By Alex McElroy

I’ve never been much of an artist. I do, however, have great respect for those that possess the skill and patience to create a masterpiece. In fact, I admire anyone that can draw anything beyond a stick figure. I remember when I was growing up, my brother would draw figures from comic books, and my best drawings would pale in comparison. My wife is an amazing artist as well, and I now see similar talents in my daughter. I have to give credit where credit is due.

Often when you are in the presence of a great work of art or anything that has been finely made, you stand in awe. However, we are not simply in awe of what was made but that someone was able to conceive of and make it. The magnificence of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is not the details in the design of what has been painted but in the fact that Michelangelo had the ability to paint such details.

To not give credit to Michelangelo is a lesser example of not giving credit to the designer of everything… including Michelangelo. We also see evidence of design in ourselves, on the earth and in the universe. We all see it, but we don’t all give credit to whom it is due. To acknowledge a work of art while ignoring the artist is disrespectful. To benefit from the works of the ultimate artist and not give Him credit is to worship the creation while ignoring the Creator. We have a purpose precisely because the ultimate designer has purposefully designed us.

Credit for making

When we see elements of design, we always understand that a designer initiated the process. In 1953 Francis Crick helped discover DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the molecular building blocks of life. DNA is the most complex system of message every composed. There are five levels of information transmission (statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics). The highest level, apobetics, involves requests with an expectation of a response. DNA is information at the highest level. In other words, there is a clear design to DNA. To assume that this level of information could be achieved randomly or as a result of impersonal, non-communicative physical forces seems illogical. It seems, in that case, we would not be giving credit to whom it is due.

In Life Itself, Francis Crick proposed that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings. Unfortunately, that theory still begs the question – who created the aliens? When it comes to how we’re made, maybe there is someone else we should be giving credit to.

Credit for morality

When we are trying to understand objective truths, it is helpful to note that they usually exist through their opposite. For example, we know what left is because we know what right is. Almost everyone agrees that true evil does exist. This implies that true good must exist. For those that don’t believe in God, where do you root this idea of objective good? C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist and called himself ‘England’s most reluctant convert,’ wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

If moral values originate from humans, they will fluctuate with the whims and preferences of humans – thereby making them subjective. If there is objective evil, then there is an objective moral law. If that is true, then there is an objective moral law-giver – God. And He deserves the credit for the moral standard that we seek to live by.

Credit for meaning

If we are the product of time plus matter plus chance, then life has no meaning. However, everything about how we live and the fact that we are able to live points to the fact that life does have meaning. It behooves us to give credit to the source of that meaning.

The worldview we espouse will, by and large, determine our understanding of the meaning of life itself. This is important because if life has no ultimate purpose, then neither do you or I. In that case; there would be no purpose to fulfill, assignment to complete, or reason to exist. Once you are clear about your origin, you can gain clarity on your purpose. Once you gain clarity on your purpose, you gain clarity on where you’re going. That clarity comes from determining what is true and by giving credit to the source of all truth.

 


Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

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

Por Brian Chilton

Cuando llegué a tener dificultades con mi fe, no las tuve en el área de la ciencia. He creído que la ciencia y la fe pueden coexistir, y aún lo creo. El Dios que dio la revelación especial de la Biblia, es también el mismo Dios que creó los cielos y la tierra de ninguna materia existente. Mis luchas, fueron en el área de la historia. En 1997, me topé con el trabajo de un grupo llamado El Seminario de Jesús (compuesto de individuos tales como: Jhon Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, y Marcus Borg) los cuales afirmaban que la mayoría de las palabras de Jesús, como están escritas en los evangelios, no podían ser históricamente verificadas. Más tarde me percaté en que El Seminario de Jesús, no tenía evidencias para apoyar sus afirmaciones si no que, solo contaban con sus propias presuposiciones.

Sin embargo, cuando comencé a estudiar las áreas de historia, filosofía y teología, noté que los detalles esenciales de la vida de Jesús de Nazaret pueden ser conocidos con gran certeza. Uno de mis profesores en “Liberty”, Gary Habermas, desarrolló lo que él llama “acercamiento mínimo de hechos”. Este enfoque enumera seis áreas de la vida de Jesús que son universalmente aceptadas por todos los historiadores. También agregó una séptima, la cual sostiene un gran peso como evidencia; aunque quizás no al grado que las otras seis. Entonces, ¿cuáles son estos siete aspectos históricos de la vida de Jesús que se pueden considerar con tanta certeza? Son los siguientes:

  1. Jesús murió en una cruz romana. Es universalmente aceptado que Jesús de Nazaret murió por crucifixión. Incluso el agnóstico de inclinación atea erudito del Nuevo Testamento Barth Ehrman, declara que “La crucifixión de Jesús, por los Romanos, es uno de los hechos más seguros que tenemos acerca de su vida”[1]. Los romanos eran asesinos eficientes. Ellos se aseguraban de que los individuos a quienes tenían que matar murieran, de no ser así, sus vidas tomarían el lugar de las víctimas.
  2. Los discípulos tuvieron experiencias que los llevaron a creer que Jesús había resucitado de entre los muertos. Podría sorprenderte esto, pero la mayoría de los historiadores aceptan que los discípulos tuvieron experiencias que los llevaron a creer en la resurrección de Jesús. Gran parte de los estudiosos están de acuerdo que algo sucedió ese primer domingo de Pascua. Pero en donde sí difieren, es en lo que ocurrió.
  3. Los discípulos fueron transformados por sus experiencias a tal punto que estaban dispuestos a morir por lo que ellos sabían que era verdad.  Las personas mueren por algo que es mentira todo el tiempo. Muchos individuos han caído en guerras por naciones sin causas nobles. Sin embargo, es muy diferente cuando la persona muere por algo que conoce que es verdad o mentira.  Los primeros discípulos estaban dispuestos a entregar sus vidas, y aun las vidas de aquellos a quienes ellos amaban, por lo que ellos sabían que era verdadero o falso. Ellos creían que Jesús literalmente había resucitado de entre los muertos.
  4. El mensaje de la resurrección fue difundido temprano en la historia de la iglesia. Este es uno de los puntos que me emociona. Espero escribir mi disertación sobre este mismo tópico. En todo el Nuevo Testamento hay credos que preceden los documentos del Nuevo Testamento. Uno de los más antiguos es 1 Corintios 15:3-7, el cual habla de las apariciones de la resurrección de Jesús a sus discípulos, Esteban, y en un momento dado a 500 testigos. La elaboración del credo es extremadamente antigua. Bart Ehrman, un agnóstico, considera que el material data “cerca de los años 30 de la era común”[2]. James D. G. Dunn afirma que el material data “entre uno a dos años de los mismos eventos”[3]. Lo más probable es que el credo data al mismo año de la muerte, sepultura, y resurrección de Jesús. Esto, junto con Gálatas 1:18-19 y los primeros credos, están entre los documentos más antiguos en todo el registro del Nuevo Testamento.
  5. Pablo de Tarso, el antes adversario del cristianismo, se convirtió en cristiano después de tener un encuentro con el Jesús resucitado. Nadie niega que Pablo de Tarso tuvo una experiencia camino a Damasco que transformó radicalmente su vida. ¿Qué pudo haber sido lo que transformó a este Fariseo de Fariseos, quien era miembro del Sanedrín o alguien que iba camino a convertirse en uno (Una posición que pagaba extremadamente bien)? El haber tenido tal encuentro con el Jesús resucitado realmente, hubiese provocado tal transformación.
  6. Santiago el hermano de Jesús, que era escéptico, se convirtió en cristiano después de tener un encuentro con el Jesús resucitado. Lo mismo sucedió con Santiago, el hermano de Jesús, el cual no era un seguidor de Jesús hasta después de la resurrección. Santiago desaprobaba el ministerio de Jesús (mirar Juan 7:5). Quizás en parte porque se esperaba que el hijo mayor de la familia se hiciera cargo del negocio de la familia. Jesús no lo hizo. En lugar de hacer eso, se fue a predicar. Probablemente Santiago sintió un gran resentimiento hacia Jesús durante el inicio de su ministerio. Sin embargo, su experiencia con el Jesús resucitado cambio todo eso.
  7. La tumba fue encontrada vacía. Mientras que este hecho no es tan aceptado como los otros seis, el 75% de eruditos de historia aceptan que la tumba de Jesús se encontraba vacía el primer Domingo de Pascua. De igual manera, es interesante notar que la predicación de la resurrección empezó justo después que sucedieran estas cosas en Jerusalén. Esto es convincente, ya que el escéptico sabría dónde estaría localizada la tumba de José de Arimatea. La tumba podría ser corroborada fácilmente. Jesús no estaba ahí.

Es muy probable que, a medida que nos acercamos a la temporada de Pascua, usted se encontrará con programas de televisión, libros, y folletos que intentarán disuadirlo de creer que Jesús se levantó de entre los muertos. La realidad es que la mejor evidencia no solo apoya que Jesús vivió y murió, pero que también se levantó de entre los muertos. De la misma manera que Santiago y Pablo fueron transformados por la resurrección de Jesús, ¡tú también puedes serlo! Exclamemos en triunfo con los ángeles parados junto a la tumba de Jesús, “Él no está aquí, ¡ha resucitado!” (Lc. 24:6).

Notas

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Porqué Jesus fué asesinado?, Edición Kindle

[2] Bart D Ehrman, Jesús existió?  Este argumento histórico de Jesús de Nazaret (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.

[3] James D.G. Dunn, Jesús recordado, Cristianismo en la fabricación, vol.1 (Grand Rapids;Cambridge,UK: Eerdmans,2003),864.

 


Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

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

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por Billy Morales

Join Frank as he describes more than 50 important truths that his mentor, Dr. Norman Geisler, taught him over the years.  All of these insights— some of them were profound quips— will help you defend the faith and make you a better disciple. You better get ready to listen intently because there is more than one insight per minute!  Dr. Geisler wrote or co-wrote 129 books over his 86 years, and founded Southern Evangelical Seminary.  That’s still a great place to learn apologetics, philosophy and theology.  www.SES.edu

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles full of fallacies? Popular atheist YouTuber ‘Rationality Rules’ argues that’s the case. Rather than examining miracles on a report-by-report basis, he opts to say that the case for miracles is doomed from the start. This reasoning follows the tradition of the famous 18th-century philosopher David Hume.

For those of you who aren’t into YouTube, Rationality Rules has had his channel since March of 2017. In that short time, he’s gained over 200k subscribers and has had nearly 15 million views.

There’s a cottage industry of channels similar to his and we shouldn’t underestimate their influence. These are sharp skeptics making entertaining and digestible videos packed with thought-provoking content. As believers, we’d be lazy not to respond to their arguments.

Here’s his video on miracles in full. Here I’ll focus on his main points:

Does the argument from miracles fail to support Theism?

Here’s Rationality Rules first objection to the argument from miracles:

“The vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god, even if they were indeed true. Or in other words, they don’t support theism. For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected, this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator! Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus respawned and that he had terrible lag because it took him three days!…”

While I appreciate the video game reference, this argument against miracles is hardly a “game over” for the Christian. Jesus’ resurrection absolutely supports theism and fits poorly in a naturalistic worldview. For starters, the gospels report that Jesus said that the resurrection would prove his message:

“Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

Secondly, the resurrection didn’t happen in a vacuum. Jesus’ preached the kingdom of God and called himself the Son of Man. The Jewish expectation at that time was the Messiah was coming and bringing his kingdom. That’s a historical fact.

The Roman historian Suetonius says this regarding the Jewish revolt against Rome “There had spread over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world.” 

