Contingency Argument God

The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence

,

By Evan Minton

Why does anything at all exist? Why isn’t there just nothing? This is the first philosophical question I ever remember asking myself. I remember lying in bed at night when I was about 6 years old, and I asked and pondered this very question. I thought to myself “Everything must have been made by God. If God didn’t exist, then nothing else would exist either. Since everything exists, God must exist. But what if God didn’t exist either? Then nothing else would exist.” It was only 15 years later that I discovered that my childlike insight was actually developed into a sophisticated philosophical argument for the existence of God long before I was even born. In fact, I had even forgotten that moment of reflection when I was a small child until I started reading about the argument as an adult. Then I remembered.

The argument is called “The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence”. Sometimes it’s referred to as “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, the reason why it is called that is that the argument was first formulated by the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The argument’s premises are:

1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3: The universe exists.

4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence.

5: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Now, this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false. Let’s examine the premises to see what reasons can be given for affirming them.

Premise 1: Everything That Exists Has An Explanation Of Its Existence (Either In The Necessity Of Its Own Nature Or In An External Cause). 

*Types Of Explanations – There are 2 types of explanations for why something exists. X was either caused to exist by something that exists outside of and prior to X or X exists out of a necessity of its own nature (I.e its non-existence is impossible and it depends on nothing outside of itself to bring it into or keep it in existence). Something was either caused to exist by something else or it exists out of logical necessity.

*This Premise Is Self-Evident – We all intuitively know that whatever exists has some sort of explanation as to why it exists. Imagine you were walking in the forest with a friend and found a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how the ball came to be there. If your friend said to you “Don’t worry about it. The Ball just exists inexplicably” you would either think he was crazy or was joking around. Either way, you’d never take seriously the notion that the ball just existed there with no explanation for why it existed or how it came to be there.

Whatever it is we think about, whether it be cars, trucks, chairs, tables, people, houses, trees, balloons, mountains, planets, galaxies, etc. we know that they must have some explanation for their existence. Nothing exists for no reason. Even little children know this. Why else would they ask Mom and Dad “Where do babies come from?” They know that they have an explanation for their existence. They know that they don’t exist inexplicably.

*Objection: Does God Have An Explanation Of His Existence?

Critics of this argument frequently object to this premise by saying that if everything that exists must have an explanation for why it exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. If God exists, then the premise applies to Him as well. However, that would demean God as it would mean something existed outside of God Himself which brought Him into existence. In other words, God would have a Creator and we would have a Heavenly Grandfather. Now, if we make God an exception to premise 1, the skeptic would rightly accuse us of special pleading. And moreover, he could ask that if we’re allowed to make God an exception to premise 1, why not exempt the universe?

This objection does not succeed. Read the first premise again. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)”. We would agree that God’s greatness would be diminished if he had anexternal cause for His existence. But that’s not the only type of explanation there is. One category of existence-explanation is necessary existence. What the Christian Apologist would say in response is that God does indeed have an explanation for His existence, but that explanation is that He exists by the necessity of His own nature. If God exists, He cannot not exist. His non-existence is logically impossible.

So premise 1 certainly seems to be true. What about premise 2? Is premise 2 true?

Premise 2: If The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence, That Explanation Is God.

At first, this premise may seem like a huge logical leap. But it actually makes sense when you think about it. In order to have caused the universe to come into being, the cause of the universe must be beyond the universe, beyond space and time. And therefore cannot be a material, spatial, or temporal type of thing. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be a spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, personal Creator. Why is that?

The cause must be

Spaceless — because it brought space into existence. If the cause is responsible for space’s existence, it cannot be inside of space. It cannot exist inside of something that doesn’t exist yet. Just as the builder of your house could not have existed inside your house, so the cause could not have existed inside of space.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Since the cause is beyond nature (given that its the explanation why nature exists), it follows that the cause is supernatural. After all, that’s what phenomenon transcendent to nature is. Supernatural, that which transcends the natural.

Powerful – Whatever is able to create and/or sustain the entire physical cosmos must have enormous power.

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is a necesarilly existent being, it must therefore be uncaused. Necesarry existence presupposes eternal existence.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning.

This sounds an awful lot like God to me. Now, we don’t have to call this cause “God” if that makes the atheist feel uncomfortable. We could just call it “The non-spatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, necesarilly existent Mind behind the universe”. But to avoid getting out of breath, I prefer to label this explanation “God”.

Moreover, even if the universe were beginningless, it would still be the case that it needs a cause that has the aforementioned properties. Leibniz’ argument doesn’t depend on proving that the universe had a beginning. As long as the universe is not a necessarily existent thing, then it needs a non-spatial, non-material, powerful, uncreated Mind to be the explanation for why it exists. For The Contingency Argument to succeed, all that needs to be true is that the universe is contingent.

3: The Universe Exists.

The truth of this premise is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with even a small shred of sanity. No defense of this premise needs to be given.

Of course, if someone wanted to resort to some crazy idea like solipsism (the view that you are the only thing that exists, and the entire universe and everything you experience are projections of your own mind), that doesn’t get you out of this premise. In this case, one could just say that YOU are the universe.

4: Therefore, The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence.

This follows logically from premises 1 and 3.

5: Therefore, The Explanation Of The Existence Of The Universe Is God.

This follows logically from premises 2 and 4.

*Objection: “Well, Maybe The Universe Doesn’t Need To Have An External Explanation For Its Existence. Maybe The Universe Exists By A Necessity Of Its Own Nature.”

This is one way an atheist could escape the conclusion of this argument. Perhaps premise 2 of this argument is false. The atheist could say “Well, granted. God or a being remarkably similar to God must be the explanation of the universe’s existence provided the assumption that the universe requires an external cause. But maybe that assumption is wrong. Maybe the explanation for the universe’s existence is that exists by a nature of its own existence.”

In order to save premise 2 and ergo the argument’s conclusion, we’ll need to show that the universe does require an external cause for its existence. There are some pretty clear reasons why we wouldn’t want to embrace this alternative. As we think about this big ole world we live in, none of the things that it consists of seem to exist necessarily. It seems like all of these things didn’t have to exist. It seems like they could have failed to exist.

But, you might say, perhaps the matter that these things are made of exists necessarily? Perhaps that although the galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc. and everything in the universe doesn’t exist necesarilly, the material stuff these things are made of exists necesarilly.

This proposal just simply doesn’t work. Allow me to explain why. You see, according to physicists, matter consists of teensy weensy particles called “quarks.” Everything in our world are just different arrangements of these quarks. But it seems to me that one could ask why a different collection of quarks could not have existed in the stead of this one? Are we expected to believe that every single quark in existence cannot possibly fail to exist? Does the skeptic want us to buy into the notion that all of the quarks in the universe have to exist?

“Okay, well maybe quarks aren’t necessarily existent. But maybe the particles of which the quarks are composed exist necessarily.” This suggestion won’t work because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

It seems obvious to me that the existence of a different collection of quarks comprising everything of the cosmos was possible, but in that case, it follows that a different universe could have existed, and if a different universe could have existed, then it follows that our universe isn’t necessarily existent.

To see the point, think of your house. Could your house have been made of candy? Now, I’m not asking if you could have had a different house (one made of candy) in the stead of the one you actually live in. I’m asking if the very house you’re currently living in ifthat house could have been composed of candy. Obviously not. If it did, then it would not be the same house. It would be a different house.

