In the beginning

In the rational cosmos, we see that the force of gravity exists to keep everything in the earth’s surface from spinning out into space (because of the speed of the planet’s movement on its axis), that same force exists to hang the moon above us (the moon above us, as perceived by some ancient poets). We see that the inner structure of atoms prevents a most catastrophic dissolution of everything that we know. As we go further to fashion out these intricacies, we encounter a stop too many times, a certain limit which our science cannot penetrate. We then assume the role of the religion-enthusiast- thinking about the possibility that a greater out-of-nature intelligence is responsible for even the most familiar elements of our daily lives. May we now go back to history to scout for answers from those men who never got to work in a laboratory.

3.

?

In the beginning: “Someone must have been playing around with something.”

?

?It is one thing to be a reputable commentator and it is another thing entirely when you are an unaligned and non-academic free thinker who has nothing to loose on voicing your mind.?I enjoy reading from the non-academics because of their uncouth sincerity. They say the most hilarious things that many responsible teachers would dare not suggest.

?Once, in a Nigerian online forum, nairaland.com, I had happened upon a contributor who speculated on what might have happened in the beginning of time. The fellow said;

“Someone might have been fooling around with something thereby causing an unexpected reaction that brought about the Big bang and consequently, the world that we know.”

?If indeed there was spontaneity at Genesis, it is fashionable to slate such event for a time when there was yet no universe. Such might have arisen prior to the emergence of nature. Even a mere thought of this will make us blunder, just like I have done in the last few sentences. We cannot describe any event as happening at a time that precedes the formation of the universe because the concept of time cannot exist independently.?Assuming that the generally assumed Big bang date is accurate or that everything started in the ‘morning’ of January 1, 13,600,000,000 BC, we cannot speak of December 31, 13,600,000,001 BC because such date does not exist. When everything came into being, matter did not only arise but time also started because it is then that space could be conceived of, and matter, hence the laws of nature. Timelessness precedes the first moments of the universe and a few other things having no expression in our present day languages and sciences must have accompanied this condition (please allow us to call it a condition). It is therefore necessary to take January 1 13.6 billion BC as the real beginning knowing that there is a chance for the existence of an intelligent designer even at this beginning. Heedful of the popular physicists hope of fathoming the Mystery theory (that may account for this big event without a recursion to an intelligent designer), we wish to head our discussion towards the path of theism, not only because of our faith but also for the purpose of keeping up with true science and historical evidences coupled with logic and common sense.

?Our discussions so far have not rendered the speculations of our dear online commentator as invalid because the existence of a pre-existent designer does not preclude the possibility of It/Him/Her bringing about nature by accident or as an act of experimentation.

?The gentleman Jew who wrote the book of John apparently understood, just as a few Greeks had, a certain phenomenon out of the many possible ones, an explanation that surprisingly defies the imagination of even some intellects. John did not indicate or did not know if there were other things that existed before the first seconds of this January date but he knows about a triad that existed even when there was no space or time. This man had broken our rules by referring to a December date. We shall pardon him because we want to either understand a potentially great truth or because we want to amuse ourselves with his ineptness. While there are varied explanations for this path we have directed our discussion, I wish to go in line with John’s because of its simplicity.?

“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.”

We notice a clear relationship between John’s explanations of the pre-Big bang date with Philo’s. The preacher fingered an entity as existing before everything, like Heraclitus, Plato and Thales had done before him.?He called it logos, “idea” or “word” as English interpretations would have it.?Although it is a common word, logos in the context of Greek philosophy is used in referring to the primal entity of reality.?John opened his theology uniquely by explaining that everything started with an idea. Nobody had ever excelled than he in stating this in plain terms.

?Going by John’s gospel and Greek philosophy, we’d presume that what brought about planetary shapes, weights and motion, the glowing celestial bodies, forces of nature and life itself is an idea basing our proposition on the datum that nothing could have been made and sustained if the designer had not consciously set out to achieve a thing. Here is a serious dichotomy of opinions and it feels biased to wave my nairland.com friend aside.?Reality may have been brought about by either conscious idea or by accident. Now, I will leave a quarter for the proponents of the philosophy of inadvertency but this magnanimity will not last, for our discussion would lie flat on its face if there is no such thing as the Big R.?Initial Inadvertency is an antitheist in our discussion but we must note that it does not leave out the possibility of subsequent rationalization. Even the proposition of latter rationalization, we do not buy.?We seek to affirm through dialectics that a divine reason, the supreme R, was accountable for reality and should be in lead if we must learn anything about contemporary science, philosophy and consequently, a nation’s policy making and laws.

?

?

?