The Two Books

The Two Books

Each deed I’ve done is firmly writ,

Erased by neither tears nor wit,

It shames my heart and haunts my mind, 

to face the Judge of all mankind.

God’s book reveals my greed and lust;

My failing to be pure and just. 

The ledger opens, truth is known,

My every secret fault is shown. 

But then a second book appears,

To rescue me from all my fears;

His Book of Life names those He chose,

In love and mercy to enclose. 

My debt is paid through faith alone,

Inscribed as Christ’s, His very own;

From Satan’s hold He set me free

To glorify Him endlessly. 

Angels, Light, and the Absolute Now

There is currently an intriguing debate between two creationist Ph.D. physicists, Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Phillip Dennis. It concerns the classic distant starlight problem: if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, how can we see stars located billions of light-years away?

The Core of the Conflict

In Special Relativity, experimental measurements can directly determine only the two-way (round-trip) speed of light. Measuring the one-way speed requires two pre-synchronized clocks at different locations—a feat that cannot be accomplished without moving a clock (introducing time dilation) or sending a synchronization signal (which moves at the unknown one-way speed of light).

By default, standard physics assumes light is isotropic—moving at the uniform speed c in all directions. This standard framework is the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC).

Dr. Lisle points out that alternative mathematical choices are possible. One could, for example, adopt a Geocentric Light-speed Model (GLM), where light travels outward at c/2 and inward toward Earth almost instantaneously, allowing light from distant galaxies to reach Earth without delay.

Lisle extends this conventionalism in his Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC), contending that because humans cannot measure the one-way speed of light, an objective, unique one-way speed does not exist in nature. To Lisle, the travel duration of starlight is physically "undefined" until an observer picks a convention:

"Our inability to measure the one-way speed of light is not due to a lack of creativity on our part... Rather, it is due to the way God has constructed spacetime." (Lisle 2010, p. 203)

Dr. Dennis challenges Lisle's conventionalism, arguing that an objective one-way speed of light exists regardless of human measurement barriers. The debate spans relativistic field equations, interpreting relativity, the philosophy of time, and God's relationship to His creation. (See the Appendix below for an outline and references for this debate).

I have discussed my reservations about the ASC in a previous post, "Lightspeed, Convention, and Creation" (Bylogos Feb.9, 2019). Here I just want to note one additional consideration.

The Two-Angel Mirror Experiment

The "one-way problem" exists because material observers cannot transmit information faster than light. But this physical constraint applies only to material entities.

Imagine a human on Earth (Human E) who fires a light pulse at 12:00 PM toward a mirror on distant Planet P, located 30 light-minutes away. Human E detects the reflected pulse returning to Earth at 1:00 PM.

On Planet P stands a second human observer (Human P). Human P undeniably sees the physical light beam strike the mirror. However, because physical signals take time to bridge spatial distances, Human P cannot synchronize his local clock with Earth’s clock without assuming a convention. He knows the reflection event occurred locally, but he cannot convert that moment into Earth Time.

Now introduce two spiritual observers: Angel E (on Earth) and Angel P (on Planet P).

1. In traditional Christian theology (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Herman Bavinck), angels are pure spirits unbound by material mass or light-speed limits, capable of communicating by a simple act of will.

2. At 12:00 PM Earth time, Angel E communicates instantaneously with Angel P via an intellectual handshake, synchronizing Angel P’s clock perfectly to Earth time without using physical photons.

3. The moment the light beam strikes the mirror on Planet P, Angel P looks at his synchronized clock and instantly communicates the Earth-time reading back to Angel E.

How do the competing conventions interpret what Angel P records?

• ESC (Isotropic c): Light takes 30 minutes outward (c) and 30 minutes back (c). Angel P logs the mirror impact at 12:30 PM and notifies Angel E instantly at 12:30 PM Earth time.

• GLM (Geocentric c/2 out, infinity in): Light takes 60 minutes outward (c/2) and 0 minutes back (infinity). Angel P logs the mirror impact at 1:00 PM and notifies Angel E instantly at 1:00 PM Earth time, right as the photon hits Human E's detector on Earth.