Tacitus also picks up on this prophetic expectation: “…in most, there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rules, coming from Judea, were to acquire universal empire…”

The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus also mentions this hope: “But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” 

All three of these ancient historians applied these Jewish predictions to the Roman Emperor Vespasian, including even Josephus, oddly enough. He was, after all, a turncoat from the Jewish side to Rome.

So where did this expectation come from? If you read the prophecies from Daniel 2, 7, and 9, there was an understanding that there would be four great kingdoms before the kingdom of God would come.

Those kingdoms were believed to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. During the time of the Roman kingdom, the Son of Man would bring his kingdom and reign over the whole earth. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Messiah would come some 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Babylonian Empire.

You can also see this expectation in the New Testament writings. Even John the Baptist had to deny that he was the Christ. (John 1:20) Luke 3:15 says “Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and eager to know whether or not John was he.” (TLB)

This is also why Paul said things like: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly, or “…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son….” (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4) And the gospel writers have Jesus repeatedly referring to his appointed hour. (John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23-24, Mark 14:41)

These prophecies are extremely fascinating and it would take another blog post to fully unpack their importance, but here’s the point: Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t some anomalous event devoid of spiritual significance. While it wasn’t the way many Jews expected the Messiah to come, the resurrection reportedly happened in an atmosphere charged historical and religious meaning.

Furthermore, his closest followers boldly proclaimed that God raised him. And they didn’t say the resurrection was the work of some generic god, but the God of Israel who performed this amazing sign. (Acts 2:22-24) Jesus’ disciples had the best vantage point to interpret the significance of this event. The one that was raised must have said that it was God who raised him. This is hardly some random miracle.

Let’s turn to Rationality Rule’s second objection:

Is the argument from miracles an argument from personal incredulity?

“The second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.

To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history, there have been numerous accounts of flightless animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s no other explanation”. 

Now, of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but one can’t simply assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other explanation”… that would be, and is an outrageous Argument from Ignorance! 

It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”. Anyhow, as it turns out, we now actually do have an adequate explanation (which, by the way, perfectly demonstrates why Arguments from Ignorance are flawed). 

This explanation is, quite simply, a tornado that’s formed over a body of water (otherwise known as a waterspout), that’s then hurled water and aquatic animals over land… it’s is a bizarre phenomenon, incredible even, but it’s not a miracle, because it doesn’t violate the laws of nature. 

Yet, despite the fact that we now know exactly how flightless animals can rain from the sky, many people still assert that the only explanation is divine intervention, because they either don’t personally know about waterspouts, or they don’t understand them, which…is a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.”

Rationality Rules is right about one thing: Nature does some weird things sometimes and we’re not justified in attributing miracles to every gap in our understanding. That would be an argument from ignorance.

But let’s think about it for a moment: When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, will there ever be a time when scientists discover a law shows that dead people do not stay dead after three days?

Given everything we know, that seems just as likely as discovering new laws that overturn the law of gravity. While there is some personal incredulity that’s unwarranted  — like why flightless animals can at times rain from the sky — some things stubbornly resist our current framework of science. This has caused us to revise our framework when needed, but why can’t there be a case that’s so obstinate that it would resist scientific explanation altogether?

If atheists want to say that that can never possibly happen, that would be an extreme example of begging the question.

This is why many skeptical New Testament scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Michael Goulder, for instance) opt to naturalistically explain the specific evidence we have for the resurrection.

In fact, many of Rationality Rules’ fellow skeptical YouTube colleagues would seem to rather put forward arguments against the existence of the historical Jesus altogether. They clearly understand the theistic implications of the resurrection!

The argument from miracles: Not Debunked

Jesus’ resurrection was either natural or supernatural. Based on what we scientifically know today, natural causes isn’t a live option.Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and those who saw him after his resurrection claimed God raised him, the supernatural explanation is the most plausible one. This is especially true when we consider how poorly naturalistic explanations fare in comparison.

This isn’t an argument from ignorance, it’s just abductive logic — inference to the best explanation. We use this type of reasoning all the time, especially in science, history and in cases of law.

So unless we beg the question against the existence of God, we can’t just rule out miracles from the get-go. Now, Rationality Rules could try and debunk the evidence for the resurrection, but if he does that, he repudiates his second argument against miracles.

But Rationality Rules has two more objections to the argument from miracles. In my next post, we’ll look at them and see if those arguments stick better than his first couple. So far, he’s not off to a promising start.

 


Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

How many spiritual beings are there? How can we discern what comes from God and what comes from dark forces? How do we explain two Yahwehs in the Old Testament? Join Frank for Part 2 as he interviews Dr. Michael Heiser about his book Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. (Listen to Part 1 first). Beware: your view of the Bible may be rocked as a result of this interview! Check out Dr. Heiser at www.DRMSH.com and on his Naked Bible podcast.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

By Wintery Knight

This post presents evidence against Mormonism/LDS in three main areas. The first is in the area of science. The second is in the area of philosophy. And the third is in the area of history.

The scientific evidence

First, let’s take a look at what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, believes about the origin of the universe:

“The elements are eternal. That which had a begginning will surely have an end; take a ring, it is without begginning or end – cut it for a begginning place and at the same time you have an ending place.” (“Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 205)

“Now, the word ‘create’ came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos – chaotic matter, which is an element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beggining, and can have no end.”
(“Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 395)

A Mormon scholar named Blake Ostler summarizes the Mormon view in a Mormon theological journal:

“In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute who creates ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos — neither its fundamental matter nor the space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not not exist and on which all else is contingent for existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical necessity. Such realities include inherently self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic value of selves and the requirements for growth and happiness.” (Blake Ostler, “The Mormon Concept of God,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Summer 1984):65-93)

So, Mormons believe in an eternally existing universe, such that matter was never created out of nothing, and will never be destroyed. But this is at odds with modern cosmology.

The Big Bang cosmology is the most widely accepted cosmology of the day. It denies the past eternality of the universe. This peer-reviewed paper in an astrophysics journal explains. (full text here)

Excerpt:

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,–and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

[…] On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

Christian cosmology requires such a creation out of nothing, but this is clearly incompatible with what Mormons believe about the universe. The claims about the universe made by the two religions are in disagreement, and we can test empirically to see who is right, using science.

