carefully avoided and think they're just fine. Further, we go to the theaters and/or watch DVD's with language and innuendo that would have sent an old-time AFer to their knees in repentance, and I'm talking about 'good' PG's and PG-13's, not the XXX stuff that passes for R these days.

My point's not to pick on movies or anything else specifically, but to ask a question. Do we determine the holiness of something on a sliding scale? As the world gets worse, do the things that we used to avoid look more and more OK? Is it alright to allow one "F-word" per movie because "there's just nothing good to watch any more and this isn't that bad except for a little bit here and there?"

I think there's a danger here. I hear a lot of young people these days talk about how hard it is to hold the line spiritually, how hard it is to stay saved, and I wonder. Brother Gilbert Olson used to (probably still does) testify about how it wasn't "hard to stay saved," it was the "only way." Does the fact that we compromise on the edge, that we allow our holiness to be the holiness that is just "not like the world" instead of "like Jesus" -- does that predispose us to failure? If so, then we need to get back to the old-time holiness that can keep a man or a woman on the gospel way.

Just something I've been thinking on myself. I've been studying holiness lately and it'll really make you think about your walk with the Lord. (BTW, thanks to M. Worthington and J. Baros for the book tips!) Lemme know whatcha think.

Is Planned Parenthood Shielding Predators?

Check this out, from the website of the Golden Gate (San Francisco) chapter of Planned Parenthood. A section of the site has stories about how Planned Parenthood has "helped" women better their lives. Here's a quote from a story (which has now been removed from the PP website due to publicity).

I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills.

- name withheld

So let me get this straight. An eleven-year old girl is raped by a 17-year-old, and Planned Parenthood did not inform the parents, did not alert the police and helped the girl in the future by allowing her to become sexually active at the age of 14. (California state statistics indicate that 70% of teen pregnancies are from adult men. This is not an isolated statistic.)

I guess it's more "helpful" to young girls to kill their babies than it is to capture the predators that prey on them.

I'm not sure what to say at this point. These people are vile.

Fighting For The Rights Of Others Is A Good Thing...

But you've got to wonder about peoples' priorities, don't you? The Jesse Jackson's and Snoop Dogg's of the world will yell all day long about the right of Tookie Williams, but will they fight as ardently for those that yearn to taste the freedom we take for granted?

Who's more important?

    

** UPDATE: California Governor Ahnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian hometown of Graz is now considering removing Schwarzenegger's name from a stadium build in his honor. A local Christian group has suggested renaming the stadium in Tookie William's honor. The English language doesn't have words to express what I think of just how stupid an idea this is.

Is It Me?

I'm just curious. I know there are a few of us who read each other's blogs. I'm curious what it is that makes you read a post (or not read it).

This blog is a bit like a journal, isn't it? This is where I work out on "paper" what I believe and what I think about various issues. It's a place for discussion and mental gymnastics. I love the 'debate' that sparks up from time to time, but really this is a place for me to work out what I think.

For me, understanding why I believe is as important as what believe. When I work through something, I like to share it with others. When I come across something interesting that challenges what I believe, I like to throw it up here to "work through" the problem. I appreciate your comments and point of view.

For those of you know don't like working through the "heavier" posts that show up on our blogs from time to time, I'd encourage you to "stretch" yourself a bit. You never know what it might do for you...

Defeating Naturalism

[An apology to those who will read this and wonder WHERE ON EARTH DID THAT COME FROM??!! This is an attempt on my part to work through some "scientific" arguments posed by some of my peers, who deny the existence of God. The level of discourse is high, and I'm afraid this post may scare off some, but if those who read it can comment on its meaning to them, or if you have any comments, I'd appreciate the feedback.]

Thanks,

The Thinking Fish

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Psalm 14:1

Spend any amount of time in popular metaphysical literature, and you will find abundant reference to the notion that science precludes the existence of God. Conservative commentators must constantly wage battle with the notion that faith and science are mutually exclusive, the one a fool’s errand and the latter the only path to a true understanding of the world.

This text attempts to refute that notion, proving unequivocally that science is not only compatible with the notion of faith; but moreover that science’ dependence upon observation for understanding truth, coupled with the logic that undergirds its study, forces science to conclude the existence of a supernatural creator.

Understanding Naturalism

We will prove that naturalism is self-contradictory. In order to do so, and to prevent claims that we have manipulated its definition in order to facilitate our attempt, we will first clearly define naturalism. This will also provide a basis for further discussion should any naturalist desire to challenge the points made in this text.

Naturalism, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), is a philosophy which holds that “all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.”

Stated more colloquially, naturalism holds that all events and objects derive from natural causes – that no event transpires for which an non-natural event provides ground. Even more strenuously, naturalism precludes the intervention of any non-natural force in the causation of all things we know and experience.