• ASC (Conventionalist/Undefined): Lisle asserts that one-way transit time is an ungrounded human linguistic choice with no objective physical reality—that there is no specific Earth-time corresponding to the reflection event. Hence there is no time at which Angel P sees the photon hit the mirror. Yet Angel P—standing right beside Human P with a clock objectively synchronized to Earth—witnesses the exact same photon impact. Under an absolute angelic frame, that physical event must register at a precise, objective tick on Angel P's clock (whether 12:30 PM, 1:00 PM, or another fixed instant).

The Ontological Collapse of Conventionalism

This thought experiment exposes a fundamental flaw in turning human measurement limits into cosmic reality:

1. The Human Operational Limit: Human P sees the light hit the mirror, but because he is bound by light-speed signals, he cannot state what Earth-time it is without choosing a convention. From this human limitation, Lisle concludes that no objective Earth-time exists for the event.

2. The Angelic Reality: Angel P, standing at the exact same location with a clock synchronized with an instantaneous spiritual handshake, witnesses the impact and reads an objective Earth time off his clock face.

Lisle’s ASC relies on conflating Human P’s inability to measure and translate local time into Earth time with the ontological claim that no objective Earth-time exists at all.

If Human P simply turns his head and looks at Angel P's clock, he immediately learns the objective Earth-time of the photon's arrival. This pushes ASC into a structural absurdity: if the one-way transit of light is truly "physically undefined" in reality (as Lisle claims) rather than merely unknown to material humans, then Human P shouldn't be allowed to look at Angel P's clock while witnessing the light beam. It would mean that seeing the physical signal depends on remaining ignorant of Earth-time—as if gaining objective knowledge of the cosmos would cause the physical photon to vanish!

Can Angels Exceed Light Speed?

Lisle might object by denying that angels can communicate instantaneously, arguing that spiritual beings are also bound by c and thus cannot establish an absolute frame.

However, this objection shifts the debate from physics to classical theology:

• Spirits vs. Matter: Historical theology (e.g., Aquinas, Bavinck) holds that angels are pure spirits. The speed limit c is a physical property of mass and energy moving through spacetime. Subjecting an angelic thought to c confuses material physics with spiritual reality.

• The Dilemma for Lisle: If Lisle insists angels are bound by c, he must either reduce angels to physical entities or claim God arbitrarily restricts the spiritual realm merely to preserve Einsteinian clock conventions.

• Possibility vs. Practice: The argument does not require angels to act as human timekeepers; it only requires that instant spiritual communication is possible in principle. If it is possible, then an objective, absolute "Now" exists in reality—whether human instruments can measure it or not.

The Logic of the Absolute Now

In standard relativity, human observers rely on clock conventions because physical signals take time to bridge spatial distances. However, when non-material observers share information instantaneously, they bypass the operational limitation that motivated Einstein’s convention in the first place. They establish a Universal Clock.

Interestingly, this "Angelic Argument" was proposed as early as 1932 by the philosopher of science Bernhard Bavink in The Natural Sciences (Ergebnisse und Probleme der Naturwissenschaften). Bavink utilized this thought experiment to argue for an "Absolute Now" against the positivistic block-universe interpretations of relativity, which he felt reduced the objective flow of time to a subjective observer effect.

Omnipresence and the Divine Perspective

The Angelic Argument ultimately serves as a bridge to an even deeper theological reality: the doctrine of God’s omnipresence.

In physical relativity, light-speed constraints exist because material observers are spatially localized; for a human on Earth to learn of an event on Planet P, a physical signal must travel across intervening space over a span of time. But God is not a localized physical observer. Orthodox theology affirms that God is immanently present at every point in space simultaneously. He does not sit on Earth waiting for photons to arrive from distant galaxies to learn what has occurred; He is immediately present at the distant star at the exact moment it forms, just as He is present on Earth.

When Bernhard Bavink introduced spiritual observers into the debate over relativity, he was using angelology to highlight this exact metaphysical point. Bavink noted that the operationalist synchrony convention of relativity reflects the technological limits of finite, material creatures—not the ultimate nature of time itself. While angels are finite spirits rather than infinite beings, their non-material nature allows them to transcend the physical signal-speed barrier. By demonstrating that non-local information transfer is logically coherent within God's creation, the angelic thought experiment points beyond itself to the divine perspective.

This poses a stark theological challenge to Lisle’s ASC:

• Limits on Man vs. Limits on God: If the one-way transit time of light is truly "physically undefined" in an ontological sense—rather than merely unmeasurable by human instruments—we are forced to conclude that spatial separation creates a temporal void even for an omnipresent God.

