Alternative Culture: Lego The Movie Review

I have to be honest with you-- initially I did not want to watch this film. I thought it would be too whimsical to my liking. Nevertheless, a few of my colleagues dragged me along to watch this, and I was glad I did.

Plot summary
Lego construction worker Emmet had always led an ordinary life. His daily life is filled with routines and instructions, leaving him little room for creativity. However upon finding a special item known as the "Resistance", Emmet learnt though a prophecy that he is no ordinary person. Teaming up with a thief, Batman, a wizard, a space engineer and a pirate, Emmet goes through an adventure of a lifetime to fulfill his true destiny.

Theological issues
Despite its childish presentation, the movie brings up deep theological themes. In this post, I would like to explore a few.

1) Finding the creator
In one of the scenes, Emmet breaks the fourth wall and meets his owner. Whether intentionally or not, this seems to run coherently with Christian theology-- God is involved in the world, although He cannot be found in nature and is outside the world.

As Pastor Tim Keller (2008) mentioned, to look for God in nature is like Hamlet looking at his attic for Shakespeare. While God's work can be physically found in the world, he generally cannot.

2) The importance of purpose
The overall theme of the movie seems to be the idea of purpose. In this postmodern era, it is generally preached that we humans have the ability to craft our own destiny (Wyatt, 2009), like Emmet comments to his fellow Lego.

I would argue that that our purpose is not self-determined, but divinely-determined. The only way for us to fulfill our true purpose in this world is to ask our creator (i.e. God).

Conclusion
Do watch this movie, even if you consider yourself a mature adult! I give this movie 70/100.

Reference
Keller, T. (2008) The Reason for God.

Wyatt, J. (2009) Matters of Life and Death

Theology 1.0: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Editor's note: I am not a philosophy student. I am simply a science teacher trying to make sense of the world. So this is my opinion and analysis of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Thus please do not take this post as authoritative.]

Sunset at East Coast Park, Singapore, December 2012

One of the famous arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. In this post I will be focusing on the Kalam Cosmological Argument as advocated by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The premises
The argument is as follows:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (Craig, 1994)

Many historical religious thinkers (such as Thomas Aquinas and Al-Kindi) have used this argument (or at least variants of this) to argue that God exists. In other words, the cause of the universe must be God.

Craig (1994) argues that the first two premises are intuitively true, (and therefore the third premise is true), and the onus is on the opposition to provide evidence arguing against.

Objections
Who caused God?
Some opponents that argue that the claim is self-refuting-- if God exists, then who/what caused God? However, note the wording of the premises-- it is not that anything that exists has a cause, but anything that began to exists has one.

In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God has always existed (i.e. has no beginning), therefore God does not have or require a cause.

Infinite regress
Some opponents argue that it is possible that an infinite series of events, rather than God caused the universe to begin. Iqbal (1986) argues that to elevate one of those infinite events to "First Cause" status is unnecessarily discriminating.

Nevertheless, Martin (1997) refuted the reality of actual infinities, stating that infinity only exists as abstract concept in mathematics and has no place in the real world. He further added that proposing a series of infinite events only pushes the idea of First Cause a step back and is merely a distraction.

The universe did not begin to exist
Other opponents attempt to challenge premise 2-- the idea that the universe began to exist. McTaggart (1908) proposed that there could a B-theory of time, in which that the universe is four dimensional (with the fourth dimension as time) and the universe is always in existence (for ideas of past, present and future are limitations of human consciousness).

Craig and Moreland (2009) accepts that the Kalam Cosmological Argument relies on the A-theory of time (the conventional view of time), but the B-theory of time would beg another question-- why is there something, rather than nothing?

Conclusion
Regardless of what we think of the cosmological argument, all of us should think about the question of existence. Why are we here, and what are we here for?

References
Craig, WL (1994) Reasonable Faith

Craig, WL and Moreland, J.P. (2009) The Blackwell Companion of Natural Theology

Iqbal, M. (1986) The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam Lahore

Martin, Christopher (1997) Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations

McTaggart, J.M.E. (1908) The Unreality of Time. Mind, 17, 453

A video summary: Documentary

With Due Respect: Who created God?

God as first cause
One of the common arguments for the existence of God is the assertion of God as first cause. In other words, the presence of a finely-tuned created universe implies the presence of a creator (Rees, 2003).

However, the common rebuttal to this is that if God had created the universe/world/nature, what/who created God (Dawkins, 2006)?

This is a retort makes two suggestions:

1) That the answer of "God" only pushes the question of origins one step further back.

2) That a complex god that could create a complex creation is sufficiently complex enough to require an explanation.

Biblical interpretation
Christian doctrine generally teaches that God is eternal and thus have no origin (eg: Psalms 90:2 and Psalms 90:4).  To put it simply, God is the creator of time, and can exist outside time and thus is able to see the history itself.

On the other hand, some Bible scholars has pointed out that God is portrayed in Scripture as acting in time (Boyd, 2007). For instance, in Genesis 18, Abraham negotiated with God over the fate of two evil cities. Nevertheless, there is no compelling reason why God cannot exist out of time and be able to act within it at the same time.

The infinite regression problem
Answers from the Bible are very unlikely to convince the unbeliever. While many belivers find it satisfying as a solution to an infinite regression problem (if A was created by B, who was created by C, who was created by D... who created E, F, G,.... etc), some non-believers view the "God" answer as a cope-out to avoid questions about origins. If pointed out that God just came to be (ie God as first-cause and self-existant), it can be argued that the same is true of the universe.

However, if the universe did not have a cause, it would be immense difficultly to discuss the origin of the universe as a concept. While it may be argued that the universe "just came to be", it would also hardly be the satisfying answer the sceptic would seek.

Rephrasing the question

Ultimately, the nature of the questioner (both the theist and the atheist) must presume something-- whether everything, including the universe has a cause. If so, then the theist must somehow defend "God" as his answer, while the atheist will be left to the problem what the first cause is.

However, if not everything needs to have a cause, then the question of "who created God?" is meaningless.


Also check out:
Biologos

References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

Boyd, G. (2007) God of the Possible

Rees, M.J. (2003) Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shaped the Universe