Philosophical problems

Always Have a Reason contrasts two concepts of God in Mormonism: Monarch theism and Polytheism. It turns out that Mormonism is actually a polytheistic religion, like Hinduism. In Mormonism, humans can become God and then be God of their own planet. So there are many Gods in Mormonism, not just one.

Excerpt:

[T]he notion that there is innumerable contingent “primal intelligences” is central to this Mormon concept of god (P+M, 201; Beckwith and Parrish, 101). That there is more than one god is attested in the Pearl of Great Price, particularly Abraham 4-5. This Mormon concept has the gods positioned to move “primal intelligences along the path to godhood” (Beckwith and Parrish, 114). Among these gods are other gods which were once humans, including God the Father. Brigham Young wrote, “our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father, and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on…” (Brigham Young, The Seer, 132, quoted in Beckwith and Parrish, 106).

[…] The logic of the Mormon polytheistic concept of God entails that there is an infinite number of gods. To see this, it must be noted that each god him/herself was helped on the path to godhood by another god. There is, therefore, an infinite regress of gods, each aided on his/her path to godhood by a previous god. There is no termination in this series. Now because this entails an actually infinite collection of gods, the Mormon polytheistic concept of deity must deal with all the paradoxes which come with actually existing infinities…

The idea of counting up to an actual infinite number of things by addition (it doesn’t matter what kind of thing it is) is problematic. See here.

More:

Finally, it seems polytheistic Mormonism has a difficulty at its heart–namely the infinite regress of deity.

[…] Each god relies upon a former god, which itself relies upon a former god, forever. Certainly, this is an incoherence at the core of this concept of deity, for it provides no explanation for the existence of the gods, nor does it explain the existence of the universe.

Now let’s see the historical evidence against Mormonism.

The historical evidence

J. Warner Wallace explains how the “Book of Abraham,” a part of the Mormon Scriptures, faces historical difficulties.

The Book of Abraham papyri are not as old as claimed:

Mormon prophets and teachers have always maintained that the papyri that was purchased by Joseph Smith was the actual papyri that was created and written by Abraham. In fact, early believers were told that the papyri were the writings of Abraham.

[…] There is little doubt that the earliest of leaders and witnesses believed and maintained that these papyri were, in fact, the very scrolls upon which Abraham and Joseph wrote. These papyri were considered to be the original scrolls until they were later recovered in 1966. After discovering the original papyri, scientists, linguists, archeologists and investigators (both Mormon and non-Mormon) examined them and came to agree that the papyri are far too young to have been written by Abraham. They are approximately 1500 to 2000 years too late, dating from anywhere between 500 B.C. (John A. Wilson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 70.) and 60 A.D. If they papyri had never been discovered, this truth would never have come to light. Today, however, we know the truth, and the truth contradicts the statements of the earliest Mormon leaders and witnesses.

The Book of Abraham papyri do not claim what Joseph Smith said:

In addition to this, the existing papyri simply don’t say anything that would place them in the era related to 2000BC in ancient Egypt. The content of the papyri would at least help verify the dating of the document, even if the content had been transcribed or copied from an earlier document. But the papyri simply tell us about an ancient burial ritual and prayers that are consistent with Egyptian culture in 500BC. Nothing in the papyri hints specifically or exclusively to a time in history in which Abraham would have lived.

So there is a clear difference hear between the Bible and Mormonism, when it comes to historical verification.

Further study

If you want a nice long PDF to print out and read at lunch (which is what I did with it), you can grab this PDF by Michael Licona, entitled “Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock.“

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/324GEPv

By Bob Perry

Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” used to host an enjoyable and informative TV program for kids. In the last few years, however, Bill Nye has entered into a different realm. Apparently, he fancies himself an arbiter of all truth; the man who can quite literally save the world. But if you have any interest whatsoever in seeking that truth in a coherent, consistent, intelligent way, please watch this two-and-a-half-minute video. As you do, think about what he is saying. And don’t just focus on his defense of Evolution. Listen to his method of reasoning. It really is beyond me how someone who is considered a scientific sage could ever deliver such a rambling string of nonsense. But he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to admonish anyone who dares to disagree with him. And if you do, he wants you to shut up and leave the education of your children to real scientists… like him.

The Actual Bill Nye

There are a few facts you should know about Mr. Nye that are directly applicable to the content of this video. For starters, one would think that the media’s favorite “science guy” would be … Oh, I don’t know … an actual scientist. In fact, given the topic of this video, we might assume that our “science guy” would have some kind of background or advanced degree in the biological sciences. Bad assumption.

Bill Nye has nothing of the kind.

Mr. Nye’s education consists of a B. S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. While he was a student there, he took an astronomy class from Carl Sagan. Thus ends the list of Bill Nye’s scientific credentials.

After college, Nye was hired by the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle, Washington. There, he developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor. But that wasn’t what gained him his notoriety. His real fame came after he won a Steve Martin look-alike contest and started doing stand-up comedy in Seattle nightclubs in 1978.  Since then, he has received two Honorary Doctorate Degrees. But these weren’t awarded for scientific work. They were conferred on him for giving a couple of college commencement addresses after he became “Bill Nye, The Science Guy.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Ridicule Is Not an Argument

I want to be fair here. Just because Bill Nye’s resumé as a “science guy” is lacking, it doesn’t mean we should dismiss him out of hand. We need to look at his arguments. But we also need to recognize the difference between an argument and an assertion. Anyone can make assertions. But no one should accept those assertions unless they are supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning. Mr. Nye gives none of these. He simply offers a diatribe that completely collapses when you take the time to think about what he’s saying. So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s case.

What Does He Mean by ‘Evolution’?