• The Grounding of the Absolute Now: If God is fully present at both Earth and Planet P, then the event of light striking the mirror occurs at an objective instant within the divine consciousness. God's omnipresence grounds an "Absolute Now" across the entire cosmos.

To claim that light has no objective arrival time prior to a human choosing a coordinate convention is to elevate human operational limitations into a law of metaphysics. The omnipresent Creator does not rely on human synchrony conventions to know when events happen in His universe; He anchors reality to an objective timeline—one that exists independently of human observation and measurement.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Lisle’s ASC relies on the physical isolation of the material observer. It transforms Human P’s inability to synchronize clocks into an ontological claim about the nature of time itself.

However, if we affirm a spiritual realm not bound by material constraints, we regain a universal clock.

The Angelic Argument suggests that the "convention" of light speed is a human heuristic, not a cosmic law. By appealing to an observer who is not "blinded" by the light-limit, we find that:

1. Limits on Knowledge vs. Limits on Being: The difficulty humans face in measuring the one-way speed of light is an epistemological hurdle for human technology, not an ontological void in God's creation.

2. The Absolute Now Restored: If spiritual observers can observe distant events and communicate across spatial spans instantaneously, then distant cosmic events and Earth moments share a singular, objective temporal reality in the eyes of the Creator.

3. Light Speed as a Real Journey: Rather than having an "undefined" travel time, light moves across real distances over real, objective durations.

While ASC remains a clever mathematical framework for reconciling young-earth chronology with distant starlight, the Angelic Argument reminds us that physical reality is not bounded by human observational limits. A God who sees all things, along with a heavenly host unhindered by material friction, anchors the cosmos to an objective timeline—one where the speed of light is a physical journey through space and time, not a mere linguistic convention.

----------------------------------------

Appendix: The Recent Exchange: Realism vs. Conventionalism

2010: Dr. Lisle published Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem (Answers Research Journal 3, 2010).

July 2024: Dr. Dennis published An Internal Contradiction of Lisle’s ASC Model (Answers research Journal 17, July 2024), arguing that ASC leads to physical inconsistencies.

August 2024: Lisle published A Refutation of Phillip Dennis's Claims Regarding Alleged Inconsistencies in ASC (Aug 2024, Biblical Science Institute). He argued that Dennis's critiques were circular, as they relied on equations that already assumed the standard "Equal-Speed" convention.

November 2024: Dennis responded with A Refutation of Lisle’s "Refutation" (ARJ 17, Nov.2024), doubling down on the idea that the ASC is a mathematical mask rather than a physical reality.

December 2025- August 2026: Lisle published an 11 part series of posts against Dennis. Refuting Phillip Dennis’s Errors in Physics, ASC, and Philosophy (Ongoing series, 2025–2026, Biblical Science Institute).

*****

How Math Really Works

Here's how math actually works in the real world, depending on who is doing the counting.

 Math in the Real World

1 + 1 = 2

God alone makes true 

1 + 1 = 1

Wedding vows begun

1 + 1 = 3

Life’s deep mystery

2 + 2 = 5

When woke tyrants thrive

1 + 1 = 10

AI rules all men

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

Triune glory spun.

----------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

• the "=" symbol is read as "is" to maintain the rhythmic meter. 

• 2 + 2 = 5:  A nod to Orwell’s 1984: the ultimate mark of postmodern society, where political power compels us to endorse what is plainly false.

• 1 + 1 = 10: Binary code, the language of computers, expresses everything in terms of only two digits: 0 and 1. In this system, "2" is expressed as "10." The cold math of a technocratic future that views people as digits rather than souls.

*****

Body, Mind, and Soul

 Crossfire

When you die, you're not going to be surprised, because you're going to be completely dead. Now if find myself aware after I'm dead, I'm going to be really surprised! But at least I'm going to go to hell, where I won't have all of those grinning preachers from Sunday morning listening.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.... There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me.

Reformed Faith in Uganda

Last month (June 24-29) I taught a course on Apologetics at the Trinity Bible Institute in Kapchorwa, Uganda, for ITEM (International Theological Education Ministries).

My Three E-Books

I have just updated my book God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe. All three of my books are now available, free of charge, as e-books. To download the pdf files, just click on the links below.

Big Bang Christianity?

In an earlier post I noted the importance of cosmology in providing the background story for a worldview. I contended that, to make Christianity plausible, one must critique the current secular worldview, particularly its Big Bang cosmology, and present Christianity as comprehensive worldview with its own, Christ-centered, cosmology.

Unfortunately, many Christian scientists and theologians accept Big Bang cosmology as gospel truth, established beyond any reasonable scientific doubt. They believe that, to make Christianity plausible to our society, Christians should embrace Big Bang cosmology.

The Importance of Cosmology

Cosmology is the most important subject in the world.

Why? Because it is the story of the world: its origin, structure, purpose, and destiny. As people in that world, its story necessarily forms the background for our own personal story. It affects our deepest beliefs, values, and hopes.

Science, Space, and Time

What does science tell us about the nature of time and space? It is widely claimed that, in relativistic physics, space and time are intertwined in a four-dimensional space-time block universe, where all times co-exist eternally. This seems to challenge the common-sense presentist view of time, where only the present instant exists, moving from a no longer existing past to a yet-to-exist future. How well established is the block universe with its static time?

God, Creation, and Space

Some Christian apologists (e.g., William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross) contend that it is scientifically proven that the physical universe began from an infinitely dense point of space (the so-called Big Bang singularity), which marked the creation also of space and time. They contend that, if space and time did not exist before creation, then the universe must have been created by a cause transcending space and time, which they equate with God.

God, Creation, and Time

Did time exist before the creation of the world? Many Christians believe that time was created along with the physical universe, and that there was no time "before" creation. Is this feasible?

Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?

Does the Bible speak about reality or only about appearances? Sometimes, to avoid conflict with alleged scientific facts, it is claimed that the Bible uses phenomenal (or phenomenological) language, describing things as they appear from our human, earth-bound perspective rather than being factually correct in a more scientific sense.

Canadian Reformed MPs Approve Pro-LGBT Bill C-4

How many Canadian Members of Parliament, or Senators, are willing to stand up for Christian values against the pro-homosexual agenda? NONE. Not a one. Not even the Canadian Reformed MPs Arnold Viersen and Tako van Popta!

What is the Genuine Reformed View of Science?

Numerous writers claim to defend a “Reformed” view of science (for example, [1], [2], [3], [4]). Reformed theology is grounded in a high view of Scripture. Yet, allegedly Reformed scholars often embrace aspects of mainstream science (e.g., evolution, an ancient earth, etc.) that require a re-interpretation of the Biblical text (e.g. a non-literal reading of Gen. 1-11). This raises the question: What should characterize a genuinely Reformed view of science?  

 

The Absurdity of a Solid Dome

 According to many Bible scholars, people of the Ancient Near East (ANE) believed that the sky was a fixed solid dome - in which the Sun, moon, and stars were embedded - supported by pillars, or mountains, at the ends of a flat earth. The Israelites are said to have shared this erroneous ANE cosmology, which is allegedly the underlying idea behind the "firmament" or “expanse” (raqia) of Genesis 1.

God and Necessary Truths

Christianity maintains that only God is self-existent. He is the sovereign Creator, who freely creates everything else. God exists necessarily, in that it is impossible for God not to exist, God's non-existence is inconceivable. The created universe, in contrast, is merely contingent, in that it could have been different, and need not have existed at all. But what about abstract objects, such as the laws of logic and math, which seem to be necessary truths? How do they relate to God? 

Review: In the Beginning

An important book, In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2 (2021, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 371 pages) has just been published by Dr. Cornelis van Dam, emeritus professor of Old Testament at Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Ontario.

Why is There Something?

Why is there something? There could have been nothing - no physical objects or laws, no conscious beings, no thoughts, no universe at all. So, why is there something, rather than nothing? 

Useful Sites

Here are some sites that I find useful and check regularly. Please inform me of any dead links, or of any useful sites that should be added.

Finding Adam

The Dutch scholar Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel defends the traditional Biblical Adam, against attempts to combine Adam with human evolution, in his recent book Adam, Where Are You? —And Why This Matters: A Theological Evaluation of the Evolutionist Hermeneutic (Jordan Station, Canada: Paideia Press, 2018, 480 pages).