Further, naturalism holds that the ultimate and only source of knowledge is via rational inquiry. No source of revelation beside the actual scientific study of observation and logical conclusions that follow may be allowed to intrude on the reasoned discourse of man.

The means for refuting naturalism, then, must lie in the discovery of some physical phenomena for which it can be demonstrated that no natural cause exists. Such a phenomenon would then require as grounds for its existence some extra-natural event, something that naturalism is quite unprepared to accept.


The Heart of Naturalism

The deep core of naturalism beats around the notion of causality. Any object, any event can be defined as the confluence of causes and events that intersect with its existence. Yet this notion presents a deep problem that cuts at the very tenets of naturalism, for if naturalism is to hold, it must hold for all things natural.

A moment of clarification is necessary. Naturalism, if it is to hold, must be understood to provide an answer for any physical phenomena. Whether we can provide such an answer, it is enough if we can conceive that nature could produce such a reason.

Consider for a moment a single cause. Perhaps it is the brush of wind that caused a rock to skittle down a hill. The small grain of dust that overwhelmed a cloud’s capacity to contain the rain. Now consider the causes adjacent to that, and then adjacent to those, and so on, until you fathom the sum of all causes within the physical world.

This entity is known to us. It is existence. These causes, in their aggregate, are (according to naturalism) the very agents that cause us to be. So what of them? They can be observed to some degree, although we could not contain the whole of them within our comprehension. But the clarification above states that we need not comprehend the entirety if we can but conceive a means by which they might be explained.

Unfortunately, logic prevents us from doing so. Were there a cause for the totality of causes, would it not be included a priori within said causes and hence no longer be able to cause the rest, for certainly a part of something cannot cause the whole?

Naturalism however, demands that this event, this existence of the confluence of all causes, have a source. There are to be no free causal agents, those that cause but are not caused in return. Yet no such cause can be found, for to find such a cause would indeed be subsumed within the entity it seeks to cause.

As such, the demand of naturalism itself leads to the only conceivable conclusion, that something outside of nature inserts itself within our world to create existence.

The Death of Naturalism

So naturalism, as we know it, must die. To entertain the notion that all can be explained within the physical is to conclude that something must derive from the non-physical. Such contradictions ought not to be tolerated within the realm of science.

But what if we attempted to rationalize the supernatural into something akin to our natural world, a supernaturalism, if you will? What if we attempted to create a supernature about our nature, so that our physical world must operate within the confines of our natural law, punctuated by the occasional intervention from supernature, but that the agent within supernature that caused our existence is itself bound by some higher natural law? We might then still be able to salvage the character of naturalism, although its singular nature must needs surrender to the concept of some hierarchy of natures.

Unfortunately, this too is doomed to failure, for were our supernature to be constrained by its own form of naturalism, it would fall to the same argument that did in our own limited view of nature. It appears that postulating hierarchies of nature is sufficient only to complicate the question. It cannot free naturalism of its own inherent contradiction.

Alpha-Naturalism

The only solution then by which we might save naturalism, is to appeal to some Alpha naturalism, the sum total of a potentially infinite hierarchy of natures, each punctuating and affecting those beneath it. Perhaps by its infinite nature, we can come close enough to God without having to concede his existence as well.

Such an infinite hierarchy of natures would indeed be complex, but mathematics and science are hardly strangers to the world of the infinite. This infinite world-within-a-world construct, while itself infinite, is and must be a single entity. Within its bounds is an infinite stream of worlds, but considered as a whole, it is singular, and according to the Alphanaturalism that would constrain it, must itself have a cause. We are back to the same difficulty.

The only conceivable means by which we can solve this dilemma is to stop. Stop attempting to harness a greater and greater world, and instead recognize the supernatural source, a free causal agent that causes without being caused, one that has Existed without requiring a beginning. Only such a source can provide the answer, and yet such a source is the ultimate defeat of naturalism.

Science And God

The commentary above demonstrates that the observable world and its laws must drive us to a conclusion. Namely, that a force unwillable by any other force, and with the power to affect all worlds beneath its scope, both willfully and deliberately created all around us. Such a force finds no place in the traditional scientific literature of today, but is freely accommodated in the world of Faith.

That Science leads us to God is no surprise to those who believe in God. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Science is dependent upon God both for the structure upon which it rests and for the logical grounds within whose constraints it operates.

This text says nothing of the nature of God. It does not demonstrate the truth of any particular faith. It merely points to God’s existence. And as such, Science fundamentally changes the nature of our discourse, for we can no longer deny the existence of God.

Our method of understanding God may vary from person to person, but indeed, only fools can claim that God does not exist, for Science not only demands the existence of deity, but depends upon It for its very survival.