Infinity, Divinity, and the Holy Trinity

By William Hearne

This book are strictly the insights of the author based on his knowledge of scripture, common sense, and science. It covers a broad variety of topics that are not normally discussed together in an attempt to draw consistent conclusions about what we know about the nature of God, and ourselves.

The first chapter, Infinity, describes how we know God exists. The second, Divinity, describes certain aspects of God and our relationship with Him. The third chapter, The Holy Trinity, describes God as the Holy Trinity which is based on the unique observations of the author.

The author understands that there will be challenges to the numerous conclusions he makes. But, he hopes that the readers will read the book in its entirety to understand that each assertion is consistent with all other assertions made in the book. The author will be glad to follow up on those challenges.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: May 13, 2014
• ISBN: 9781499019100

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 by William Hearne.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 05/07/2014

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris LLC

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

618164

Contents

I: Infinity

II: Divinity

III: The Holy Trinity

I

Infinity

I n the beginning, this chapter was meant to be a proof for the existence of God with the subsequent chapters describing what we may know about Him. This effort is based on personal insights gained from empirical observations, integrated details from all of scripture, and logically consistent reason in order to get a complete understanding of God. It confirms God’s truth and refutes what I see as false assertions that are not consistent with the entire scripture.

Though many may be familiar with much of what I say, I have attempted to focus my attention on those things that give this work a unique discernment of God. These distinct observations are integrated with our traditional understanding of God in order to demonstrate the accuracy of our understanding. Clearly, this is not meant to be a comprehensive theological text on the entire subject matter. Instead, I draw on various teachings to show how they relate to our other knowledge.

Logically, I have thought since as long as I can remember, the existence of God could be the only explanation for the world existing as it does. Everything that happens in this world does so only by a cause and each action has a consequence. Further, nothing in this world appears to be its own cause, much less be the cause of anything greater than itself.

Therefore, it is evident that what created this physical world exists outside of this physical world, is greater than this physical world, and is completely different in form than this physical world. He not only has to be greater than this material world, He has to be infinitely great or else He would then have to have His own creator. To me, this is the definition of God as our Creator; He is the ultimate Cause of everything. However, there are still skeptics that believe this physical world can self-exist even though all natural laws guiding this universe contradict this idea.

I wanted to also add the mathematical proof to my arguments that the sum is equal to its parts, and as such, the entire physical universe is subject to the same limitations as its parts. Consequently, it too has to have a cause, namely God as I described above. In order to create the universe, God must be greater than the universe, but the skeptics cannot see anything greater than the universe; after all, it is infinite.

Ironically, there is an even greater problem for this mathematical proof, life. We are, in fact, greater than our parts. We are more than the mere sum of chemicals; we are alive. This fact, however, does not aid the nonbeliever in the argument against God. Rather, it is even greater evidence that there is a God. Life needs its own creator, protector, provider, and caretaker. God has been referred to by each and every one of these titles. It is not just by coincidence.

If rational arguments are not the favored method of proving facts, empirical evidence also demonstrates God’s hand in nature. The popularity of the many CSI series demands we look at the DNA, but in the DNA, there is design. Design needs a designer. By definition that designer is God. This evidence for God’s existence may satisfy most minds, but these arguments are nothing that hasn’t been said before and ignored.

Nonbelievers simply say matter always existed and is the only thing that exists. Other than that, they often say there is so much yet to learn about the physical universe in order to justify not answering questions. There are certainly more arguments to be brought up. So although this is not meant to be an all-inclusive discussion of every argument on the subject, I intend on entertaining those I find the most pertinent ones. By pertinent ones, I mean those that provide understanding to how we know the truth. For example, we need to understand what it means to prove anything. More importantly, we need to understand what it means to be God.

God, by definition, is the Creator of all things. This goes beyond all things physical but includes all things physical. Then, by definition, God is Lord over science as a study of all things physical. Therefore, God dictates the laws of science; the laws of science do not dictate the properties of God. Science does not define God nor does it command any power or authority over God. Consequently, any attempt to understand the nature of God based on strictly scientific proofs makes no sense; we can merely infer certain things from what we see in nature.

More importantly, however, any claims that God cannot exist because of no scientific proof is completely nonsensical, and yet this is the precise argument put forth by a plethora of educated people who should know better. Any proof for or against the existence of God must, by definition, come from a different source other than science. There is no law, scientific or otherwise, that claims all proofs must be scientific ones. In fact, scientific proofs are not proofs at all.

On the contrary, the scientific method contains abundant room for error in all facets of this procedure. Conclusions are constantly called into question or contradicted by other scientific research. For example, it has been argued that diet sodas cause obesity because there is a correlation between people drinking diet sodas and having greater weight. But obviously those who are already heavier are going to be more inclined to drink diet sodas than those in the normal or below normal weight range. So it has to be asked: Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

In addition, it has been argued that the sweeteners in diet drinks do not curb the desire for more food, so drinkers of diet sodas tend to eat more. But again, it is natural and logical that consuming no calories is not going to stop cravings. What else people eat is a different matter. Eating sufficient calories to sustain one’s weight should end one’s hunger regardless of the weight, but in heavier people there are other issues at play.

For example, I used to run marathons when I was younger, and I ate a considerable amount of calories. When I started getting too many aches and pains in my body to continue running, I stopped burning so many calories. But I still liked to eat as much as I always did, and gained weight. While drinking diet sodas may not be the healthiest thing to do and ending obesity may be a noble objective, these kinds of assertions demonstrate how flawed the scientific method is.

The scientific method is merely drawing inductive conclusions based on empirical observations. Any claim that this method produces anything close to a proof is false. A proof is a very specific conclusion based on observation, reason, and language. Each of which in itself cannot produce any doubt that the conclusion is correct, which is not often found in our complex environment. Therefore, such a claim can only be meant to obfuscate the actual facts observed. Reason concludes that the likely motive for obfuscating facts is due to the weakness in the assertions the evidence is meant to prove.

There is a lot of room for doubt in the study of the physical sciences, and in most scientific inquiry, it is generally acknowledged with an open discussion of various alternative conclusions the evidence might indicate without vitriol. Yet debate of alternative causes of creation itself draws exactly this kind of ridicule. Why? Why are discussions about God deemed fanciful and without fact? There are mountains of facts related to our knowledge of God. We need to consider the hand of God when we have unexplained phenomena in our physical world.

The problem is that people, rather than exploring all the facets of their lives together, prefer to compartmentalize their knowledge. There are many scientists who won’t consider God as part of their study because they claim it is another unrelated topic, but in truth there is nothing in the world unrelated to God. If God exists, the likelihood that these scientists’ conclusions are in error is considerably high.

For scientists to ignore this possibility, they must acknowledge that they are not actively engaging in the study of all knowledge but merely one incomplete segment of what is possible. The fact that a wide spectrum of professed theists from many fields and faiths accept their atheist counterparts’ compartmentalizing and their conclusions without question is greatly troublesome to the idea of honesty in what we believe. Reason requires consistency.

Again, the problem is that scientists without a belief in a higher power can always claim that there is so much of science we just do not understand as of yet, believing that sometime in the future, science will somehow prove them correct. Because they are correct that there is so much of science we do not know, they rely on this true statement as credence for their own unproven beliefs. In fact, the