The “science guy” starts off by lecturing us about how ridiculous it is to not believe in “evolution.” The problem is, he never defines what he means by the word. Does he mean that species change and adapt to the environment? If so, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single person who doesn’t believe that. But there are several other definitions of evolution. Which one must we accept?

Let’s assume that Mr. Nye subscribes to the most comprehensive definition of evolution. This is what I refer to as Big ‘E’ Evolution. It’s the idea that all life is the result of a purposeless, materialistic process that began by a random accident. That process can account for every imaginable life form, from the first self-replicating, single-celled organism to you and me.

Let’s break down his argument.

Truth Doesn’t Depend On Geography

First, he offers us this:

“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States … we are the world’s most advanced technological society … people move to the United States because of our general understanding of science.”

This first assertion is baseless and demonstrably false. I know of plenty of folks who live all over the world who do not accept ‘Evolution.’ They do so because they have not seen any credible evidence to support the most comprehensive view of evolution Mr. Nye subscribes to. But let’s say Mr. Nye is correct. Let’s pretend the only people who don’t believe in Evolution are Americans. What does this prove?

Nothing.

Where someone lives does not determine the truth content of what they believe. And the claim that people immigrate to the United States because of our general understanding of science is ridiculous on its face.

Denying Evolution Holds People Back?

But what of Bill Nye’s second assertion? Here, he claims that:

“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in Evolution, it holds everybody back.”

How, exactly, did Mr. Nye come to this conclusion? My undergraduate education is in Aerospace Engineering. I learned how to design airplanes and then how to fly them. I don’t accept Evolution. So how is it that I am “holding everybody back”?

To show the absurdity of it, let’s turn this one around. Suppose I claimed that those who do accept Evolution are holding everybody back. Would that be a valid argument against Evolution? Not in the least.

Misapplying Metaphors

So far, Mr. Nye’s comments have only demonstrated some flaws in basic logic. But then he takes things further and detonates a suicide vest on any trust we should have in him as a “scientist.”

“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science … [Not believing in it] is analogous to doing geology and not believing in tectonic plates … you’re just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place.”

Whatever one thinks of the concept of Evolution, there is one fact about it that we all agree on. Evolution is a process that explains the emergence and diversity of life on Earth. It is a noble attempt to explain how life emerged from the chemical elements that existed on the early Earth. It is a theory about how those chemicals combined and interacted with one another to produce complex biological systems that live and grow and reproduce.

The heart of Evolution is a process, not the parts that are used by the process.

So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s comments in that light. He mentions tectonic plates. Tectonic plates are enormous slabs of rock in the Earth’s crust that slide and rub against one another to cause earthquakes. Geology is the study of the process that moves those plates around. So, Mr. Nye is confusing the plates with the process that moves them. He doesn’t seem to understand that he is equating completely non-analogous categories of things. Parts are physical things. But the processes that act on those things are something completely different. It seems to me a “science guy” would comprehend the difference.

A “Complicated” World

Building on his last point, Bill Nye begins his transition to questioning the character and motives of those who disagree with him;

“Once in a while, I get people who don’t really — who claim — they don’t believe in evolution. My response is, ‘Why not?’ Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.”

Notice that Mr. Nye believes that no one could really disbelieve in Evolution. They only “claim” to do so. And he never offers any examples of the responses he receives to his “Why not?” question. Who is he asking? Why does he dismiss them? We can’t really know how to evaluate their answers unless we know the actual reasons they are giving. The fact that Mr. Nye doesn’t accept their responses is hardly a reason for us to reject them. After all, we’ve already demonstrated that his reasoning in support of Evolution is flawed.

But there’s another question. Why would someone’s rejection of Evolution make their world “fantastically more complicated”? Once again, the conclusion does not follow.

Using Young Earth Creationist Logic

Mr. Nye’s next point is pretty fantastic all by itself. And let me be clear. I am not taking a stand one way or the other about the age of the universe here. I am simply pointing out how Mr. Nye is using the same logic as a young earth creationist when he says this:

“Here are these ancient dinosaur bones … radioactivity … distant stars … the idea of deep time … billions of years … if you try to ignore that your worldview just becomes crazy.”

Here, Mr. Nye says that rejecting Evolution is the equivalent with believing in a young universe. Or, conversely, believing in an old universe means that you accept Evolution. But, once again, he is confusing categories.

Evolution is a theory about biology. The age of the universe comes from the study of cosmology. These are completely different areas of study! All one would have to do to show that Mr. Nye’s assertion is false is declare themselves to be either an “old universe, non-Evolutionist,” or a “young universe Evolutionist.” Voila!

This is the same false equivalence most young-Earth creationists use against those of us who believe the universe is old. I wonder how Mr. Nye would react if someone pointed out to him that his thinking is exactly like the young-Earth creationists he abhors.

Questioning Your Parenting

Finally, Bill Nye makes it personal. He wants you to know that if you disagree with him, your status as a parent is in question:

“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with the universe, that’s fine … but don’t make your kids do it … because we need them … we need engineers who can build things and solve problems …”

Once again, Mr. Nye demonstrates his failure to understand basic logic when he ties belief in Evolution to our ability to produce “engineers who can build things and solve problems.”

It seems fairly obvious that one can be a perfectly competent airplane designer and not have any opinion about Evolution. In fact, a highly competent engineer can be completely ignorant about the concept of Evolution. Mr. Nye proved that himself when he designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for Boeing.

But beyond that, Mr. Nye has stepped out of a scientific critique (if you could consider him to have ever been inside one). In his arrogance, he assumes he has the right to tell you what you should be allowed to teach your children.

The Totalitarian Impulse

This is the totalitarian impulse. It’s a mindset that thinks some people can determine what other people should be allowed to think. Those of us who honor scientific objectivity, free thought, and academic tolerance need to recognize this kind of talk when we hear it. People who think like this are the most intolerant kinds of people in the world. They are destroying the concept of free thought in the academy. It is intellectual dishonesty writ large. And it can become dangerous for those who don’t think the “right way.”

