Intention is the property of the mind that it can “be about something.” Intention is the pathway of active volition. That the universe exists at all is a strange thing. So far as our experience goes, only intent brings order out of chaos. This really isn’t the question though, is it? We are not asking about bringing order out of chaos; we are asking about bringing something out of nothing! The Hebrew, bârâ’, coming from Genesis 1:1 (“created”), implies Presence, volition, and intent. It is that God’s Presence is of a particular type that offends the senses. Why was Jesus a Jew, and why did he have to be of a certain culture that the Bible affirms was suppose to be better than the other cultures? The Western notion, taught constantly in Universities’ humanities’ courses, that cultures are relatively equal, is obliterated by Scripture. It is much easier to appeal to Plato’s ideals, the good, the beautiful, and the true. These are purified of their contextual situatedness and so can be universally accepted without offense. Several modern philosophers have tried to utilize Plato’s ideals as a norm and basis for establishing objective morality without having to appeal to a Law-giver. The problem is intent. Ideas, things, abstracts, none of these can intend to do anything. Even if Plato’s ideals indeed existed in some abstract way, those ideals could never intend to extend its will into the human realm to convey its great morality. Surprisingly, imagining such ideals to “extend its will” only brings to mind a Law-giver, or, in this case, a pantheon of law givers named the good, the beautiful, and the true. This only brings us back to the unavoidable notion of God-the-Lawgiver. Though it boggles the mind to conceive of an Infinite Entity that time cannot be properly applied to, having a personal Entity, a Presence, as an explanation for the universe is better than the alternatives. What are the alternatives?
(1) The Universe popped into existence without cause; nothingness produced something. There is no human who has ever experienced this, and so this alternative has no inductive data to support it.
(2) Abstract ideals made the universe. The problem here is that ideals cannot intend, and if they cannot intend anything, there is no volitional force to enforce the creation of the universe. Intention, as we learn from human experience, implies personhood.
(3) The universe is eternal. The prevailing big-bang theory works against this, but let us assume for a moment that such a position is fashionable again (like it was in the 1980s). Appeals to the eternality of something is an appeal to some generative power to produce or reproduce energy, which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Stating that such is possible because all scientific laws in this universe break down is to bank on the credulity of your audience, that they will take faith in what you offer. Punting to “have faith” in my claim sounds awfully religious, doesn’t it? Stating something to be eternal sounds strikingly religious too. Are we just circling back to the acceptability of “God created,” ‘ëlōhīm bârâ’.
If we accept the God thesis, that God made all things, we are left having to deal with particularity. God is particular to certain morals, and, as Scripture has affirmed, He is happy to inspire and direct certain cultures to be more representational of Him than others. The consequence is that some cultures are demoted in His eyes. Particularity offends.
Dr. Scalise