Similarly, a cosmos comrpised of different quarks would be a different cosmos. Even if the said quarks were arranged in such a way as to resemble our universe identically, it still wouldn’t be the same universe because the quarks comrprising it would be different quarks. It follows from this that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

Moreover, we have powerful scientific evidence that not only could the universe have failed to exist, but there was a time when it actually did not in fact exist. The Big Bang Theory has a lot of scientific evidence in its favor. A Big Bang beginning is a logical entailment of the expansion of the universe which is itself an entailment of the empirically verified “red shift” of distant galaxies, and moreover, The Big Bang is the only explanation for the abundance of light elements in the universe. Moreover, the universe is running out of usable energy over time, and if the universe had existed from eternity past, it would have run out of usable energy by now. Yet the universe has not run out of usable energy by now. This means that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning. Since the universe had an absolute beginning, it cannot exist by a necessity of its own nature. Why? Because necessary existence entails beginningless existence. It something cannot possibly not exist, then it could not have had a beginning to its existence. Since if it had a beginning to its existence, that would mean there was a time that it did not exist.

Conclusion

Given the truth of the 3 premises, the conclusion follows: God is the explanation for why the universe exists.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2te1kFa

 

/by
Gospel Luke Authorship

Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?

,

By Brian Chilton

We have been engaged in a series of articles discussing the authorship of the books of the New Testament. In this article, we consider the Third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. Who wrote the Gospel? What clues do we have from the internal and external evidence, the date, and the location and audience?

Proposed Author by Tradition:       Traditionally, Luke is proposed as the author of the Third Gospel. Luke was a physician and an associate of Paul the apostle (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24).

Internal Evidence:    Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one “Theophilus” (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an “orderly sequence” (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (1:3) according to what the “original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down” (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus’s life. But, the author had access to those who had.

Second, the author of the Third Gospel also authored the book of Acts. The level of detail and precision, writing style, the similar address to Theophilus, as well as the connective clause in the first of Acts connects the two works to the same author.[2]

Third, the level of Greek used in both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts is highly advanced. Having taken biblical Greek courses, I have found that a person learns first from the Gospel of Mark and John before tackling the Gospel of Luke. Due to the high degree of Greek employed in the Third Gospel and the book of Acts, one can deduce that the author is quite advanced in his education.

Fourth, the author focuses on Jesus’s ministry to the Gentiles and to the outcasts of society. The Sermon on the Plain is preserved in the Third Gospel. There the author notes that people came to hear Jesus from all around. The author notes that many of the people who heard Jesus were Gentiles from the region of Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6:17).

Fifth, the author describes medical matters far more and to a greater degree than the other Gospels. In Luke 4:38, Luke is sure to note that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law suffered from a high fever. In Luke 14:2, the author describes a man’s body that had “swollen with fluid.” Such details indicate a man who has an eye for medical matters.

Sixth, because of the author’s involvement with the book of Acts, one can deduct from the “we passages” that the author was a close associate of the apostle Paul. For instance, the author of Acts writes that “When it was decided that we were to sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial Regiment” (Acts 27:1).

Finally, the author had access to a great wealth of Jesus’s teachings that are not found in the other Gospels. For instance, it is only in the Gospel of Luke that one reads the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Lost Son. The author would have needed to have access to multiple eyewitnesses to be able to possess such knowledge and to be able to construct the orderly account that he did.

All in all, the internal evidence strongly points to someone of the caliber of Luke, the physician. Luke would hold the educational background, the eyewitness access, the resources, and the training needed to construct both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe there are any other contenders. Why choose a non-eyewitness who was a Gentile[3] for the author if it had not been so?

External Evidence:   Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”[4] Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles”[5] before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[6] Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.”[7] From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel.

Date:               Seeing that Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul (c. 64 AD), the Gospel of Luke must have been written at some time in the early 60s AD.

Location and Audience:       Luke-Acts comprises about 60% of the New Testament’s content. Luke writes to the influential Theophilus, a man of great standing and prominent status. Theophilus may have supplied the resources for Luke and Acts to have been written. The cost to produce a book the size of Luke would have been around $6,000 according to modern U.S. currency. Acts would have cost nearly the same. The entire product of Luke-Acts would have cost somewhere in the ballpark of $12,000. Thus, a man with the means of Theophilus was used by God to fund the ancient two-volume work we find in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles which was written and compiled by a man with Dr. Luke’s resources and educational background.

Luke had a Gentile audience in mind. But the location of Luke’s composition is a bit of a mystery. The best and most probable locations of Luke’s composition include Caesarea, Achaia, Decapolis, Asia Minor, and Rome. My guess is that Luke was finalized in Rome.

Conclusion:    From the internal evidence, one discovers that the author of the Third Gospel must have been quite educated and knowledgeable concerning medicinal matters. The style of writing was quite exquisite, noting that a man of profound knowledge compiled the Gospel. The association that the Third Gospel holds with the book of Acts illustrates the association that the author had with the apostle Paul due to the “we passages” in Acts.

The external evidence unanimously holds Dr. Luke as the author of Luke-Acts. No other contenders exist. Luke’s involvement with the Gospel of Luke-Acts is documented by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, and others.

The date of the Gospel must be in the early 60s due to the necessity of Acts being completed by AD 64. Thus, Luke-Acts is certainly early enough to have contained eyewitness testimony.

Luke-Acts is written for an influential man named Theophilus from whom Luke may have received funding for this writing endeavor. Theophilus may have been a new convert and was financially able to affront the funds and materials necessary to Luke. Luke, himself, would have been a man of great means, as well.

Compiling all the information we have before us, Dr. Luke—the physician and co-worker with the apostle Paul—is the only viable candidate for the authorship of the two-volume work known as Luke-Acts.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Acts begins with the words, “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

[3] Luke is named among those who were uncircumcised in Colossians 4:11. Only Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus were the circumcised co-workers of Paul. Dr. Luke is listed in verse 14.

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies” 3.1.1., in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.10.1., 423.

[6] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” 66, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.11.7, 428.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2swXAjm

 

 

/by
God Natural Evil

¿Por qué un Dios bueno permitiría el mal natural?

Como agente de policía y detective de homicidios, he visto mi parte justa de injusticias y dificultades. Cada vez que se me pide que defienda la existencia de Dios a la luz del mal que observamos en nuestro mundo, tomo una respiración profunda y trato de separar la naturaleza emocional de esta cuestión de las explicaciones racionales que podría ofrecer. Reconozco la impotencia de mi respuesta racional al tratar de abordar el dolor emocional que las personas experimentan cuando sufren el mal. Al mismo tiempo, creo que es importante para nosotros explorar explicaciones razonables. El mal natural es quizás la categoría más difícil de mal que nosotros, como cristianos, podemos abordar. Una cosa es explicar la presencia del mal moral en nuestro mundo (las malas acciones de los humanos); y otra de explicar la existencia del mal natural (terremotos, tsunamis y otros desastres naturales). Si existe un Dios todopoderoso y amoroso, ¿por qué permite el mal natural? Si Dios existe, ciertamente está dentro de su poder prevenir tales cosas. ¿Por qué no lo haría?

God Natural Evil

El problema del mal natural es irreconciliable a menos que haya razones necesarias o buenas para que Dios permita dicho mal. Si Dios existe, es razonable creer que Él diseñaría un mundo en el cual la agencia libre es posible (esta es una necesidad para que el verdadero amor sea alcanzable). Para entender por qué Dios puede permitir el mal natural, tenemos que hacer todo lo posible para examinar la naturaleza del mundo que nos rodea, la naturaleza de los seres humanos y los deseos de Dios:

Algunos “males naturales” pueden ser el resultado de la necesidad

Dios puede tolerar algún mal natural porque es la consecuencia necesaria de un proceso natural libre que hace posible que las criaturas de libre albedrío prosperen. El científico-teólogo John Polkinghorne sugiere que Dios ha creado un universo con leyes naturales particulares que hacen posible la vida en la Tierra para que los seres humanos con libre albedrío puedan existir en primer lugar. Como ejemplo, los mismos sistemas meteorológicos que crean tornados que matan a los seres humanos también crean tormentas eléctricas que proporcionan a nuestro medio ambiente el agua necesaria para la existencia humana. La misma placa tectónica que mata a seres humanos (en terremotos) es necesaria para la regulación de los suelos y las temperaturas superficiales necesarias para la existencia humana.