Mr. Nye insists that you need to believe in Evolution. If you don’t, you must be overcome because our society needs “… scientifically literate voters and taxpayers.”

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Nye. If scientific literacy suddenly became a prerequisite for voting, it looks to me like a certain “science guy” would have to stay home on election day.

 


Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30bWkij

By J. Brian Huffling

When one thinks about apologetics, he usually thinks about such disciplines as philosophy, history, archaeology, etc. There is one area; however, that is relatively undeveloped in the practice of apologetics, and yet it is ripe for the work: literary studies. I am not talking about what genre the gospels happen to be, or if the saints in Matthew 27 were literally raised, or any such argument that has been popular as of late. I am talking about theories in English and literature that dramatically influence the field of hermeneutics (how we study the Bible). One of my majors in grad school was Biblical Studies, and I have taught Bible Study Methods at the BA level, and Hermeneutics and Advanced Hermeneutics at the grad level. In doing so, I have read many books on the issue of biblical interpretation and have scoured many resources for my classes. While there are many issues I could talk about, such as deconstructivism, postmodernism, etc., the issue that seems to come up a lot in standard textbooks is the role of the interpreter and how he either uncovers or imparts meaning to the biblical texts. In this article, I will talk about two books that are standard for evangelical studies on biblical interpretation, and why I think they are undermining the objective meaning of the text.

The Books and Their Claims

The first book is Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, revised  and updated edition, by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (There is a newer 3rd edition.) In general, this is a very good book, which is why it is used by many Bible colleges and seminaries. I even use it. Many pastors have been taught using this book. The principles that the authors teach that we should use for interpreting our Bibles are very good. So what’s the problem?

The problem is what they say about the role of the interpreter and the nature of bias, presuppositions, and preunderstanding (the body of knowledge the reader brings to the text). They state:

“No one interprets anything without a set of underlying assumptions. When we presume to explain the meaning of the Bible, we do so with a set of preconceived ideas or presuppositions. These presuppositions may be examined and stated, or simply embraced unconsciously. But anyone who says that he or she has discarded all presuppositions and will only study the text objectively and inductively is either deceived or naïve.” (143)

It is certainly true that we all have biases, etc. However, the startling claim these authors make is since we have biases, we can’t study the Bible objectively. Unfortunately, and per usual for these kinds of books, the notion of “objectivity” is left undefined and unclear. They later deny that such biases leave the reader bereft of objectivity; however, they do not explain how he can be objective since they have seemingly taken it away via the role of biases and presuppositions. Such is especially the case given this statement:

“The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter contribute enormously to the results of the interpretive process. We might even say they determine the results.” (197)

If the preunderstanding and presuppositions determine the interpretive results, then it is not clear at all how the reader can be objective. We wouldn’t discover the truth or meaning of the text; we would determine it.

The other book is The Hermeneutical Spiral, revised and expanded, by Grant Osborne. Like the previous work, this book is generally very good when it comes to interpreting the Bible. However, in the appendix, Osborne espouses a dangerous view, namely, the sociology of knowledge. He states:

“The sociology of knowledge recognizes the influence of societal values on all perceptions of reality. This is a critical factor in coming to grips with the place of preunderstanding in the interpretive process. Basically, sociology of knowledge states that no act of coming to understanding can escape the formative power of the background and the paradigm community to which an interpreter belongs.” (505)

Basically, what this means is that one’s culture is “formative” in how one knows, and it influences one’s “perceptions of reality.” In other words, the way in which one knows is at least somewhat determined by his culture. Different cultures will produce different perceptions of reality. What does this mean for the biblical interpreter? He answers this question clearly:

“A close reading of the text cannot be done without a perspective provided by one’s preunderstanding as identified by a “sociology of knowledge” perspective. Reflection itself demands mental categories, and these are built on one’s presupposed worldview and by the faith or reading community to which one belongs. Since neutral exegesis is impossible, no necessarily ‘true’ or final interpretation is possible.” (516, emphasis added)

Some people will find this shocking while others will express agreement. Evangelicals who hold to the idea that we can (and must) be able to know absolute truth should find this kind of assertion by a leading evangelical very scary. If true, we would not be able to claim to know the truth or the meaning of the biblical text, if there even is any.

Evaluation

One wonders how the authors of these books think that their meaning can be grasped. If what they say is true, we could never know the meaning of their books! Such claims made by these authors are hopelessly self-defeating. Further, it is simply an assumption that biases are always necessarily wrong, or that subjectivity entails falsehood. But this has never been demonstrated. Presuppositions are not inherently bad or wrong, as the authors of Introduction to Biblical Interpretation seem to imply when they argue for a certain set of presuppositions in order to interpret the Bible, such as believing in the supernatural.

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation claims that we can still have an objective understanding of the text, but they don’t offer a method for giving that objectivity to the reader after they took it away in the name of bias, presuppositions, and preunderstandings. We are thus left in subjectivity. Or are we? While the above authors do not tell us how to overcome the interpretive problems brought on by the interpreter, there are ways of explaining how an interpreter can simultaneously be biased and objective. After all, aren’t the authors of the above books biased and yet trying to pass off their text as objective? Surely. So how can they do that?

In his Objectivity and Biblical Interpretation, Thomas A. Howe explains how this is possible. (See also my article on objectivity and historical knowledge.) As mentioned earlier, authors like those above rarely define what they mean by “objective.” I am in agreement with Howe that a proposition is objective if it can be verified or falsified by external, mind-independent evidence that is also based on (objective) first principles. In other words, something is objective when it is based on extra-mental evidence that by definition, is not subjective, or merely in one’s mind. Further, propositions can be evaluated by the use of first principles, such as the principles of non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. (For more discussion on these, see my article on logic.) Such laws of logic are based in the being/existence of things in the external world. For example, the principle of non-contradiction says that something can’t simultaneously be and not-be. In other words, something can’t be a tree and not a tree at the same time and in the same sense. Such laws are not just made up. They are not just rational constructs. They are metaphysical and based in and reducible to existent things in reality. These principles are objective because they are based on objectively existing things in the world.

