Thriving in Your Career as an Ambassador of Jesus

Thriving in Your Career as an Ambassador of Jesus

By Mikel Del Rosario

Faith in the Spotlight

Can you thrive in your career while staying true to your beliefs?

As Christians, we are vocational ambassadors representing Jesus in all that we do. But can you really thrive in your career while staying true to your Christian beliefs? In this episode of the Table Podcast, I sat down with Megan Alexander of Inside Edition to talk about this very question. Megan is an actress, author, and a reporter for Inside Edition.

We discussed her book, Faith in the Spotlight: Thriving in Your Career While Staying True to Your Beliefs, along with her experiences working in the media. But regardless of your vocation, it is possible to thrive in your career as an ambassador of Jesus. It is so important for us to have a seat at the table in a variety of public spaces. If Christians aren’t there, we won’t be represented.

Megan also mentioned how important reading C.S. Lewis was in terms of helping her learn about apologetics. She is a great storyteller and I especially loved hearing about how she got to explain Bible stories to her colleagues in the newsroom!

Watch:

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B5r1fp

/by
The Darwin Tales

The Darwin Tales

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

It’s Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History.

Stephen Meyer was a young geophysicist working in the oil industry in Dallas, Texas, in 1985 when he saw that an interesting science conference was coming to town and he decided to drop in. During a panel discussion on the origin of the first living things, Charles Thaxton, a highly credentialed chemist, noted that the information stored in DNA could not be explained by chemical evolutionary processes. This was generally known already and uncontroversial. But Thaxton ventured a step further by suggesting that the information could point to an intelligent cause. This was a reasonable inference, Thaxton said because, in our regular human experience, we know that information is typically attributable to intelligent causes.

This struck Meyer as both intuitive and plausible. But what really piqued his interest was the heated reaction of some of the other scientists at this suggestion. They got really personal. Some criticized Thaxton’s intellect; others, his motives, as if he’d broken some unwritten convention. What was with all this emotion? Meyer wondered. He’d always thought scientists were objective professionals who coolly looked at data and followed the evidence. This was an interesting problem.

The encounter led to some follow-up discussions with Thaxton and a burning new question, which Meyer would take with him to Cambridge University a year later: Could this idea of intelligence—or intelligent design—be made into a rigorous scientific argument?

But during his first year there, an after-lecture social gathering brought home a sobering reality. Everyone at Cambridge was openly atheistic. In fact, atheism was so preemptively the assumed worldview that theism was not even on the table. Meyer not only believed in God; he was a Christian. Clearly, this could be a lonely work environment, and the widespread atheism around him could present obstacles to collaborations on this question. But he took heart in remembering the great scientists of history whose science had been specifically driven by their Christian worldview.

The Closed Darwinian Circle

Science writer Tom Bethell, who had arrived at sister university Oxford about twenty-five years prior, experienced a similarly disappointing revelation. He’d arrived at Oxford “naively imagining that philosophy taught us the meaning of life.” It didn’t.

But Bethell later came to see its usefulness. Many problems in philosophy had flourished, he discovered, because the words used to formulate theories weren’t clearly defined. Sometimes, he further realized, the vagaries seemed to be intentional. Bethell would go on to a long career as a philosophically astute journalist, brilliantly clarifying and parsing some of the most crucial enigmas of public life and history.

Case in point: Charles Darwin’s central postulate said that the diversity of biological life on earth could be explained by natural selection operating on random variations. Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin, summarized this notion as “survival of the fittest.” The phrase stuck, and today, Darwin’s postulate reigns as the grand unifying theory of established science.

But was there an inherent problem with it, philosophically, from the very start? “Doubts about evolution first arose in my mind when I looked at the title page of The Origin of Species,” Bethell wrote.

I read, and then reread that page:

On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection

or the

preservation of favoured races

in the struggle for life

by Charles Darwin, M.A.

1859

The words ‘preservation’ and ‘favoured’ stood out. Was there any way of knowing what ‘races’ (meaning species, or individual variants) were favored other than by looking to see which ones were in fact preserved?

This was no pedantic quibble. For if there truly is no way of determining what is “fit” other than by seeing what survives, then Darwin was arguing in a self-confirming circle: the survival of the survivors. In rhetorical terms, this is what’s called a tautology—a statement that is true by definition, due to the construction of the language by which it is expressed. In effect, Darwin’s proposed mechanism—natural selection—rested on the observation that, “Survivors survive.” To which any clear-thinking middle-school student might say, “Well, duh.”

Curating History

Beginning with this observation, Bethell’s latest book examines the dialogue that has taken place among scientists since the publication of The Origin. But rather than giving us a chronological point-counterpoint synopsis of it, Bethell presents a kind of “tour” of the topics over which the debate has been hashed out—the “rooms,” if you will, of the 150-plus-year-old house of Darwin: common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, the growing intelligent design movement, and more.

The upshot of it all is captured in his title: Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates. Darwinism is an idea past its prime, he concludes, one whose collapse is inevitable and is in fact already demonstrably underway.

Examining a Theory and Its Theorist

He states that forthrightly, but also backs it up with characteristically sound logic—examining, like a museum curator, Darwin’s various claims in light of both mounting new evidence against them and the ongoing lack of evidence supporting them. Room by room, he shows how evolutionary theory today is being propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and outdated empirical evidence that has all but disintegrated under the weight of new discoveries.

In addition to covering the high points of the scientific discussion, Bethell also delves into the man Darwin as he revealed himself through his personal writings. While Darwin was in his own right a legitimate scientist, his theorizing was influenced, inordinately as it turns out, by three ideas of his day: Malthusian economics, Progress, and philosophical materialism.

  • Malthusian Math: Political economist Thomas Malthus had speculated that when population growth outstrips food supply, then death by starvation would result in some sectors of society but not others. Darwin had read Malthus, and he simply transferred the calculus of overpopulation to the plant and animal kingdom. “It at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of new species.” Darwin had no evidence of the formation of any new species, though. That was pure extrapolation.
  • Progress: Capitalized to denote the philosophy as it existed in his day, “Progress” was the reigning metanarrative in post-Enlightenment England, the all-encompassing, assumed a trajectory of reality. It was “as difficult for him to escape as the air he breathed,” wrote Bethell, and Darwin was a confirmed believer. The word “evolution” doesn’t actually appear in The Origin. He referred rather to improvement, progress, and perfection, in the end, writing that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.”
  • Materialism: Darwin himself was a full-blown materialist, but he avoided outwardly confessing the extent of his belief. He’d worked out his theory by 1837, but didn’t go public with it for more than twenty years, partly because the 1830s climate of opinion was highly unfavorable to materialism. Even at publication in 1859, he still didn’t deploy it consistently in The Origin, but rather strategically and progressively invoked it over the course of six editions.