Algunos “males naturales” pueden ser el resultado de la naturaleza de la agencia libre

Dios también puede tolerar algún mal natural porque es la consecuencia necesaria de la agencia libre humana. Los seres humanos suelen reconstruirse a lo largo de las líneas de fallas sísmicas y caminos de huracanes conocidos, y con frecuencia economizan en las directrices de construcción con el fin de ahorrar dinero. Gran parte de esta actividad resulta en la pérdida catastrófica que vemos en tiempos de desastre natural. Hay momentos en que el mal «natural» es causado o agravado por las elecciones humanas libres.

Algunos “males naturales” pueden ser el resultado del estímulo de Dios

Dios puede permitir algún mal natural porque desafía a la gente a pensar en Él por primera vez. Para muchas personas, las primeras oraciones o pensamientos de Dios vinieron como resultado de alguna tragedia. Cuando nuestras vidas actuales están en peligro o en cuestión, nos encontramos pensando en la posibilidad de una vida futura. Si una vida futura eterna es una realidad, Dios puede usar el sufrimiento temporal de esta vida para enfocar nuestros pensamientos y deseos en la eternidad.

Algunos “males naturales” pueden ser el resultado de la edificación de Dios

Dios puede permitir algún mal natural porque provee a los seres humanos con la motivación y la oportunidad de desarrollar el carácter divino. Un mundo como este requiere que los seres humanos cooperen y coexistan pacíficamente para poder responder con éxito a sus desafíos. Lo mejor de la humanidad a menudo surge cuando la gente responde con amor y compasión ante el desastre natural. Es en el contexto del desastre que el carácter moral tiene la oportunidad de formarse y desarrollarse. El buen carácter (actos de amor, compasión y cooperación) debe ser libremente elegido. Dios nos ha provisto de un mundo que nos provoca para mejorar nuestra situación, cuidar a los necesitados y convertirnos en mejores seres humanos en el proceso.

Existen varias razones “necesarias” o “suficientes” para que Dios pueda crear un mundo en el cual el mal natural sea ocasionalmente permisible, particularmente si Dios elige proveer, proteger y preservar el libre albedrío de sus hijos.

 

J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ANalLt

Traducido por Ruth HL

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by
Free Will Rejection

El precio de negar el libre albedrío

Por Timothy Fox

Cada vez que me doy la vuelta, encuentro a alguien que niega que los humanos tengan libre albedrío. Desde los científicos, filósofos a los teólogos, es la nueva tendencia fresca. En realidad, no estamos tomando decisiones libres. Hemos sido programados por Dios o nuestro ADN para actuar de cierta manera y no tenemos más remedio que seguirlo.

libre albedrío

Para ser perfectamente claros, negamos todo tipo de determinismo, ya sea físico o divino. El libre albedrío es lo que pone la libertad en los ministerios del librepensamiento y nuestra piedra angular es el argumento del libre-pensador. Sin embargo, muchas personas todavía no entienden las consecuencias de negar el libre albedrío.

Pero primero, ¿qué es determinismo? Básicamente, significa que no hay libre albedrío. Todas nuestras creencias, pensamientos, acciones, etc. están “decididas” para nosotros, ya sea por fuerzas internas o externas: nuestro ADN, las leyes de la física o una deidad. Eres un tren en una pista fija sin ningún tipo de control. Incluso si piensas que realmente deliberaste acerca de qué calcetines de color ibas a usar esta mañana, que llevabas lo que llevabas y que eras completamente incapaz de hacer lo contrario.

Así que, antes de unirte a todos los chicos geniales, necesitas saber el precio de la admisión. Esto es lo que te costará negar el libre albedrío:

No libre albedrío = no responsabilidad moral

Si cada una de nuestras acciones ha sido predeterminada para nosotros, ¿cómo podemos ser responsables de ellas? ¿O cómo puede un divino maestro de marionetas que te condene por realizar acciones malas si es él quien está tirando de tus cuerdas? El asesino no tiene más remedio que asesinar. El violador no tiene más remedio que violar. Si eres cariñoso y amable o intolerante, sexista, racista, fanático, no tienes ningún control sobre ello. Naciste así, como todos los demás. Nada de lo que hagas es culpa tuya.

Pero ¿creemos honestamente eso? Por supuesto que no. Mantenemos a los criminales responsables de sus crímenes. Alabamos el altruismo y el auto-sacrificio. Solo el libre albedrío hace que esas cosas sean posibles.

No hay libre albedrío = no hay significado, propósito o amor

Los aspectos más básicos de la humanidad dependen de la existencia del libre albedrío: significado, propósito y amor. El verdadero amor no puede ser coaccionado; requiere que las personas libremente y genuinamente se comprometan mutuamente al bienestar. El sentido de uno en la vida se basa en el pensamiento profundo, la reflexión, y en última instancia de un deseo de perseguirlo. Pero sin el libre albedrío; el significado, el propósito y el amor son palabras vacías y huecas.

No libre albedrío = no racionalidad

Como argumenta Tim Stratton en su Argumento del libre-pensamiento, en un mundo determinista, no hay pensamiento verdadero ni racionalidad. Estas cosas se basan en la capacidad de analizar datos, evaluar las pruebas y seleccionar la mejor conclusión.

Después de todo, si piensas que el libre albedrío es una mentira, ¿cómo llegaste a esa conclusión? ¿Revisaste las pruebas y elegiste libremente el determinismo? Espero que veas lo absurdo que es eso. Si no hay libre albedrío, racionalmente no llegaste a creer eso. Estabas decidido a aceptarlo, como todo lo demás que piensas y crees. Nunca llegaste a creer libremente en nada; simplemente estabas decidido a hacerlo. Esto se relaciona con lo siguiente…

No hay libre albedrío = absoluta incertidumbre sobre todo

Si todos tus pensamientos y creencias han sido predeterminados para ti, ¿cómo sabes si alguno de ellos es realmente cierto? No puedes probarlos libremente ni reflexionar sobre ellos. Estás atascado en una incertidumbre total. Si alguna de tus creencias en realidad coincide con la realidad –que es la definición de la verdad– es un gran accidente cósmico, y nunca se sabe la diferencia. Así que si rechazas el libre albedrío, también debes rechazar la verdadera creencia justificada, que significa conocimiento. Sí, si niegas el libre albedrío, también rechazas todo conocimiento.

Otros disparates

Piensa en lo ridículo que es escribir un libro, artículo, blog, o lo que sea contra el libre albedrío. ¿El autor lo escribió libremente? ¿Realmente pensó, reflexionó y eligió cuidadosamente sus palabras para hacer posible el mejor argumento? ¿Y él espera que lo leas libremente y que te persuadas de creer que el libre albedrío no existe?

También puedes escuchar a un negador libre decir algo como: “No hay libre albedrío, pero tenemos que vivir como si hubiese”. Eso es ridículo. Asume que tú tienes la capacidad de elegir vivir de cierta manera. En el momento en que el determinista intenta convencerlo para negar el libre albedrío, se contradice.

Conclusión

Este es el precio de negar el libre albedrío. Si lo rechazas, también debes descartar la responsabilidad moral, el propósito, el significado, el amor, la racionalidad y el conocimiento. ¿Estás realmente dispuesto a dejar esas cosas para abrazar el determinismo? O míralo de otra manera. Si crees que eres un auténtico librepensador, que los humanos tienen verdaderas obligaciones morales y que somos libres de encontrar sentido en la vida, también debes afirmar el libre albedrío.

Y entonces necesitas una cosmovisión que acomode el libre albedrío. El naturalismo no lo reducirá. Tampoco una religión donde Dios determine exhaustivamente todas las cosas en el universo, incluyendo las acciones de los seres humanos. Creemos que la mejor opción es una cosmovisión con un Dios que es completamente soberano, pero ha otorgado a los seres humanos libre albedrío, incluyendo la capacidad de aceptar libremente su oferta de perdón o rechazarlo.

La decisión es tuya.

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2zXeNXz

Traducido por Ruth H.L.

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by
Ethics Relativism Morality

Should We Be Moral Relativists?

,

By

INTRODUCTION

This is a short introductory essay to defend objective moral values. In philosophy, the term ‘objective,’ is defined as the existence of an object independent of human mind (mind-independency); “the object would “be there,” as it is, even if no subject perceived it.”1 In contrast, the term ‘relative’ refers to the perception of an object by the subject (mind-dependency).

‘Relativism’ espouses true or false moral judgments relative to language, culture or biological makeup.2 For instance, relativism need not consider polygamy as crime, for cultures or people can justify polygamy relative to their thought paradigm. Relativism denies objectivity and appeals to man’s mind.

Alternatively, ‘Objectivism’ espouses truth and falsity as independent of mind, so to claim and appeal to the reality of objective moral facts. Therefore, objectivism will rule polygamy to be a crime by appealing to the existence of objective moral laws (which is discovered and not invented by humans). This is similar to objectivism affirming the objective reality that sun is more massive than the earth.

THESIS

I – A Case for Objective Moral Values:

‘Objectivism’ or ‘we should not be moral relativists’ could be reasonably defended by positing the presence of ‘objective moral values.’ Moral relativism opposes ‘objectivism’ by negating the presence of objective realities.3 But if objective moral values can be postulated to exist, then moral relativism could be reasonably debunked.

 (1) Objective Reality is Factual

There are objective realities. The fact that sun is more massive than earth is an objective reality. This fact does not depend on anyone affirming or negating it.

(2) Objective Moral Values are a Reality

It’s morally wrong to not assist a person in need when we are able to. Similarly genocide is morally wrong; it is morally wrong to deliberately and systematically eliminate a group of people. These are universally affirmed objective moral values and do not depend on people’s mind (whether anyone believes or accepts, it is morally wrong to not assist a person and to commit genocide). Thus there are universally affirmed objective moral values.

(3) An Objective Basis is Necessary for Objective Moral Values to Exist

The “objectivism” proposed by Ayn Rand (1905-1982) posits man’s selfishness or man’s survival as the objective foundation to objective moral values.4 But human selfishness cannot be sustained as an objective foundation against an argument that a certain human subjectivity ought to be involved in deciding opposing values of human selfishness.

Would it be objectively true if the Nazi’s argued that it was morally right for them to eliminate the entire Jewish population because the Jews were an economic burden to Germany? The human selfishness of the Nazis was predicated upon the economic crisis in Germany, but in stark contrast, the human selfishness of the Jews was predicated on protecting their own life. So the Randian objectivism would crumble when two opposing cases of human selfishness collide with each other. Thus one ought to subjectively decide between the opposing objective moral values espoused by the two groups.

But ‘God’ can be reasonably posited as the sole objective source for moral values. God, as the greatest conceivable being, transcends humanity and the space-time coordinates. Hence God is an objective reality and the sole objective basis for objective moral laws.

However, proof of God’s existence ought to be reasonably provided, if not, God cannot be posited as the basis of mind-independent objective moral laws. Many arguments for God’s existence have been reasonably and plausibly posited, such as the Teleological Argument,5 Cosmological Argument,6 Moral Argument7 etc.

Since objectivity, objective moral values, and an objective moral value giver (God) can be posited, a reasonable conclusion is that there are objective moral values. Hence, we should not be moral relativists.

II – A Case for an Immoral World:

Moral relativism would stimulate an immoral world without any restraint whatsoever. When moral values are predicated on human mind, morality would be a slave of the dogma that controls that human mind. If one’s dogma is cannibalism, he would appeal to moral relativism to justify his devouring of his neighbor. Since moral relativism promotes an immoral world, we should not be moral relativists.

CONCLUSION

Two mutually contradicting statements cannot be true within the same context, at the same time and for all people. So objective and relative moral values cannot both be true for they contradict each other. The presence of objective moral values and the case for an immoral world portrays that moral relativism exists by ignoring or suppressing the truth of objective moral values. Therefore, we should not be moral relativists.

END NOTES:

1http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2a

2http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

3http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H3

4http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/

5 J.P Moreland, Scaling the Secular City – A Defense of Christianity, (Michigan: Baker Academic, 1987), p43-76.

6 Ibid, p15-42.

7http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument#ixzz2mPz3C86b

This article was posted at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/12/should-we-be-moral-relativists_28.html

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2th89GR

 

/by
God Loves Devil

Why Does God Love Satan?

By Rajkumar Richard

The question, “Does God love Satan?” seemingly yields diametrically conflicting answers from conservative Christian theologians. Some assert that God cannot love Satan. In contrast, others claim that God loves Satan. So does God love Satan or not? 

Answers to the question, “Does God love Satan?” cause further complications. If God does not love Satan, how could God be maximally and perfectly good? (If God does not love one being, then HE cannot be maximally and perfectly good.) Moreover, if God hates Satan for being evil, does HE also hate all those humans who reject and slander HIM? If God hates those who reject and slander HIM, HIS love is conditional. But isn’t God’s love unconditional?

The answer, “God loves Satan,” is also riddled with complications. If God loves Satan, how could a good God love the evil Satan? Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? Furthermore, if God loves Satan, should we also love Satan?

God Cannot Love Satan

Christian Q&A website, Gotquestions.org affirms that God cannot love Satan, “No, God does not love Satan, and neither should we. God cannot love that which is evil and unholy, and Satan embodies all of that. He is the enemy (1 Peter 5:8); the evil one (Matthew 6:13); the father of lies and a murderer (John 8:44); the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10); the tempter (1 Thessalonians 3:5); proud, wicked and violent (Isaiah 14:12-15); a deceiver (Acts 13:10); a schemer (Ephesians 6:11); a thief (Luke 8:12); and many more evil things. He is, in fact, everything that God hates. The heart of Satan is fixed and confirmed in his hatred of God, his judgment is final, and his destruction is sure. Revelation 20 describes God’s future plan for Satan, and love for Satan has no part in it.”1

God Loves Satan

Dr. William Lane Craig claims that God loves Satan, “I feel no awkwardness whatever in affirming that God most certainly does love Satan. Indeed, what I should find awkward would be affirming that He does not! God is a perfectly loving being, whose love is not based on a person’s performance. Satan is a person, indeed, on the traditional conception an angelic person of unparalleled beauty and perfection among creatures. How could God not love him? The fact that that person is now fallen and unspeakably evil does not imply that God ceases to love him, any more than He ceased to love us when we fell and became enemies of God (Romans 5.10).”2

(Dr. Craig’s claim was in response to this question, “…Is it not true then that His love for all includes the Devil? For if it were not the case then there would be at least one eternally damned being whom God does not love or loves less, i.e., He is not all-loving or the greatest conceivably loving being.”)

Is Satan Totally Evil?

In his blog, Tough Questions Answered, Bill Pratt quotes Dr. Norm Geisler to contend that Satan is not totally evil, “Many people mistakenly believe that while God is totally good, Satan, or the Devil, is totally evil. They are polar opposites of each other.

This idea, however, is false. Satan, while being totally evil in a moral sense, is not totally evil in a metaphysical sense. Theologian Norm Geisler explains the distinction in his book If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Question. Geisler writes:

The Bible speaks about Satan as “the evil one” (1 John 5:19) who is a liar by his very nature (John 8:44). Surely there is no good in Satan – is he not totally evil? Yes, he is completely evil in a moral sense, but not in a metaphysical sense. Just like fallen humans still have God’s image, even so Satan has the remnants of good that God gave to him as a created angel.

For example, Satan has good insofar as he is a creature of God, insofar as he has intelligence, and power, and free will. Of course, he uses all these God-given good powers to do evil; he is ever, always, irretrievably bent on evil. But this is only to say he is totally depraved morally, not that he is totally deprived of all creaturely good metaphysically.” (Emphasis Mine).3

Understanding God’s Love For Satan

The assertions, “God loves Satan” and “God hates Satan” need not be construed as being diametrically opposite or absolutely conflicting. Both these assertions could be true in a particular sense – the metaphysical or the moral.

Since Satan retains a remnant of the goodness of God’s creations from a metaphysical sense, we could reasonably sustain the notion that God loves Satan. In other words, God loves Satan only from a metaphysical sense.

But Satan is morally depraved. God cannot love the consequential deeds of a morally depraved being. So from this sense – the moral sense – the notion that God hates Satan (his evil deeds) could be sustained.

Significantly, an absolute denial of God’s love for Satan cannot be sustained. Just one reason may be sufficient to corroborate this assertion. If God hates Satan absolutely or totally, then should God not hate all those who reject and slander HIM?

But the Bible clearly teaches that God loved us when we were sinners (Romans 5:8). Therefore, if God loves a sinful, rebellious and slanderous man, on what grounds could God not love Satan? While it is true that both Satan and those men and women who rebel, reject, and slander God are doomed to an eternal damnation, the judgment of God need not violate HIS love for those who disbelieve and abuse HIM.

God’s judgment is contingent on the exercise of free will in the case of Satan and the unbelieving mankind. But God’s love for HIS creation is not contingent on HIS judgment. It is contingent on the goodness of HIS creation (God created all things good). Moreover, as it has already been asserted, neither Satan nor the unbelieving mankind is totally evil, for they still retain their creational goodness in the metaphysical sense. (The unbelieving humans could be morally good in certain or most instances. Satan too could, arguably, be morally good in certain situations, albeit in a passive sense, when he does no harm to his followers – not from the perspective of eternity, but from a worldly perspective.)

To conclude, the understanding that God loves Satan could only be sustained if the entailing complications could be resolved. These are the complications. If God loves Satan, then “how could a good God love the evil Satan?” Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? Furthermore, if God loves Satan, should we also love Satan?

How could a good God love the evil Satan? Satan is morally depraved and irretrievably bent on evil, but this is from a moral sense. However, Satan does retain a remnant of the goodness of God’s creations (intelligence, power, free will etc.). If Satan retains even a remnant of the metaphysical goodness of God’s creation, there is enough latitude for God to love Satan. So an absolute assertion that God hates Satan cannot be sustained. Therefore we could reasonably affirm that God loves Satan from the metaphysical sense and yet assert that God hates Satan from the moral sense.

Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? A maximally good and perfect being cannot be evil in the sense of both the metaphysical and the moral. If God loves Satan from a moral sense, then an argument that God could be evil may be valid. However, God’s love for Satan is from a metaphysical sense (not from a moral sense), hence there cannot be a remote semblance of evil in God.

Does God’s love for Satan imply that we should love Satan? The Bible mandates us to stand against the evil schemes of Satan and his entourage (Ephesians 6: 11). Moreover, Satan works against God’s people, so Christians cannot love Satan.

Notes

1https://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-love-Satan.html last accessed on 18th June 2017.

2http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-love-the-devil last accessed on 18th June 2017.

3http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2015/03/02/is-satan-totally-evil/, last accessed on 18th June 2017.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2thjJBO

/by
Progressive Christianity Atheism

Progressive Christianity is as Much of a Threat to Your Kids’ Faith as Atheism

By

In our backyard we used to have a beautiful lime tree.

One day I noticed that a thorny vine of some kind had started growing around it. It looked enough like the rest of the tree that I figured it was just another stage of growth. A quick Google search told me thorns often grow around citrus trees, so I didn’t think much more about it.

Then, within a couple of months, the thorns took over the tree and it began to die. A gardener looked at it and said these particular thorns weren’t part of the tree at all. It turns out they were a foreign invader.

Had the foreign invader looked more foreign, I would have realized the need to uproot it immediately. But because it shared surface-level similarities with the tree, I was fooled into thinking it was all the same thing.

I often write here about the threat hostile atheists pose to kids’ faith today. But atheism is not the only threat. In fact, there’s a particular threat that can be even more dangerous because it less obviously requires attention. It’s like the thorny plant that gradually killed my lime tree because I didn’t even realize it was foreign.

That threat is called progressive Christianity.

What is Progressive Christianity?

It can be hard to define progressive Christianity because it’s an umbrella term for a lot of different beliefs. But I think my friend and fellow blogger, Alisa Childers (who was once part of a progressive Christian church) hit the nail on the head when she summarized it this way in a recent post:

  • A lowered view of the Bible
  • Feelings are emphasized over facts
  • Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretation
  • Historic terms are redefined
  • The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

Here’s the danger. To the untrained ear, the progressive Christian message can sound a lot like biblical Christianity. There’s talk of God, Jesus, the Bible, love, and compassion. If a child has never learned to think more deeply about theology and what the Bible actually teaches, they can easily mistake progressive Christianity for biblical Christianity.

And progressive Christianity often teaches an incomplete or false gospel.

Exhibit A: There’s a blog called Unfundamentalist Parenting that promotes parenting according to progressive Christian views. This Easter, the blog featured a guest post by a Children’s Pastor at a progressive Christian church. In her post, The Trouble with Easter: How To (and not to) Talk to Kids about Easter, the author expressed how difficult Easter is because she doesn’t want to teach the kids in her spiritual care that:

  • Jesus died for you/your sins (this is “psychologically damaging”)
  • God intended for Jesus to die (this is “confusing and jarring”)
  • Jesus died to save them from God’s judgment (“an atonement theology of inborn corruption in need of redemption has no place in a conversation with kids about Easter”)

The whole article literally made my heart hurt.

Views like these are thorny, foreign invaders in the church.

Why Progressive Christians Don’t Like Apologetics

The Unfundamentalist Parenting blog recently featured another post that caught my eye: Why Your Children Do NOT Need Apologetics. (If you’re not familiar with the term, apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true.) The post is filled with misunderstandings, but my purpose here is not to rebut it. Instead, I want to highlight why progressive Christians don’t like apologetics…and why that shows just how important the study of apologetics actually is.

The author bemoans the fact that apologetics “confines faith as doctrine,” explaining:

“Our faith is a dynamic experience that shifts and evolves for us and especially for a child growing leaps and bounds in their development. We cannot capture that experience and box it into a set of propositions to memorize and defend—that limits and denies the realities of the human experience.”

This statement says so much. The author is confused between the objective, unchanging truth of God and the subjective, changing experiences we have as we relate to God throughout our lives.

God and the truth He has revealed do not shift and evolve.

Our experiences shift and evolve, but that has nothing to do with what is true.

Teaching kids apologetics isn’t about putting their experiences in a “box.” To the contrary, apologetics is about stepping outside personal experience and examining what reason there is to believe Christianity is true regardless of our feelings.

If kids are only developing a faith based on “shifting and evolving” experiences, they have no way of knowing if their faith is well placed. I could have faith that a mouse will fly out of a tree right now, but that would be a bad thing to have faith in.

Faith, in and of itself, is no virtue.

It’s only as solid as the object of the faith.

The question is, how can we be confident that Jesus, as the object of Christian faith, is “solid”?

Apologetics.

Progressive Christians don’t like apologetics because it challenges them to think of biblical teachings in a category of objective truth—something we’re not free to change just because we happen to “experience” it in varied ways.

Two plus two equals four whether I experience difficulty with that or not.

Experience cannot be elevated over objective truth.

Progressive Christianity is Just One More Reason Your Kids and the Church at Large Desperately Need Apologetics

The study of apologetics is desperately needed for all Christians today, both for engaging with the secular world and, less obviously, for engaging with groups that teach an unbiblical version of Christianity.

But, for some reason, the church is still largely blind to this need.

Cold-Case homicide detective, apologist, and author J. Warner Wallace sees this all the time. He speaks nearly every week at churches and conferences across the country on the reliability of the Gospels, the reasonable inference of the resurrection, and the evidence for God’s existence. Wallace has the opportunity to engage with the spectrum of believers in a way that few others do.

What he’s found has been disappointing at best.

In his new book, Forensic Faith, Wallace says, “In many of these churches, the people I meet aren’t really interested in Christian ‘apologetics’…In fact, most are still completely unfamiliar with the word, and some even reject the value of such an effort. On more than one occasion, I’ve heard a well-meaning believer say something akin to, ‘Well, that’s nice, but I don’t really need any evidence. I just believe Christianity is true.”

In other words, Christians are largely unprepared to make the case for what they believe and many in the church still deny the need to be prepared in the first place.

The church is asleep.

And while the church sleeps, the secular world marches on, becoming increasingly hostile to the truth of Christianity, and thorny foreign invaders continue to grow within.

For that reason, I don’t think there’s a more important book for the church right now than Forensic Faith. In it, Wallace powerfully makes the case for the importance of apologetics for every Christian. It’s a wake up call to the sleeping church.

For those new to apologetics, it’s a perfect place to start. Wallace motivates you to take your Christian case-making duty seriously and shows you, step-by-step, what to do once you’ve accepted that duty.

For those who already understand the importance of apologetics, it’s the ultimate resource to share with fellow believers who need the understanding you have. It’s the book you can give to your small group members, pastors, children’s ministry leaders, and friends.

I pray this fantastic book will truly sweep through the church.

As Christian parents, we must continually be vigilant. Threats to our kids’ faith aren’t always as obvious as the freeway billboards proclaiming “There is No God.” Providing kids with a foundation of apologetics, however, will give them the training of a discerning gardener ready to identify and uproot any kind of invader that shouldn’t exist alongside biblical truth.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2szavjS

/by
God Eutyphro Dilemma

El amor de Dios y el dilema de Eutifrón

Por Tim Stratton

PREGUNTA

Estimado Tim: En tu artículo “La Omnibenevolencia de Dios” señalaste que en el punto de vista islámico, Alá es muy similar a algunas opiniones calvinistas de Dios. En relación con este punto de vista, dijiste: “Dios no es todo-amor, y cualquier cosa que Alá haga es simplemente llamado “bueno” incluso si es aborrecible”.

God Eutyphro Dilemma

Estoy de acuerdo contigo, pero un ateo recientemente se opuso a su declaración con lo siguiente:

Esto suena como el punto de vista cristiano también. Si Dios es el estándar del “bien” entonces todo lo que Dios hace es por definición bueno. Según ese argumento, el odio sería, por definición, ‘bueno’. ¿Qué hace que la benevolencia sea inherentemente ‘buena’ si está recibiendo el estándar de ‘bueno’ de Dios? Con ese argumento, si Dios es benevolente entonces la benevolencia es buena, pero si resulta que Dios es un ser lleno de odio entonces uno tiene que llamar ‘odio’ más bien que benevolencia. A menos que estés diciendo que la benevolencia es inherentemente buena, aparte de Dios, y por lo tanto la benevolencia es un rasgo necesario de un Dios ‘todo-bueno’. Pero eso significaría que Dios tiene estos rasgos porque es bueno, y su bondad se distingue de su posesión de ellos—estos serían buenos independientemente de la existencia de Dios.

Él continuó afirmando que el “argumento zombi” descarta el dilema de Eutifrón (pienso que refiriéndose al artículo escrito por Timothy Fox) falla y así el dilema de Eutifrón “En realidad no está tan muerto después de todo.” ¿Cómo responderías al argumento de este ateo?

–Melissa

RESPUESTA DE TIM

Esta es una buena pregunta y una que he estado considerando por un tiempo. Gracias por enviarlo a mi dirección Melissa. Creo que la objeción del ateísta podría ser un problema para los calvinistas (ver “Calvinismo y los Cuernos de Eutifrón”); Sin embargo, el artículo que escribí estaba basado en una perspectiva molinista. El ateo no logró captar esta distinción y parece combinar el cristianismo con el calvinismo, ¡un movimiento al que me opongo firmemente! Su respuesta, lamentablemente, perdió el punto principal de todo el artículo, y por lo tanto, continúa atacando a un hombre de paja. Esto puede verse cuando primero entendemos cómo es Dios.

La naturaleza de Dios es amor

Lo principal a considerar es que la naturaleza de Dios es perfectamente amorosa, así como Él es perfectamente poderoso y perfectamente conocedor. Uno es libre de afirmar que estas propiedades no son “buenas” (llámelas como quieras); sin embargo, si Dios posee amor por todas las personas, entonces mi argumento está en pie.

No sólo la Biblia dice específicamente que “Dios es amor” (1 Juan 4:8) sino que el hecho de que Dios ama a todas las personas está implícito en versículos como Juan 3:16, 1 Timoteo 2:4 y 2 Pedro 3:9. Además, si los mandamientos de Jesús reflejan la naturaleza de Dios, entonces es racional deducir que Dios ama a todas las personas (incluso a aquellos que consideran a Dios como un enemigo). Sería bastante extraño que Dios ordenara a los seres humanos que amaran a todas las personas (de nuestros vecinos a nuestros enemigos) si Dios mismo no poseía este amor para todas las personas. De hecho, este amor perfecto se refiere específicamente en Mateo 5:48:

Sean perfectos como su Padre celestial es perfecto.

Jesús incluso provee la parábola del Buen Samaritano (Lucas 10: 25-37) para demostrar el amor que debemos tener por aquellos que nos desprecian. Jesús deja claro que debemos salir de nuestro camino—incluso si nos molesta—hacer posible que incluso nuestros enemigos prosperen y florezcan. La Escritura está repleta de datos que afirman el amor perfecto de Dios. De hecho he argumentado que podemos inferir el amor universal de Dios y el deseo de que todos sean salvos del primer libro de la Biblia. Con esto en mente, ¡lo principal para entender es que Dios es omni-amor! Es decir, ¡Dios ama a TODAS las personas genuinamente!

Esto plantea otra pregunta…

¿Qué es el amor?

Además del título de una canción pop pegadiza de los años 90, la Biblia es clara en lo que es el amor en 1 Corintios 13:

El amor es paciente y amable; el amor no envidia ni se jacta; no es arrogante o grosero. No insiste en su propio camino; no es irritable ni resentido; no se regocija de la injusticia, sino que se regocija con la verdad. Todo lo sufre, todo lo cree, todo lo espera, todo lo soporta. El amor nunca termina…

La Biblia continúa aclarando que es lo qu está dipuesto hacer el amor máximo en Juan 15:

Nadie tiene mayor amor que este, que dé su vida por sus amigos.

La Biblia revela que Dios ama a todas las personas y que todas las personas están llamadas a amar a todas las personas también. ¡De hecho, podemos suponer que este es el propósito objetivo de la existencia humana dado los dos mandamientos más grandes de Cristo! Consideremos Mateo 5:44; 22:37-39:

  1. ¡Ama a Dios primero!
  2. Todo mundo ama a todos (desde sus vecinos a sus enemigos)!

Por otra parte, la Biblia parece describir el amor genuino como el deseo de lo mejor para otra persona, incluso si se trata de un costo para el que ama a la otra persona. No sólo esto es bíblico ¡es evidente por sí mismo e intuitivamente obvio! Con esto en mente, podemos resumir el amor como un deseo genuino por lo mejor de otra persona y una voluntad de auto-sacrificio (incluso la propia vida si es necesario) para asegurar que esta otra persona pueda prosperar alcanzando la mejor vida posible.

Es importante notar que mi “artículo omnibenevolente” al que se hace referencia en la objeción fue escrito principalmente con ciertos teólogos calvinistas en mente, como Arthur Pink y Matt Slick, que niegan que Dios ama y desea lo mejor para todas las personas. La objeción anterior, sin embargo, está escrita desde una perspectiva atea esperando que el Argumento Moral para la existencia de Dios caiga presa de uno de los cuernos del dilema de Eutifrón. Sea como sea, mi punto es inmune a esta objeción, ya que se mantiene fuerte, simplemente señalando que Dios es esencialmente amoroso y es TODO amor.

Sin embargo, incluso si no es bueno amar (tan loco como suena), el punto sigue siendo: Dios ama a todas las personas—¡Su naturaleza es el amor!

Ahora que tenemos una comprensión de la naturaleza amorosa de Dios, y sabemos lo que es el amor, ahora podemos contemplar el significado de la vida.

El propósito objetivo de la existencia humana

¡Tu vida tiene un significado objetivo! Puede que no lo sepas todavía, o tal vez no estás de acuerdo subjetivamente, pero esto no cambia nada. El hecho de la cuestión sigue siendo que Dios creó a la humanidad a propósito y con el propósito específico de conocer, amar y disfrutar de una relación con Él y toda la gente por la eternidad. Es por eso que tú existes. Este es el propósito objetivo por el cual todos hemos sido creados.

Dios creó un mundo lleno de criaturas que pueden disfrutar de una verdadera relación de amor con Él (el cual es el último florecimiento eterno). Este es el propósito objetivo de la vida humana: amar y ser amados por Dios y por todas las personas para la eternidad. Es vital comprender esta verdad: Dios creó a todos y cada uno de nosotros a propósito y con el propósito específico para estar en una relación plena prospera/amor-verdadero con Él por la eternidad.

Si Dios desea crear un mundo en el cual pueda alcanzarse el verdadero amor, Él debe proveer a sus criaturas con libertad genuina (libre albedrío libertariano) para que sea posible que la humanidad experimente relaciones genuinas de amor con Dios y con los demás. Con esta libertad en mente, los seres humanos son libres de aproximarse al propósito objetivo de la vida—AMOR—o no.

Para ayudar a entender el por qué el objetivo de Dios en crear a la humanidad se sustenta en un propósito objetivo, considere los siguientes argumentos:

  1. Si una verdad corresponde a la realidad, es objetivamente verdadera [aparte de la opinión humana].
  2. Si Dios creó a la humanidad para un propósito, entonces este propósito es una verdad que corresponde a la realidad.
  3. Por lo tanto, si Dios creó a la humanidad para un propósito, entonces este propósito es objetivamente cierto.
  4. Dios creó la humanidad (a propósito y) para un propósito.
  5. Por lo tanto, el propósito de Dios para crear la humanidad es objetivamente cierto (aparte de la opinión humana).

Para un argumento más detallado, haga clic aquí.

¿Qué es lo “Bueno”?

Una vez que comprendemos el propósito objetivo de la existencia humana, podemos entender lo que significa para los humanos ser “buenos”. Cuando nos aproximamos a nuestro propósito objetivo (lo cual es cierto, aparte de la opinión humana) es objetivamente “bueno”. Una cosa se aproxima a su propósito objetivo, a ese mismo grado es “bueno”. Hasta cierto grado que algo pierde el blanco (el objetivo) de su propósito objetivo a ese mismo grado es pecaminoso (“malo”). Es decir, algo es objetivamente bueno cuando ayuda a alcanzar o corresponde al propósito objetivo de su existencia.

Puesto que Dios por su naturaleza es amor (incluso si el amor no es un “bien”), Él creó un mundo donde el amor genuino es posiblemente alcanzado. Dios creó a la humanidad a propósito y con el propósito específico de amarlo y ser amado por Él (y por todas las personas) perfectamente en el futuro eterno. Esto también conduce al eterno y ultimo florecimiento humano. Uno es libre de llamar al eterno florecimiento humano como “bueno”, “shmibueno”, o como quieran.

Hacer algo más que amar a todas las personas (de cada persona de la Trinidad a todos los humanos) es perder el objetivo (pecado). Puesto que el libre albedrío es necesario para el amor, y si el libre albedrío es realmente libre (y no un juego de palabras), se sigue que uno puede elegir libremente aproximarse al propósito objetivo de su existencia (lo que llamamos “bueno”) o no.

Conclusión

Dios es todo amor por naturaleza. Es irrelevante si uno quiere argumentar si el amor es “bueno” o “malo”. No estoy argumentando que amar a todas las personas es “bueno” o “malo”, así que mi caso simplemente evita los cuernos de Eutifrón. Simplemente estoy señalando cómo son las cosas (la definición de la realidad). ¡Dios es amor!

Dios es “bueno” en el sentido de que Él siempre actúa libremente de manera consistente con su plan perfectamente amoroso para la humanidad. Dios también establece el estándar en que nosotros los seres humanos nos esforzamos por ser “el objetivo”. Los seres humanos son “buenos” cuando elegimos libremente aproximarnos al propósito objetivo en el cual fuimos creados. Somos “malos” o moralmente pecaminosos cuando elegimos libremente “fallar en dar al blanco” o no alcanzar la meta a la que fuimos creados para alcanzar.

¡La elección depende de ti!

Mantente razonable (Filipenses 4: 5),

Tim Stratton

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2uEjLDg

Traducido por Ruth H.L.

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by
Gospel Mark Author

Who Wrote the Gospel of Mark?

By Brian Chilton

Last week, we began a series on the authorship of the New Testament documents as we discussed the Gospel of Matthew. This week, we continue our series as we consider the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. We will consider the internal and external evidences, as well as the date of the composition, and the area where Mark was located.

Proposed Author by Tradition:       John Mark, who transcribed the teachings of Simon Peter, is traditionally held to be the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark was the son of a widow woman named Mary (Acts 12:12-17). The disciples met in Mary’s home. Her home may have even served as the location of the Last Supper. John Mark was also the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journeys. He was, however, scolded by Paul and was disallowed to continue after Mark left the missionaries for unknown reasons (Acts 13:13). Paul and Mark later reconciled. Paul added that Mark was useful for the ministry (Colossians 4:10).

Internal Evidence:    Internally, there isn’t much to mark the author of the Gospel. The Second Gospel does hold several traits to be considered. First, the Second Gospel is fast-paced. The author uses the term “immediately” often. Second, the Second Gospel focuses on the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth often discussing his emotions. Third, the author writes with a Latin audience in mind as he explained Jewish customs and used Latin terms. Some example of the author’s usage of Latinisms include the terms census (Mark 12:14), centurion (15:39, 44, 45), denarius (a Roman coin, 12:15), among others.[1] Fourth, the author describes the man who carried Jesus’s cross as Simon of Cyrene who is identified as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Alexander and Rufus were known to the believers in Rome.[2] Fifth, the Second Gospel focuses upon the life of Simon Peter quite a bit. One of the highlights of the Second Gospel is Peter’s declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (8:27-9:1). Sixth, the author emphasizes the Messianic Secret.[3] Seventh and finally, the author describes a man who is unknown except for a bizarre instance in the Garden of Gethsemane where the unknown man is caught as Jesus is arrested, only to escape the clutches of the Roman guard losing his clothing in the process (Mark 14:51-52). Many have postulated that this unknown man is in fact the author.

While the clues are not conclusive, they do point to a man writing to a Roman audience; who directly, or indirectly, knew Simon Peter; who knew the members of the Roman church. Of the possible candidates, John Mark fits best.

External Evidence: Like the other three Gospels, the early church was unanimous in their acceptance that John Mark was the writer of the Second Gospel and that he documented the teachings of Simon Peter. Papias provides the earliest account. Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) writes,

“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”[4]

Papias confirms John Mark as the writer of the Second Gospel. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) also writes, “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”[5] Thus, the early church unanimously concurred that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark would make for an odd candidate unless he were in fact the author.

Date:   If one holds that Irenaeus’s reference to Peter’s “departure” indicates Peter’s execution, then Mark was written in the mid to late 60s. If, however, “departure” indicates Peter’s establishment of the Roman church, then the date is much earlier. It seems that Irenaeus addresses Peter’s martyrdom. However, he is writing after having received the Gospel when Mark moved to Alexandria, Egypt. Thus, the Gospel could have been written much earlier than Mark’s distribution of the work to the Alexandrians. Most scholars hold that Mark was written first, while others hold that Matthew was the first to be written. Good evidence suggests a date for Mark’s Gospel at some time in the 50s, with some even suggesting a date to the late 40s. Personally, I am comfortable with a mid-50s date.

Location and Audience: It is clear that John Mark wrote his Gospel while still in Rome. Mark writes primarily for a Roman Gentile audience. Mark could have written in Rome at any point. I hold that Irenaeus indicates merely that his community received the Gospel after Peter’s death. However, this is not a point which I strongly hold.

Conclusion:

From the evidences considered, John Mark is the only clear candidate for the Second Gospel. While John Mark was not a primary witness of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and while he does not necessarily record the events of Jesus’s life in chronological order, he does act as a scribe, or amanuensis, to Peter whom Jesus knew and selected to be an inner circle disciple. We have a great testimony preserved for us in the Second Gospel. I believe we truly have the eyewitness accounts of Simon Peter documented for us by his good friend John Mark.

Notes

[1] For a full list of Mark’s Latinisms, see Rod Decker, “Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel,” NT Resources (May 28, 2011), retrieved June 12, 2017, http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1205.

[2] “Introduction to Mark,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1556.

[3] That is, Jesus telling the disciples to keep his identity a secret.

[4] Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 154–155.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2syW4fy

/by
Free Will Rejection

The Price of Denying Free Will

By Timothy Fox

Every time I turn around I find someone else denying that humans have free will. From scientists to philosophers to theologians, it’s the cool new trend. We aren’t actually making free choices. We have been programmed either by God or our DNA to act in a certain way and have no choice but to follow it.

To be perfectly clear, we deny all types of determinism, whether it’s physical or divine. Free will is what puts the free in Freethinking Ministries and our cornerstone is the Freethinking Argument. Yet many people still don’t understand the consequences of denying free will.

But first, what is determinism? Basically, it means there is no free will. All of our beliefs, thoughts, actions, etc. are “decided” for us, either by internal or external forces: our DNA, the laws of physics, or a deity. You’re a train on a fixed track with no control whatsoever. Even if you think that you really deliberated about what color socks you were going to wear this morning, you wore what you wore and you were completely unable to do otherwise.

So before you join all the cool kids, you need to know the price of admission. This is what it will cost you to deny free will:

No free will = no moral responsibility

If every one of our actions have been predetermined for us, how can we be held accountable for them? Or how can a divine puppet master condemn you for performing evil actions if he’s the one pulling your strings? The murderer has no choice but to murder. The rapist has no choice but to rape. Whether you are loving and kind or an intolerant, sexist, racist, bigot, you have no control over it. You were born that way, just like everyone else. Nothing you do is your fault.

But do we honestly believe that? Of course not. We hold criminals accountable for their crimes. We praise altruism and self-sacrifice. Only free will makes those things possible.

No free will = no meaning, purpose, or love

The most basic aspects of humanity hinge on the existence of free will: meaning, purpose, and love. True love cannot be coerced; it requires people freely and genuinely committing to each other’s well-being. One’s meaning in life is based on deep thought, reflection, and ultimately a desire to pursue it. But apart from free will, meaning, purpose, and love are void and empty words.

No free will = no rationality

As Tim Stratton argues in his Freethinking Argument, in a deterministic world, there is no true thought or rationality. These things are based on the ability to analyze data, weigh evidence, and select the best conclusion.

After all, if you think free will is a lie, how did you come to that conclusion? Did you survey the evidence and freely choose to accept determinism? I hope you see how absurd that is. If there is no free will, you did not rationally come to believe that. You were determined to accept it, just like everything else you think and believe. You never came to freely believe in anything; you were merely determined to do so.

This ties into the next…

No free will = absolute uncertainty about everything

If all of your thoughts and beliefs have been predetermined for you, how do you know if any of them are actually true? You can’t freely test them or reflect on them. You’re stuck in complete uncertainty. If any of your beliefs actually match reality – which is the definition of truth – it’s a grand cosmic accident, and you would never know the difference. So if you reject free will, you must also reject justified true belief, meaning knowledge.

Yes, if you deny free will, you also reject all knowledge.

Other Nonsense

Think about how ridiculous it is to write a book, article, blog, or whatever against free will. Did the author freely write it? Did he actually think, reflect, and carefully choose his words to make the best argument possible? And does he expect you to freely read it and be persuaded to believe that free will does not exist?

You may also hear a free will denier say something like “There is no free will but we have to live as if there were.” That’s ridiculous. It assumes you have the ability to choose to live a certain way. The moment the determinist attempts to convince you to deny free will, he contradicts himself.

Conclusion

This is the price of denying free will. If you reject it, you must also discard moral responsibility, purpose, meaning, love, rationality, and knowledge. Are you really willing to give those things up by espousing determinism? Or look at it the other way. If you believe that you are a true freethinker, that humans have real moral obligations, and that we are free to find meaning in life, you must also affirm free will.

And then you need a worldview that accommodates free will. Naturalism won’t cut it. Neither will a religion where God exhaustively determines all things in the universe, including the actions of human beings. We think the best choice is a worldview with a God who is fully sovereign, yet has granted humans free will, including the ability to freely accept his offer of forgiveness or to reject him.

The choice is yours.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2scsTPZ

/by