These principles can be applied to everyday issues, such as interpreting a written text. It is obvious that the authors of the cited works think that their readers can read books objectively. Otherwise, why write them? And why have principles to follow if there is really no use since we can’t be objective or know the true meaning of the text? Being an objective interpreter of the Bible is possible. We simply use language and interpretive principles according to our everyday, commonsense way. There is no great barrier to objectivity, whether it be bias, presuppositions, preunderstandings, or a sociology of knowledge. The very knowing process built into our human nature and the way we use language ensures that an objective understanding of the Bible is indeed possible.

 


J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NuvG2F

Hemos llegado a la penúltima parte de nuestras lecciones sobre lógica de predicados. En esta sección hablaré sobre las cuatro reglas de inferencia que hay para argumentos con proposiciones universal y existencialmente cuantificadas y que añadiremos a las reglas que ya vimos para la lógica proposicional.

OBSERVACIONES PRELIMINARES

Antes de comenzar a explicar nuestras reglas de inferencia, es importante recalcar la importancia de ciertas características de los objetos, individuos o miembros de los cuales se está predicando y que son las propiedades de ser específico, arbitrario y previamente introducido. Cuando hablamos de un objeto específico, nos referimos a que conocemos la identidad del objeto en cuestión. Cuando hablamos de un objeto arbitrario, nos referimos a un objeto del cuál no conocemos su identidad. Y cuando hablamos de un objeto previamente introducido, nos referimos a un objeto arbitrario que ha aparecido antes en alguna premisa y que ahora se está predicando en una nueva. Con estas propiedades en mente de nuestros objetos de los que vamos a predicar algo, ahora podemos pasar a explicar nuestras reglas de inferencia para proposiciones cuantificadas.

  1. GENERALIZACIÓN EXISTENCIAL (EG)

Forma lógica

𝛗f

———-

∴ ∃x𝛗x

Esta es la regla más fácil de entender. Nos dice que, de la predicación de cualquier individuo específico elegido, se infieren proposiciones generales existencialmente cuantificadas (f puede ser cualquier constante).

Ejemplo:

  1. Tomoko sacó una A en clase.
  2. Por lo tanto, alguien sacó una A en clase.

Observa que no hay forma que el enunciado (1) sea verdad mientras que el enunciado (2) sea falso. Si es verdad que Tomoko sacó una A en clase, entonces es verdad que alguien (Tomoko, al menos) sacó una A.

  1. INSTANCIACIÓN EXISTENCIAL (EI)

Forma lógica

x 𝛗x

———-

∴ 𝛗g

A diferencia de EG, esta regla es difícil de comprender al principio, porque si se define como la inferencia de cualquiera de las instancias de una generalización existencial, tendríamos que de

  1. Alguien es matemático.
  2. Por lo tanto, Superman es matemático.

Este sería un razonamiento verdadero, pero es obvio que no lo es, y la razón es que esta regla no nos permite inferir a un objeto específico.

El método

¿Qué hacemos entonces? Lo que necesitamos aquí es un método que nos permita inferir a partir de una generalización existencial. Sabemos que una proposición cuantificada existencialmente predica algo de al menos un individuo, pero como no sabemos quién es ese individuo, lo que hacemos es usar un nombre temporal (o nombre nuevo) para referirnos a dicho individuo en nuestra prueba y asumir que nombra a un objeto (sea lo que sea) que determina que la generalización existencial es verdadera.

Ejemplo

Argumento

Algún falsificador ha reemplazado las pinturas del museo. Quien remplazó las pinturas tiene un cómplice en el personal del museo. Por lo tanto, algún falsificador tiene un cómplice en el personal del museo.

Prueba

Sabemos que algún falsificador remplazó las pinturas; llamémosle Juan Pérez (Fulano es otro nombre muy común para referirnos a alguien que no conocemos, pero del que sabemos algo). Dado que quien remplazó las pinturas tiene un cómplice en el personal del museo, se deduce que Juan Pérez tiene tal cómplice. Pero Juan Pérez es un falsificador, y Juan Pérez tiene un cómplice en el personal. Por lo tanto, algún falsificador tiene un cómplice en el personal.

La regla

  • Tenemos una generalización existencial como una línea en nuestra prueba, digamos ∃x 𝛗x.
  • Hemos asumido una instancia de esa generalización, digamos 𝛗g, como un supuesto temporal.
  • A partir de ese supuesto, hemos derivado alguna conclusión, digamos 𝛙, en la que g no ocurre.

Luego la regla nos permite ingresar la conclusión 𝛙 a la que acabamos de llegar como una nueva línea, pero que depende de la generalización existencial ∃x 𝛗x en lugar de la instancia 𝛗g que asumimos temporalmente.

Explicación

Nuestro ejemplo siguió este procedimiento: 𝛗x era x es un falsificador y x remplazó las pinturas del museo, g fue Juan Pérez y 𝛙 fue Algún falsificador tiene un cómplice en el personal. Nuestra suposición llegó en el momento en que dijimos llamémosle Juan Pérez.

La Restricción

Existe una restricción a la regla de EI, y es que cuando usamos el nombre temporal para la instancia, esta tiene que ser una constante individual que no ha aparecido en una premisa anterior de la prueba.

Ejemplo

  1. Hubo alguien que obtuvo una B en el curso de música.
  2. Llamemos j a quien obtuvo una B.

Nuestra letra j no la hemos utilizado anteriormente, pero si en nuestra prueba tenemos más proposiciones cuantificadas existencialmente sobre el mismo dominio, debemos usar una letra diferente o numerarlas conforme vayan apareciendo.

Ejemplos

  1. Hay alguien del curso de música que es atractivo.
  2. Llamemos j1 a quien es atractivo.
  3. Hay alguien del curso que es rico.
  4. Llamemos j2 a quien es rico.