Darwin’s metaphysical outlook was not a deduction from his science, though, but was influenced by his theology. He raised theological issues in several of his writings, and Bethell devotes an entire chapter to his evolving religious views. Two points are worth mentioning here. In his autobiography, Darwin mentioned being “heartily laughed at” for quoting the Bible while on the H.M.S. Beagle. We can only speculate about the psychological effect of this incident, but it obviously affected him enough to write about it forty years later. Afterward, he reconsidered the Bible’s place in his view of the world and concluded it was “no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

In addition, like many in insulated societies, he took issue with God over the problem of evil and suffering, ultimately deciding that the concept of an all-loving and all-powerful God could not be reconciled with the reality of misery in the world. “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.”

More a product of their theorist and the zeitgeist, then, than of science, Darwin’s postulates found easy acceptance among an elite intelligentsia predisposed to believe in materialism and Progress. Sadly, liberal clergy went along without objection or concern.

Straightening Out Bad Philosophy

Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concurs with Bethell that Darwinian evolution is one long argument bolstering an a priori metaphysics. In Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, he gives three common definitions of science: (1) empirical science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against evidence; (2) technological science comprises the advances that have enriched modern life; and (3) establishment science consists of professionals conducting research. These can all be legitimate uses of the word.

In addition, though, he notes, some people have come to define science as (4) the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything. But this would more accurately be called methodological naturalism. And while it is true that the methods of empirical science limit the causal explanations, it can confirm or disconfirm to the material realm, to go further and assume that only material causes exist is to assume an unstated claim about metaphysical reality. Furthermore, to do so and call it science constitutes fraud.

Metaphysical Storytelling & the Judgment of History

Fraud aside, it also compromises science. When priority is given to proposing and defending materialistic explanations over following the evidence, materialistic philosophy is running the show. Where this happens (and it does), Wells calls it zombie science. “Evolution is a materialistic story,” he writes, “and since the materialistic story trumps the evidence, it is zombie science.”

Listen to biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olsen’s explanation for why he knowingly passed off falsehood in his 2007 film Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus: “Scientists must realize that science is a narrative process, that narrative is story; therefore science needs story.” This is stunning! What Olson is saying here is that metaphysical storytelling should override accuracy in science reporting.

Returning to Meyer at Cambridge, during his first year, he was granted a second telling revelation when his supervisor offered some unsolicited advice. “Everyone here is bluffing,” the kindly old school don said. “And if you’re to succeed, you must learn to bluff too.”

Fortunately, Meyer opted for personal integrity and legitimate science over bluffing and storytelling and then left it to others to sort things out. Imagine the exhibit in some future Museum of Science and History: Everyone believed the Darwinists, boys, and girls until a few brave scientists concerned with data and following evidence came along and called their bluff.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a science story worth telling.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2z72XqW

/by
The BGV Theorem An Unexpected Asset for Christian Theism

The BGV Theorem: An Unexpected Asset for Christian Theism

,

By Brian Chilton

Turn on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel, and you may find interesting theories pertaining to how the universe came to be. Some propose that an eternal multiverse gave rise to our modern universe. Others will hold that eternal wiggling dimensions or planes collide to form universes. In 2003, three theoretical physicists discovered a theorem that dispelled the idea of an infinite regress of physical past eternal universes—infinite regress describes an eternal chain of events from the past. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin developed the theorem based on the well-established fact that anything traveling on a geodesic (shortest point between two points on a curvature) through space-time becomes what is known as redshifted (when light or electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, shifting to the red end of the spectrum, or moving away from the observer).[1] The physicists argue,

“Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).”[2]

While the language is quite technical, the theorem provides three unintentional helps for the Christian theist.

  1. The BGV Theorem pinpoints the need for the beginning of our physical universe. First, the theorem agrees that our universe had a beginning. Ideas of an eternal, self-existing universe is growing quickly out of favor in the scientific community at least at this stage. Our universe, the laws of physics found in our universe, and time itself had a beginning at what scientists call the
  2. The BGV Theorem pinpoints the need for a beginning of all physical universe. The BGV theorem is especially helpful in noting that not only does our universe require a beginning point, but all physical universes require a singularity. Any physical universe including the theoretical multiverse must have an initial starting point. Thus, while it could be that a multiverse exists, a multiverse does not get around the need for a starting point which leads to the third point that needs to be considered.
  3. The BGV Theorem assists cosmological argumentation for God’s existence. The BGV theorem does not prove God’s existence. But, it does indicate the necessity for something beyond the scope of the physical world to account for the existence of any physical thing. Experimental particle physicist Michael Strauss argued,

“As an experimental physicist, I tend to draw conclusions based on what is known observationally and experimentally rather than on conjecture or speculation. So what are the facts about the origin of our universe? The equations of general relativity suggest that the universe had an actual beginning of space, time, matter, and energy and the BGV theorem along with the expansion of the universe would require that this universe had an actual beginning of the expansion.  Other ideas about the origin of the universe like those proposed by Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll do not have real scientific evidence to back them up. They are conjecture.”[3]

Oddly, while Christian theists are accused of holding no evidence for their beliefs, Strauss seems to indicate that the exact opposite holds true. Cosmological arguments like the Kalam are strengthened by the BGV theorem. With the BGV theorem and other mounting evidence supporting the claim, one holds good reasons for believing in a transcendent God who brought forth everything that exists into existence.

Notes

[1] Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2011), pg. 498.

[2] A. Borde, A. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Inflationary space-times are not past-complete, PhysicsReview 90 151301 (2003): 3.

[3] Michael Strauss, “The Significance of the BGV Theorem,” MichaelGStrauss.com (January 28, 2017) http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/the-significance-of-bgv-theorem.html, retrieved October 15, 2018.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

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

/by
If God Created The Universe, Who Created God

If God Created The Universe, Who Created God?

, ,

By Evan Minton 

This is a question that many, many atheists have asked Christians whenever Christians try to argue for God as Creator and Designer of the universe (by using, for example, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, or The Fine Tuning Argument). Once the argument for creation is over, the atheist will retort “Oh yeah? Well, if God made the universe, then who made God?” Children ask this question as well, though out of sincerity rather than as a rhetorical ploy to stump the theist. I know this because this was probably the very first theological question I think I ever asked. First, what does The Bible have to say about this, second, is it really rational to think that God even needs to have a maker, to begin with?

What Does The Bible Say In Response To This Question?

Scripture actually provides the answer to this question in several verses throughout scripture. What The Bible teaches is that God is uncreated and is eternal in His being. That is to say; He always existed and always will exist.

There are numerous references throughout scripture about God’s eternal nature.

Psalm 90:2 says “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

Isaiah 57:15 says “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity…”

1 Timothy 1:17 says “To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Habakkuk 1:12 says “O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.”

God says in Revelations 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End: says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

So, according to The Bible, who created God? The Bible answers; Nobody. Nobody created God. He has always existed and always will exist. He has existed “from everlasting.”

It’s More Logical To Believe In An Uncreated Creator Than A Created One

But wholly apart from what The Bible teaches about God’s eternal existence. It’s more logical to believe in an uncreated Creator than a created one. Why? Because If God had a creator who brought Him into existence, then we could ask “who created that God?” Does the God who created God have a Creator too? Did someone make Him? If so, then who created the one who created God? And who created the one who created the one who created God? And who created the one who created the one who created the one who created God? And who created the one who created the one who created the one who created the one who created God? And who created the one who created the one who created the one who created the one who created God?

It seems that if you reject the possibility of an uncreated Creator than you get thrown into an infinite regress of Creators creating Creators. But then…how could the universe ever come into being? For because before the Creator who brought our universe into existence (i.e. Yahweh) could come into being, the one who brought Him into being had to be created, and before He could come into being, the one who created him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the one before him had to come into being and so on back to infinity. No creator could ever come into being because there would have to be an infinite number of creators creating creators before any one of them could come into being. No creator could ever come into being because there would always be a creator to precede him.

At some point in the regress of creators, it seems that we must get back to an eternal, uncreated Creator; a Creator who has always existed. Otherwise, we wouldn’t exist (and neither would any of the creators begetting creators). But why have a regress of Creators at all? Why have even a finite regression of creators? It seems that if one uncreated creator is all that’s needed to explain the creation of our universe, then we should just assume that the One who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one. Ockam’s Razor (the scientific principle that suggests you shouldn’t multiply causes to explain something beyond what’s necessary) would suggest that we not have a regression of creators at all. The one who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one.

Moreover, Atheists Historically Have Not Denied The Possibility of Something Being Eternally Existent.

I also want to stress that this isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has typically said about the universe; that the universe is uncreated and eternal in its existence. No atheist was asking “Who created the universe”? They thought the universe was “Just there,” that it was a brute fact. Although that conclusion is now invalidated by powerful scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. As Frank Turek put it “Something must be eternal. Either the universe or something outside the universe”. Since science has proven that the universe isn’t eternal, whatever brought it into being must be eternal.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2D6wS5m

/by
If Kids Don’t Understand Why Miracles Don’t Discredit the Bible, Their Faith Will Be Easily Crushed

If Kids Don’t Understand Why Miracles Don’t Discredit the Bible, Their Faith Will Be Easily Crushed

, ,

By Natasha Crain

“The light of common sense, thrown on the stories of making snakes out of rods, of the Red Sea dividing itself, of Christ’s making wine from water, curing blind men by rubbing spit in their eyes, walking on water, the story of the flood, God’s making the world in six days, of making a woman from Adam’s rib and all the mythical, miraculous stories of the Bible would cause any sensible man to question the veracity of the whole book, including all the stories of the gods, spirits, angels, devils, and the things that common sense tells us are not true.”

This quote, from a website devoted to atheism, is similar to so many I have received from skeptics over the years. The basic claim is this: Christianity defies common sense.

In other words, the very existence of miracle claims in the Bible immediately discredits it.

While there certainly are many Christians and skeptics engaging in deeper, more scientific or philosophical battles online, simplistic appeals to common sense are the down-and-dirty weapons often hurled through social media. You don’t need to know one thing about logic, theology, history, biblical scholarship, philosophy, or science to cobble together an emotionally impactful statement that can make someone feel utterly stupid for what they believe. That’s why appeals to common sense can be so powerful: They’re easy and effective. The general message is that what Christians believe is so ridiculous, anyone with just a little common sense can see it’s not true.

Common sense is presented as a one-size-fits-all bulldozer against faith.

And if your kids haven’t been trained to think critically about the nature of miracles, their faith will be easily crushed by that bulldozer.

Here’s a 10-step framework to help your kids think well about this subject. Each point builds on the last. You can easily use these brief explanations to discuss a point each day on the way to school or at the dinner table.

  1. Just because something sounds crazy, that doesn’t mean it’s false.

This is a basic starting point for discussion. A practical example is that we live on a big rock that jets around the sun at an average speed of 66,600 mph and we don’t feel a thing. If our test for truth is what happens to make sense to us, we’ll indiscriminately reject almost any idea that strikes us as weird. Instead, we need to look at what evidence there is for the truth of any claim.

  1. People use the word miracle in a lot of different ways, so it’s important to define it as it relates to biblical claims.

Philosophers can argue all day about the most appropriate definition of a miracle, but for all intents and purposes, a good working definition is, “An extraordinary event with a supernatural cause.” This is very different than the colloquial ways in which people sometimes use the word. For example, we might say that it’s a “miracle” our kids cleaned their room. But when we’re talking about the kinds of miracle accounts found in the Bible, we need to be very clear that we are specifically talking about claims that God (a supernatural cause) intervened in the world in an extraordinary way.

  1. If God doesn’t exist, miracles are NOT possible.

Given the definition of a miracle, if nothing exists beyond nature—nothing supernatural exists—then miracles aren’t possible. This is where Christians can find common ground with skeptics. When skeptics say miracles aren’t possible, it’s typically because they are assuming God doesn’t exist. We can simply reply, “If nothing (such as God) exists beyond nature, and a miracle is something with a cause from beyond nature, then I agree with you! Miracles by definition wouldn’t be possible. But you’re assuming nothing supernatural exists.”

  1. If God does exist, miracles ARE possible.

The flip side of the logic we just saw in point 3 is that if a supernatural being such as God does exist, then miracles are—once again, by definition—possible. God can choose to intervene in His creation in any way He sees fit.

Note that in points 3 and 4, we’re only talking about logic. We haven’t even made any claims about whether or not God actually exists. This logical framework is extremely important for kids to understand. I began teaching this thinking to my kids when they were in kindergarten: If God exists, miracles are possible. If God doesn’t exist, miracles are not possible.

  1. The possibility of miracles is, therefore, tied to the evidence for God’s existence.

We can now see from the last two points that the question of whether or not miracles are possible is ultimately a question of the evidence for God’s existence. If there’s good reason to believe God exists, there’s good reason to believe miracles are possible.

Explaining the pieces of evidence for God’s existence is beyond the scope of this post, which is meant to give a broader framework for thinking through the question of miracles. For an explanation of key pieces of evidence for God’s existence and conversation guides to use with your kids, see my book Talking with Your Kids about God.

  1. Believing that miracles are possible doesn’t mean Christians believe every miracle claim that is made.

Skeptics sometimes think that Christians are willing to believe anything is a miracle if we believe miracles are even possible, so this point bears mentioning. When we acknowledge that if God exists, miracles are possible, we’re not saying we believe every miracle claim people make. If we did, we would be gullible. We have to look at the evidence to determine if there’s good reason to believe a miracle actually happened in any given case.

  1. The truth of Christianity depends on the truth of ONE miracle.

If we need to test miracle claims, as we just discussed, then we need to be really clear on which miracle claims ultimately have bearing on the truth of Christianity. People often get caught up in discussing modern day miracles (or lack thereof), but there is only one miracle claim that is the ultimate test for the truth of Christianity: the resurrection. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain.”

  1. There is strong historical evidence for the resurrection.

Now that we’ve established the miracle claim we need to test, we need to consider the evidence for it. There are several historical facts surrounding the resurrection that nearly all scholars agree on (both Christians and skeptics)—for example, that Jesus died by crucifixion, that the disciples at least believed Jesus rose and appeared to them, that the church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed, and that Jesus’s own skeptical brother James was suddenly changed as well. The pertinent question is, What is the best explanation for these facts?

I discuss the competing theories and why a supernatural resurrection best fits the facts in chapters 21–23 of Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side. For a deeper book-length treatment of the topic, see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona.

  1. There is strong evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.

The Gospels describe many miracle accounts. If we have good evidence that the Gospel writers were credible eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, we have good evidence of such miracles—and that’s exactly what we find. Again, I give an introduction to this subject in chapters 25–28 of Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, but for a deeper book-length treatment, see Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace (there is also a kid’s version available for 8 – 12-year-olds!).

For those who have already read Cold-Case Christianity, an excellent book that looks at New Testament reliability from another angle is Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts by Lydia McGrew.

  1. Jesus validated the truth of the Old Testament.

Finally, you may be wondering about the many Old Testament miracle accounts—what about talking animals, burning bushes, and walls falling around Jericho, for example?

If we’ve established points 8 and 9, we can also establish the veracity of the Old Testament as a whole because Jesus Himself validated it. Jesus:

  • appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10);
  • acknowledged the need to correctly understand Scripture (Matthew 22:29);
  • referenced the existence of Old Testament persons such as Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4–6), Noah (Matthew 24:37–38), and Jonah (Matthew 12:40);
  • said He did not come to abolish the “Law or Prophets” (a term for the Scriptures at the time; Matthew 5:7); and
  • taught how the Old Testament bears witness to Himself (Luke 24:27).

The bottom line is that miracle accounts simply don’t automatically discredit the Bible. Anyone who thinks they do hasn’t thought critically about the subject. Please help your kids understand this, so they’re prepared the next time someone tries to make them feel like a fool by making simplistic appeals to “common sense.”

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F81A0E

/by
Apologetics is Not For The Heart

Apologetics is Not For The Heart

By Richard Eng

Growing up, my Dad taught me apologetics. He was really excited about it, and good at it too. As someone who studied under Norman Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary, my Dad got some of the best training out there. As a result, He taught me a lot of what I now know. I found myself eating it up! I am a person who defined himself as a “dumb kid” for most of my life, so finally grasping something and understanding it well fueled me. The more I dove into apologetics, the more I found myself loving Jesus. It was actually apologetics and worldview training that motivated me to open up my Bible for myself, and not just because my parents or youth pastor told me to.

But something happened.

The Bible that I consumed became stale, like old bread. The apologetics arguments I had learned became familiar and rehearsed. There was not life in it anymore.

What I discovered through prayer and being mentored is that I was using what I knew about apologetics and the Bible to feel worthy before Him.

Finally! I wasn’t the dumb kid anymore. My heartfelt fixed for a moment! I could contribute, and contribute well. But my heart wanted more than just knowledge; it wanted acceptance. It wanted love.

Here is my point, apologetics is not the “missing piece” to your church if it does not continuously point back to Jesus. I’ve seen enough people walk away from the faith AFTER they were trained in apologetics to learn… we still have a heart problem. It is our inability to embrace ourselves in our brokenness that is the issue. If we reject ourselves, how can we receive love from God? That is what I had done for so many years, and still do. I falsely concluded that I must make myself “acceptable” before God before He can accept me. When all the while Jesus is there alongside you, ready to embrace you when you can see yourself through His eyes.

If you use apologetics as your spiritual kick, I promise you that there is no life in that. The goal of apologetics is to convince unbelievers and strengthen the reasonable faith of believers. But we still have a heart problem. Apologetics can never replace confession; it can never replace being known fully, it can never replace living out the true self of being a beloved child of God. Apologetics helps people think clearly, and the goal of thinking clearly is to be led to the person of Jesus.

Apologetics is a key part of discipleship, but discipleship is more than just apologetics. This is why I believe in a wholistic approach to apologetics. Some people will want to know why the B-Theory of time is not an adequate objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Some people don’t know (or care) what that last sentence meant! And that’s ok. Every believer in Jesus is given a gift for supporting the body of Christ, and not everyone is going to lead an apologetics ministry. But, every believer can benefit from apologetics (knowing what you believe and why you believe it).

I believe every person should be taught at least the simple apologetics. Arguments such as how we know Jesus was a real person, and why we have good reason to believe that He rose from the dead. There it is, apologetics. But apologetics, knowledge, arguments, all of what that offers can never replace allowing the Holy Spirit to work in your heart. The knowledge is good! But the Christian life is allowing the knowledge you have to transform your life by the means obedience to the Spirit. It is in this space where you find real freedom. 

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ouw4JD

/by
Evidencias del ajuste fino del universo

Evidencias del ajuste fino del universo

By Hugh Ross

More than a dozen parameters for the universe have to have values ​​that fall within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist [1] .

Strong nuclear force constant

If it is larger: hydrogen would not form; the atomic nuclei for most elements essential for life would be unstable.

If it is less: there would be no elements outside of hydrogen.

Weak nuclear force constant

If it is larger: too much hydrogen would be converted to helium in the Big Bang; therefore, too much heavy element material would be made by the burning of stars; there would be no ejection of heavy elements from the stars.

If it is smaller: too little helium would be produced by the Big Bang; therefore, too little heavy element material would be made by the burning of stars; there would be no ejection of heavy elements from the stars.

Gravitational force constant

If it is larger, the stars would be too hot and would burn out too quickly and unevenly.

If it is lower: the stars would be too cold to ignite nuclear fusion; therefore, no production of heavy elements.

Electromagnetic force constant

If higher: insufficient chemical bonds; elements heavier than boron would be too unstable for fission.

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the electromagnetic force constant and the gravitational force constant

If it is larger: there would be no minor stars; hence, short stellar lifetimes and uneven stellar luminosities.

If it is smaller: there would be no stars larger than 0.8 solar masses; therefore, there would be no production of heavy elements.

Relationship between electron mass and proton mass

If it is higher: insufficient chemical bonds.

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the number of protons and the number of electrons

If it is greater: electromagnetism would predominate over gravity, preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

If it is smaller: electromagnetism would predominate over gravity, preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

Expansion rate of the universe

If it is larger: galaxies would not form.

If it is smaller: the universe would collapse before the stars were formed.

Level of entropy of the universe

If it is smaller: proto-galaxies would not form.

If it is larger: there would be no condensation of stars within the proto-galaxies.

Mass density of the universe

If it is larger: too much deuterium from the Big Bang; therefore, the stars would burn out too quickly.

If it is less: an insufficient amount of helium from the Big Bang; therefore, too few heavy elements would be formed.

Speed ​​of light

If it is larger: the stars would be too bright.

If it is smaller: the stars would not be bright enough.

Age of the universe

If it is larger: there would be no sun-like stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.

If it is smaller: Sun-like stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.

Initial uniformity of radiation

If it were more uniform: stars, star clusters and galaxies would not have formed.

If less uniform: the universe at this point would consist mostly of black holes and empty space.

Fine structure constant (a number describing the fine structure separation of spectral lines)

If it is larger: DNA could not function; there would be no stars larger than 0.7 solar masses.

If it is smaller: DNA could not function; there would be no stars smaller than 1.8 solar masses.

Average distance between galaxies

If it is larger, an insufficient amount of gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time.

If it is smaller: the sun’s orbit would be perturbed too radically.

Average distance between stars

If it is higher: the density of heavy elements would be too low for rocky planets to form.

If it is smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable.

Proton decay rate.

If it is greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation.

If it is less: the universe would contain an insufficient amount of matter for life.

Relationship between the nuclear energy levels of Carbon 12 (c 12 ) and Oxygen 16 (o 16 )

If it is higher: insufficient amount of oxygen.

If it is lower: insufficient amount of carbon.

Base energy level of Helium 4 He 4

If it is higher: insufficient amount of carbon and oxygen.

If it is lower: insufficient amount of carbon and oxygen.

Decay rate of Beryllium 8 (Be 8 )

If it is slower: the fusion of heavy elements would generate catastrophic explosions in all stars.

If it were faster, no elements heavier than beryllium would be produced; therefore, the chemistry of life would not be possible.

Excess of the neutron mass over the proton mass

If it is larger: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of the heavy elements essential for life.

If it is smaller: neutron decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse to become neutron stars or black holes.

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

If it is larger: too much radiation for planet formation.

If it is lower: insufficient matter for the formation of galaxies or stars.

Polarity of the water molecule

If it is larger: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist.

If it is smaller: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life to exist; liquid water would become too poor a solvent for life’s chemistry to function; ice would not float, leading to runaway freezing.

Supernova eruptions

If they are too close, the radiation would exterminate life on the planet.

If they are too far away: few heavy elements are produced for the formation of rocky planets.

If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

S i too rare: too few heavy element ash for rocky planet formation.

If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.

If too early: too little ash of heavy elements for the formation of rocky planets.

Binary white dwarfs

If they are few: little fluoride for the chemistry of life to function.

If there are too many: alteration of planetary orbits by stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated.

S too early: insufficient amount of heavy elements for efficient fluorine production.

If too late: Fluorine is too late for incorporation into the proto-planet.

Relationship between exotic matter and ordinary matter

If it is smaller: galaxies would not form.

If it is larger, the universe would collapse before sun-like stars could form.

Note

[1] Davies and Koch, pp. 391-403. See also chapters 3 and 4.

 

Original Blog : http://bit.ly/2Fq2kP1

Translated by Alejandro Field

/by
Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Por Huge Ross

Cuando se trata de las características de ajuste fino del universo, los no-teístas se encuentran en un aprieto. La evidencia es demasiado significativa y concreta como para dejar de lado. La evidencia es inanimada; así que no se puede apelar a hipótesis darwinistas. Las apelaciones a un tiempo casi infinito se ven frustradas por las pruebas de la creación del tiempo sólo unos pocos miles de millones de años atrás. Los siguientes cinco argumentos parecen cubrir el rango de las respuestas no teístas a la evidencia del diseño cósmico:

Argumento 1: nosotros no estaríamos aquí para observar el universo si lo extremadamente improbable no hubiera ocurrido.

La evidencia a favor del diseño es meramente accidental. Nuestra existencia simplemente testifica que lo extremadamente improbable ciertamente tuvo lugar por azar. En otras palabras, no estaríamos aquí para reportar las características del universo a menos que el azar hubiera producido estas propiedades altamente improbables.

Refutación: Este argumento es fundamentalmente una apelación a las probabilidades infinitas que ya ha sido contestada (ver capítulo 12). Otra respuesta ha sido desarrollada por el filósofo Richard Swinburne[1] y ha sido resumida por otro filósofo, William Lane Craig:

Suponga que cien tiradores expertos son enviados para ejecutar a un prisionero en un escuadrón de fusilamiento, y el prisionero sobrevive. El prisionero no debería asombrarse de que no ve que está muerto. Después de todo, si estuviera muerto no podría observar su muerte. No obstante, tendría que asombrarse de que esté vivo.[2]

Extendiendo el argumento de Craig y Swinburne, el prisionero debería concluir, dado que está vivo, que todos los tiradores expertos erraron por algún azar extremadamente improbable. Él podría querer atribuir su supervivencia a una increíble buena suerte, pero sería mucho más racional que él concluyera que los fusiles estaban cargados con salvas o que los tiradores erraron a propósito. Alguien tiene que haber tenido el propósito de que viva. De la misma forma, la conclusión racional que se deduce del ajuste fino del universo es que alguien tuvo el propósito de que nosotros viviéramos.

Argumento 2: el diseño del universo es simple antropomorfismo

El astrofísico Joseph Silk, en su más reciente esfuerzo de comunicar la física de la cosmología del Big Bang a los legos, se mofa de la conclusión de que el universo ha tenido un ajuste fino para soportar la vida. Compara la “tontería” de la idea del diseño con la suposición absurda de la pulga de que el perro del que se alimenta ha sido diseñado precisamente para su beneficio. El error de la pulga, sugiere, se vuelve muy aparente apenas se le coloque al perro un collar para las pulgas.[3]

Refutación: El argumento de Silk ignora algunos temas clave. Si bien la pulga puede estar un poco centrada en sí misma al suponer que el perro fue diseñado exclusivamente para ella, no hay ninguna razón para negar que el perro fue diseñado para un propósito, o para varios propósitos. (El mito de que la vida es producto estrictamente de procesos naturales accidentales es tratado en el capítulo 16.) El collar contra las pulgas puede ser un argumento más fuerte a favor del diseño (por ejemplo, el control de la población) que a favor de la falta de diseño. Más importantemente, si bien podemos imaginarnos un amplio rango de huéspedes adecuados para soportar a la pulga, cada uno de ellos requiere elementos de diseño para facilitar la supervivencia de la pulga.

Aunque son bastante abundantes los huéspedes adecuados para la pulga, no lo son los universos adecuados para la vida. Los astrofísicos no han sido capaces de inventar universos hipotéticos significativamente diferentes del nuestro que pudieran soportar seres humanos o, para el caso, cualquier tipo de vida física inteligente concebible.

Argumento 3: los argumentos del diseño están fuera del dominio de la ciencia y, por lo tanto, deben ser ignorados

Las publicaciones del National Center for Science Education, entre otros grupos anti-creacionistas, aseveran repetidamente que la ciencia está “basada en lo empírico y es necesariamente materialista; los milagros no deben ser permitidos” y que “cualquier teoría con un fundamento sobrenatural no es científica.”[4] Dado que los argumentos de diseño implican la intervención sobrenatural, pueden ser ignorados justificadamente porque “no pueden ser considerados científicos.”[5]

Refutación: Afirmar que la ciencia y la teología son mutuamente excluyentes puede ser conveniente para los materialistas que no están dispuestos a defender su filosofía, pero es insostenible. La ciencia raramente es neutral en lo religioso. Análogamente, la fe religiosa raramente es neutral en lo científico. Tanto la ciencia como la teología tratan frecuentemente con causa y efecto y con procesos de desarrollo en el mundo natural. Tanto la ciencia como la teología tratan con el origen del universo, el sistema solar, la vida y la humanidad.

Cuando se trata de las causas, los procesos de desarrollo y los orígenes, existen siempre dos posibilidades: natural o sobrenatural. Insistir dogmáticamente que nunca deben considerarse respuestas sobrenaturales equivale a decir que todos los seres humanos sigan una sola religión, la religión del materialismo ateo. Encuentro irónico que, en nombre de la libertad religiosa, ciertos proponentes de la educación científica insisten en librar a nuestras instituciones de enseñanza e investigación de cualquier fe que se atreva a competir con la suya.

Argumento 4: el orden puede surgir del caos

La idea de que bajo condiciones estrictamente naturales el orden puede surgir y surgirá del caos fue propuesta primeramente por David Hume, casi doscientos años atrás. Recientemente, ha sido revivido por el químico galardonado con el premio Nobel, Ilya Prigogine en su libro Order out of Chaos (El orden a partir del caos)[6] y por la exitosa película Jurassic Park (Parque Jurásico). Hume hizo la afirmación sin ningún apoyo de las evidencias. Prigogine señaló varias reacciones químicas en las que el orden parece surgir de sistemas caóticos. Jurassic Park en realidad toca otro tema, a saber la teoría del caos y la lógica borrosa.

El principio detrás de la teoría del caos y la lógica borrosa es que, al tratar de predecir el resultado del estado futuro de sistemas excepcionalmente complejos, el investigador estará mejor si se conforma con respuestas o conclusiones aproximadas en cada paso en la solución de un problema en vez de respuestas o conclusiones exactas. La presunción de un principio auto-organizador en los sistemas caóticos surge del hecho de que cuanto más complejo es el sistema mayor es la oportunidad de desviaciones del equilibrio termodinámico en pequeñas porciones del sistema (y mayor es la dificultad para determinar cuáles son realmente los estados de equilibrio termodinámico). Según la segunda ley de la termodinámica, la entropía crece en todos los sistemas, pero la entropía puede decrecer (es decir, el orden puede crecer) en parte de un sistema, siempre que un incremento adicional de entropía (es decir, desorden) ocurra en otra parte del sistema.

Debido a que los investigadores humanos pueden ser propensos a subestimar la complejidad de algunos sistemas, se sorprenden ocasionalmente por cuánto puede desviarse una pequeña porción de un sistema del equilibrio termodinámico. No obstante, las leyes de la termodinámica predicen que estas desviaciones son temporarias, y cuanto mayor la desviación, más rápidamente se corrigen los desvíos.

Sin los desvíos del equilibrio termodinámico, no se formarían las gotas de lluvia y los copos de nieve, por ejemplo. Pero la formación de gotas de lluvia y de copos de nieve se acerca a los límites de auto-organización de un proceso natural. Si bien los copos de nieve exhiben un alto grado de orden, su contenido de información o nivel de diseño permanece bastante bajo. La distinción es aproximadamente como la diferencia entre el Nuevo Testamento y un libro que contenga la oración “Dios es bueno” repetida 90.000 veces.

El último ejemplo muestra un orden considerable, pero no mucha información. El primer ejemplo contiene un alto grado de orden y un alto grado de información (o diseño) a la vez. Los ejemplos de Prigogine exhiben incrementos de orden pero sin incrementos significativos en el contenido de información. Los procesos naturales solos no pueden explicar el nivel excepcionalmente alto de diseño y de contenido de información en los organismos vivos o en la estructura del universo que hacen que la vida sea posible.

Argumento 5: a medida que seguimos evolucionando, llegaremos a ser el creador-diseñador

En su libro, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (El principio antrópico cosmológico), los astrofísicos John Barrow y Frank Tipler reseñan muchas nuevas evidencias del diseño del universo.[7]

Luego pasan a discutir versiones del principio antrópico como el WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico débil: los seres conscientes sólo pueden existir en un medio ambiente con características que permitan que lo habiten), el SAP (Strong Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico fuerte: la naturaleza debe adoptar aquellas características que admitan, en algún lado y en algún tiempo, la existencia de seres conscientes), y versiones más radicales, incluyendo el PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico participativo: los observadores conscientes son necesarios para traer a la existencia al universo, y el universo es necesario para traer a la existencia a los observadores). Pero lo que ellos propician es el FAP (Final Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico final).

Con el FAP, la vida que existe (pasado, presente y futuro) continuará evolucionando con los recursos inanimados del universo hasta que alcance un estado que Barrow y Tipler denominan el “Punto Omega.”[8] Este Punto Omega, dicen, es una Entidad que tiene las propiedades de omnipotencia, omnipresencia y omnisciencia, con la capacidad de crear en el pasado.[9] En otras palabras, el Dios-Creador no existe todavía, pero nosotros (toda la vida y todas las estructuras inanimadas del universo) estamos evolucionando gradualmente hacia Dios. Cuando Dios sea construido finalmente así, Su poder será tal que Él puede crear un universo entero con todas sus características de diseño miles de millones de años atrás.

En su último libro, The Physics of Immortality (La física de la inmortalidad),[10] Tipler propone que la evolución hacia el Punto Omega ocurrirá mediante el avance de la tecnología de las computadoras. Extrapolando el tiempo de duplicación de la capacidad de computación (en la actualidad, alrededor de dieciocho meses) hacia algunos millones de años en el futuro, Tipler predice que una generación futura de seres humanos podrá no sólo alterar todo el universo y todas las leyes de la física sino también crear un Dios que aún no existe. Más aún, podremos resucitar cada ser humano que haya vivido jamás mediante la recuperación de los recuerdos que alguna vez residieron en el cerebro de cada persona.

Refutación: Es difícil tratar estas hipótesis del FAP y del Punto Omega en forma seria. En el New York Review of Books, el conocido crítico Martin Gardner ofreció su evaluación del trabajo de Barrow y Tipler:

¿Qué podemos decir de este cuarteto de WAP, SAP, PAP y FAP? En mi opinión no tan humilde, creo que el último principio puede llamarse mejor CRAP, Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico completamente ridículo (nota: en inglés, la palabra “crap” significa “basura”).[11]

En The Physics of Immortality, Tipler sobrestima groseramente el papel de la memoria humana y la capacidad futura de las computadoras. Así como las computadoras no pueden funcionar solamente con bancos de memoria, tampoco la mente humana y la conciencia humana operan solamente mediante la memoria. Si bien están teniendo lugar hoy notables progresos en la tecnología de computación, las leyes de la física imponen límites finitos predecibles sobre el hardware de las computadoras futuras. Como ha sido documentado rigurosamente por Roger Penrose en The Emperor’s New Mind y Shadows of the Mind, estos límites no permiten siquiera la duplicación de la conciencia humana, y mucho menos las capacidades fantásticas que sugiere Tipler.[12]

Pero Tipler aparentemente quiere alterar mucho más que sólo el universo y las leyes de la física. Él cree, por ejemplo, que las computadoras futuras serán capaces de exponer a la gente a los principios de la teoría del juego tan efectivamente que todos los pensamientos y acciones destructivos serán purgados y ya no habrá maldad, aún para gente del tipo de Adolf Hitler y Mata Hari.[13]

En la religión de Tipler, la obra redentora de un Salvador se vuelve innecesaria. Considere, sin embargo, que si la propuesta de Tipler fuera cierta, cuanto mejor la gente comprendiera la teoría del juego menor sería la propensión que exhibirían a cometer el mal.

Desafortunadamente para Tipler, no hay evidencias de ninguna correlación de este tipo.

Tipler no sólo descarta el infierno, sino que redefine el cielo. El “cielo” de Tipler trae la dicha relacional (más precisamente, sexual) a todo hombre y mujer. Él produce una ecuación para “probar” que su utopía generada por la computadora traerá a cada hombre una mujer, y a cada mujer un hombre, capaces de entregar 100 000 veces el impacto y la satisfacción del mejor compañero que uno pueda imaginar en la vida que conocemos.[14] La atracción popular de esta idea documenta la bancarrota espiritual de nuestro tiempo. Evidentemente muchas personas nunca han saboreado un placer mayor que lo que puede dar la experiencia sexual.

En un artículo para el Skeptical Inquirer, Gardner nuevamente blandió sus cuchillos satíricos:

Le dejo al lector que decida si deberán optar por OPT (Omega Point Theology – teología del punto omega) como una nueva religión científica superior a la Cienciología – una religión destinada a elevar a Tipler al rango de un profeta más grande que L. Ron Hubbard – u optar por el punto de vista de que OPT es una fantasía descabellada generada por la lectura de demasiada ciencia-ficción.[15]

En su rechazo persistente de un Creador eterno y trascendente algunos cosmólogos (y otros) están recurriendo a opciones cada vez más irracionales. Hay cierta lógica en esto, sin embargo. Si por motivos personales o morales el Dios de la Biblia no es aceptable, entonces, dada toda la evidencia para la trascendencia y el diseño, las alternativas están restringidas a vuelos de la imaginación.

A lo largo del tiempo y a medida que destrabamos más de los secretos del vasto cosmos, los hombres y mujeres estarán más sobrecogidos por cuán exquisitamente está diseñado el universo. Pero ¿a qué estará dirigido ese sobrecogimiento – a la cosa creada o al Creador? Esa es la elección de cada persona.

Notas

[1] Swinburne, p. 165.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle Versus Divine Design,” British Journal of Philosophy and Science 38 (1988), p. 392.

[3] Joseph Silk, Cosmic Enigma (1993), p. 8-9.

[4] NCSE staff, Education and Creationism Don’t Mix (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education, 1985), p. 3; Eugenie C. Scott, “Of Pandas and People,” National Center for Science Education Reports (Enero-Febrero1990), p. 18; Paul Bartelt, “Patterson and Gish at Morningside College,” The Committees of Correspondence, Iowa Committee of Correspondence Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 4 (October 1989), p. 1.

[5] Education and Creationism Don’t Mix, p. 3; Eugenie C. Scott and Henry P. Cole, “The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation Science,” The Quarterly Review of Biology (March 1985), p. 297.

[6] Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue With Nature (New York: Bantam Books, 1984).

[7] Barrow y Tipler.

[8] Barrow y Tipler, p. 676-677.

[9] Barrow y Tipler, p. 676-677, 682; Martin Gardner, “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher: Tipler’s Omega Point Theory,” Skeptical Inquirer 15, no. 2 (1991), p. 128-132.

[10] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994).

[11] Martin Gardner, “WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP,” The New York Review of Books, vol. 23, no. 8, 8 May 1986, p. 22-25.

[12] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 3-145, 374-451; Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 7-208.

[13] Frank J. Tipler, p. 253-255.

[14] Frank J. Tipler, p. 256-257.

[15] Gardner, “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher,” p. 132.

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2OERFPO

Traducido por Alejandro Field

/by
Ok... Quiero números, ¿cuál es la probabilidad de que el universo sea el resultado de la casualidad

Ok… Quiero números, ¿cuál es la probabilidad de que el universo sea el resultado de la casualidad?

Por Scott Youngren

“Una interpretación de sentido común de los hechos, sugiere que un superintelecto ha jugado con la física, así como con la química y la biología, y que no hay fuerzas ciegas sobre las que valga la pena hablar en la naturaleza. Los números que uno calcula de los hechos me parecen tan abrumadores como para poner esta conclusión casi fuera de toda duda”.

-Astrofísico y Matemático de Cambridge University, Fred Hoyle

“Fred Hoyle y yo diferimos en un montón de preguntas, pero en esto estamos de acuerdo: el sentido común y la interpretación satisfactoria de nuestro mundo sugiere la mano del diseño de una super-inteligencia”.

-El ex profesor de investigación de Astronomia y Historia de la Ciencia Owen Gingerich, quien es ahora el mayor astrónomo en el Observatorio Astrofísico Smithsonian. Gingerich está aquí reflexionando sobre el comentario anterior de Fred Hoyle.

Profesor de matemáticas John Lennox Universidad de Oxford cita al famoso Físico Matemático de Oxford University Roger Penrose:

Trata de imaginar el espacio fásico… de todo universo. Cada punto de este espacio fásico representa una manera posible en que el universo pudo haber empezado. Hemos de imaginar al Creador, armado con un ‘dardo’ —que va a ser colocado en algún punto en el espacio fásico… Cada posición diferente del ‘dardo’ proporciona un universo diferente. Ahora, la precisión que se requiere para el propósito del Creador depende de la entropía (Desorden, caos) del universo que se crea con ello. Sería relativamente “fácil” producir un universo de alta entropía, ya que entonces no habría una gran cantidad de espacios fásicos disponibles para que el “dardo” le atine. Pero para empezar el universo en un estado de baja entropía –para que haya una segunda ley de la termodinámica— el Creador debe apuntar a un volumen más pequeño del espacio fásico. ¿Que tan pequeña sería esta región, para que un universo muy parecido al que realmente vivimos resultara?

Lennox continúa citando la respuesta de Penrose:

“Sus cálculos le llevan a la conclusión notable que ‘la puntería del Creador debe de haber sido de una precisión de 1 parte en 10 a la potencia de 10 ó 123, que es un 1 seguido de 10 ceros a la potencia de 123a”.

Como Penrose dice es un “número de los que sería imposible escribir en la forma decimal usual, porque incluso si usted fuera capaz de poner un cero en cada partícula del universo, no habría partículas suficientes para poder hacerlo”.

John Polkinghorne (Profesor de Fisica Cuantica en Cambridge) dijo:

“En los primeros picosegundos del universo, la afinación o ajuste perfecto de las cosas tenía que ser increíblemente precisa. Si se tiene en cuenta una sola variable de las muchas, la relación de expansión-contracción, tenía que ser tan exacta, que sería como apuntar a un blanco de una pulgada cuadrada en el otro extremo del universo, a 20 millones de años luz de distancia y golpear el blanco en el puro centro”.

Y la única alternativa para que el universo surgiera de la casualidad es que se ha planteado deliberadamente. Acción deliberada requiere un creador consciente (léase Dios). Y para aquellos que todavía están tentados a concluir que nuestro universo es solo el resultado de un accidente extremadamente improbable, yo explico en Why God? Why not just plain luck? (¿Porqué Dios? ¿Porqué no solo pura suerte?) el porqué por pura probabilidad (azar), nunca se puede causar nada… menos la creación de un universo.

 

Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo y María Andreina Cerrada

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2DaRUzM

/by
A Quantum Christian

Un cristiano cuántico

By Terrell Clemmons

The man to whom science proved religion

Dennis Garvin grew up the second of three sons born into a Norman Rockwell-infused environment in the Berkshire Mountains of upstate New York. After graduating as valedictorian of his class from the Citadel Military College in South Carolina, he went on to graduate with honors from the VCU School of Medicine in Virginia and served thirteen years in the U.S. Air Force. By the time he reached his mid-30s, he had achieved every one of his life goals. He had raised a family with children he loved. He was a successful doctor doing well in Roanoke, Virginia. And, to his delight, he had earned a good four-year degree that certified him as a smart kid. So why, after having accomplished so much, did he feel so empty?

It was not depression; his life was full and active. No, his existential weariness was like that of Alexander the Great, who looked over the vastness of his domain and wept because there were no more worlds to conquer. And when he looked inside himself, he saw a life in black and white. On the other hand, his then wife seemed to have access to a joy that he did not possess. He thought she had colour in her life. What was behind this?

Having been raised in a Unitarian Universalist home, Dennis was a staunch atheist. But, having adopted his mother’s liberal feminist ethic, which held tolerance to be a supreme virtue, he had no particular hostility toward Christianity. So, with an appearance of open-mindedness, the rational scientist in him became curious.

This was, philosophically speaking, new territory for him. But the time had come. As a lifelong devotee of Darwin, he had begun to realize that there were many cracks in Darwin’s theories, chiefly that of altruism, as he saw it. He could explain any human behavior except that, and he could not shake that uneasiness. Worse still, he had begun to realize that he had long parroted the phrase “science denies religion,” but had never questioned it. This was utterly and utterly embarrassing for a man who considered himself a scientist.

So he began to honestly re-examine his hypotheses. The main one he had accepted a priori  was atheism. Okay, he said, let’s say there is a God. How could he have done all that he did? Since the Bible, the book of Christianity, was the first thing he had discarded, that was where he turned in his search for answers.

A dangerous book

As he read on, he became increasingly astonished to discover that the Bible – the book he had dismissed as a stupid fairy tale – was probably one of the most accurate books on quantum physics he had ever come across. This was not quite what he had expected, and as a knowledgeable expert in modern physics, it began to turn his entire epistemological orientation on its head. Dennis had long been fascinated with the study of light, and he believed that the quantum physics of light accurately explained the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This brought him to his knees.

There was also an evangelistic element at work during this time. His wife had introduced him to some people who were part of the Campus Crusade for Christ. Now Dennis had an arsenal of sharp verbal missiles designed to destroy belief in God or revealed religion in any form. He was not your run-of-the-mill, friendly atheist, but a predator, the kind of atheist no Christian parent wants their children to be friends with when they go off to college. He delighted in destroying the faith of poor, miserable souls, and with his scientific credentials and the academic degree to back them up, he was pretty good at it.

But the good people at Campus Crusade for Christ met his childish attacks like brave soldiers. He raised one objection.  “But what about Christ?” someone would say. He raised another.  “But what about Christ?”  He ranted and raved about Isis and Osiris and the mythological figure of Christ who is reborn every winter and how Christianity was just mythology writ large. They listened patiently. And then they came back with, “  Okay, but what about the God who loves you?”  Finally, he ran out of arguments. Science brought him to his knees. Through Campus Crusade, he became a new creature in Christ.

A violent man conquered by God

In the United States, it is extremely rare for someone to come to the Christian faith after the age of 35. And for someone to do so carrying the burden of science on their shoulders is almost impossible. But that is what happened to Dennis Garvin. All this happened almost thirty years ago, and since then, some things in his life have not changed all that much. He is still a family man, although two grandchildren have been added to the mix. He is still a doctor, although medicine on the mission field has been added to the schedule. And he is still a thoroughbred scientist who applies the concordant aspects of scientific knowledge to biblical concepts, and has begun writing and teaching to disseminate the findings.

There is one other thing that has not changed. The good doctor still loves a good argument. Never one to do anything halfway, the “smart boy” who has now fully graduated as a healthy intellectual Christian humbly compares himself to the apostle Paul, who had a confrontational style when he was Saul of Tarsus, and who then went on to preach the gospel in an equally confrontational tone. But, just as Paul went on to preach the faith he once sought to destroy, Dennis delights in destroying the faith he once preached, and aspires to be the kind of Christian that atheist professors and materialistic scientists do not want their students to know.

“I have a wipe-out mentality,” he says of them – not the run-of-the-mill atheists, for whom he feels a brotherly sympathy, but the wise guys who are profiteers and predators who consider themselves intellectually superior in order to destroy them. He certainly recognizes the command to love our enemies, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into playing nice with people who aren’t.

“I know these SOBs because I was one of them. And I know what makes them think. I have street credibility. And I can tell you, based on my credentials and my study, that anyone who retains a belief in atheism is an idiot . And they have the right to be idiots, but they should not dress themselves in intellectual property.”

“The great secret of atheists, the great fear of all atheists, is that they will be seen as intellectually stupid in front of their contemporaries. They don’t care if you pull down their pants in front of a bunch of religious Neanderthals or people they can label as such. But if you can go into their caves and, in front of their contemporaries, pull down their pants, you’ve done something. That’s what I want to do.”

It’s not about winning a fight. It’s about exposing and smothering a predator that’s coming to kill.

A violent man conquered by God

André Trocmé was a Huguenot pastor in the French mountain village of Le Chambon when Germany invaded France in 1940. When it came to war, Trocmé was a noncombatant pacifist. But when the Nazis demanded oaths of loyalty and complicity in the deportation of Jews, he openly defied them. “We have Jews and we will not hand them over,” he declared in an open letter to the Vichy minister sent to Le Chambon in 1942. A man who knew which war was worth dying for, he was often described as a violent vaincu par Dieu  – a violent conquered by God. “The curse on him who began with gentleness,” the pastor wrote in his diary, “will end in dismay and cowardice, and he will never set foot in the great liberating current of Christianity.”

Like Pastor Trocmé, Dr. Garvin is by profession a servant of healing. And like him, he knows which battle is worth firing a bullet into. That is why, for the sake of a generation subjugated by arrogant SOBs with big egos and pompous academic degrees, he stands ready and eager to enter the ring and do violence for the sake of truth.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger who writes about apologetics and matters of faith.

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by