Con estos ejemplos queda claro que, si usamos j para todas las premisas sin enumerarlas, estaríamos cometiendo el error de inferir que j es quien sacó una B en el curso de música y que también es atractivo y es rico, y esto no lo podemos comprobar. Por esta razón debemos usar letras distintas o la misma letra con números que la distingan de otras y que no hayamos usado antes (nota que si en lugar de j hubiera usado g que ya ha sido utilizada anteriormente, estaríamos afirmando que el falsificador de pinturas también sacó una B en el curso, que es rico y es atractivo).

  1. INSTANCIACIÓN UNIVERSAL (UI)

Forma lógica

x 𝛗x

———-

∴ 𝛗h

Otra regla fácil. UI nos dice que lo que se predica de todos o ninguno de los individuos de un dominio, también se predica para cualquier individuo de ese dominio, ya sea específica, arbitraria o previamente introducido en premisas anteriores.

Objeto Específico

Veamos primero cómo se aplica la regla a un individuo específicamente elegido donde 𝛗h es el resultado de la sustitución de h para todas las ocurrencias de x en 𝛗x. Nuestro dominio en cuestión serán simplemente todas las personas y de las cuáles Tomoko será nuestro individuo específicamente elegido. Así podemos formular una proposición cuantificada universalmente como la siguiente:

  1. Todas las personas pueden razonar.

De la que podemos concluir que

  1. Por lo tanto, Tomoko puede razonar.

Objeto previamente introducido

Recordemos que j1 y j2 de las formulas anteriores también son personas, por lo que también podemos concluir que

  1. Por lo tanto, j1 puede razonar.
  2. Por lo tanto, j2 puede razonar.

Objeto Arbitrario

Y, por último, partiendo de (1) y de que es posible decir “sea i una persona arbitraria”, entonces se sigue que

  1. Por lo tanto, i puede razonar.

Restricción

En el caso del objeto arbitrario, es importante no saber otra cosa acerca i dada la siguiente regla.

  1. GENERALIZACIÓN UNIVERSAL (UG)

Forma lógica:

𝛗i

———-

∴ ∀x 𝛗x

Sin duda la regla más controversial es la de UG, y es que, si se define como la norma que establece que, a partir de cualquier instancia de una generalización universal, infieres esa generalización, entonces nos encontraremos con razonamientos como el siguiente:

  1. William Lane Craig es Cristiano,
  2. Por lo tanto, todos son cristianos.

Lo cual es falso. Para evitar este tipo de razonamientos falaces, necesitamos de un método al igual que hicimos con EI.

El método

Primero, de nuestra prueba escogemos a un individuo de forma arbitraria y temporalmente le damos un nuevo. Luego probamos algo sobre el individuo elegido al azar. Finalmente, podemos inferir que lo que hemos probado acerca de este individuo elegido al azar es válido universalmente; es decir, podemos inferir una generalización universal.

¿Pero cómo hacemos esto? Usando la prueba por condición general. Este es un método para probar proposiciones condicionales generalizadas; es decir, las proposiciones de la forma Todo P es Q. La técnica consiste en tomar alguna instancia arbitraria de P y luego probar que también es una instancia de Q. Habiendo probado que esta instancia arbitraria de P es también una instancia de Q, podemos inferir que cualquier instancia de P es una instancia de Q.

Ejemplo

Para probar que

  1. Para cualquier x, si x es presidente de México, entonces x es un ciudadano mexicano.

Luego, por regla de UI podemos decir: “sea i un presidente de México arbitrariamente elegido”, entonces se sigue que

  1. i es un ciudadano mexicano.

Luego por UG podemos concluir que

  1. Para cualquier x, si x es un presidente de México, entonces x es un ciudadano mexicano.

Ahora, es importante recordar que no necesitamos estar seguros de que realmente hemos tomado una instancia de P, que no pasa nada si no existe ninguno. Esto se debe a que la certeza no es una condición necesaria, que haya una instancia de P escogida arbitrariamente es solo una asunción que estamos haciendo y que luego desecharemos. Recuerda que esta prueba condicional es similar a la que utilizamos para la lógica proposicional, por lo que nuestra prueba no depende de si realmente existe dicha instancia, sino que, si hay tal instancia, entonces también será una instancia de Q.

Así, para cualquier proposición ∀x (Px → Qx) se procede a probar de la siguiente forma:

  • Asumir alguna instancia de Px, digamos Pi, donde i denota cualquier individuo arbitrariamente elegido (pero no uno específico).
  • Probamos Qi.
  • Desechamos el supuesto y esbozamos la conclusión ∀x (Px → Qx).

Una aplicación práctica de esta regla sería la siguiente: imagina que le preguntas a un amigo tuyo: “¿Si alguien rompe tu celular nuevo, te molestarías con él?” Tú amigo responde: “Sí”. Ahora sabes que, dado que “alguien” podría ser “cualquiera”, concluyes por generalización universal que “Para cualquier x, si x rompe el celular de mi amigo, él se molestará con x”. Ahora puedes aplicar la regla de UI y concluir: “Si yo rompo el celular de mi amigo, él se molestará conmigo”.

La Restricción

Esta regla tiene la restricción de no inferir generalizaciones de proposiciones de un individuo específico. Por ejemplo, imaginemos un caso similar al anterior, solo que ahora le preguntas a tu amigo: “Si tu novia rompe tu iPad nuevo, ¿te molestarás con ella?” Y él responde “No”. Tú no puedes aplicar UG como en el caso del celular por que la “novia” no es alguien arbitrariamente elegido: si tú eres el que rompe su iPad, tu amigo podría enojarse contigo.

 


Jairo Izquierdo es Director de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

Join Frank as he interviews Dr. Michael Heiser about his book Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. But beware: your view of the Bible may be rocked as a result of this interview! This is only Part 1. Part 2 is next week. Check out Dr. Heiser at www.DRMSH.com and on his Naked Bible podcast.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher