Reason Relationship God

Can Reason Lead Us To A Relationship With God?

,

By Al Serrato

Most atheists feel confident that they have “reason” on their side. As a result, many are surprised when a Christian apologist takes an evidentialist, or reason-based, approach to matters of “faith.” Not long ago, the issue arose in a conversation I was having with a skeptic. I had been laying out the basic philosophical arguments for the existence of a supreme, uncaused being.

Accepting the logic of these arguments, she shifted her challenge, saying: “You want me to use reason to get me to agree that God exists, but then stop using it as soon as I get to that point.” In other words, despite hearing rational arguments about the existence of God in general, she could not fathom that a belief in God in particular – the God of the Bible, for instance – could be based on anything other than wishful thinking. Faith, after all, was simply not rational.

My response went something like this: “Hopefully by now, you see that I am not asking you to abandon reason. The types of argument may vary, and the level of certainty about particular conclusions might also differ, but for everything that historic Christianity affirms, there are good reasons to believe what we believe.” She shook her head in, well, disbelief.

“As it applies to Christianity,” I persisted, “some of what we know about God can be inferred from observations. This is referred to as ‘general revelation.’ Consider what we see of the universe: it is spatially and temporally immense, beyond our ability to understand and grasp; it is well-ordered and predictable, with set laws such as logic and math, physics and chemistry, all operating flawlessly, consistently and seamlessly. It contains examples of breath-taking beauty, such as the inherent beauty of music and nature, and heart-pounding emotion, such as the joy of first love or the miracle of birth. But it is also quite deadly, or at the very least quite inhospitable to humans. Despite its immense size, it appears that we can live only in a sliver of air on a remote planet, and even there, most of the planet is exceedingly dangerous to us. You see, my ability to reason can lead me to some generalities: God must be immensely powerful and intelligent; he must be artistic and love order. He must be capable of great love. But is he … harsh? Uncaring? Why is this creation so dangerous? And, most importantly, what comes next? Reason cannot lead us to any answers here. We see a glimpse of God, but not the full picture.”

She wasn’t sure where I was going, and in a way, neither was I. The next step, to a rational reliance on the words of the Bible, is a big step; in fact, for many, it has been, and remains, too big a step for them to take.

I resumed. “To move to a personal relationship with God – in the specific, not general sense – requires more; it cannot be based completely and exclusively on reason. It does, in fact, depend also on faith, but it is a faith that stems from, and finds support in, reason.”

“You want it both ways,” she countered. “You want to call it reason when it is simply wishful thinking.”

I knew what she meant, and I acknowledged that I was struggling with putting these thoughts into words. “No, there is a difference that you’re not seeing. Believing in unicorns is a function of faith; there is no evidence for them, and no good reason to believe they exist. But if you had actual evidence – from trusted sources – that such animals existed, your “faith” in them might eventually become reasonable. The problem isn’t that believing in exotic animals is irrational; the problem is that believing in such animals when there is no evidence – no reason – to support that belief is irrational.”

I shifted gears a bit, wanting to get on to the point while there was time.

“Now, put yourself for a moment in the position of the creator-God. You want to give people true free will so that they are not mere automatons, and you want them to choose a relationship with you without forcing them to do so. Your problem is twofold: if you make your presence too intrusive, they will believe because they have no real choice, but if you reveal nothing of yourself, they will have no basis to know you. So, what you do is reveal enough of yourself so that they will see your presence. Then you choose a messenger who will convey your intentions. It must be fined tuned this way so that those who respond do so freely and not under coercion. Those who do respond freely will eventually be made perfect; he will work on them to free them from their fallen nature and to remove some of what separates them from him. Those who reject him get what they are seeking – separation from him.”

“Christianity affirms that God chose a particular people to convey this message. He used prophets to speak for him, then sent his son. Much of what I trust in about God comes from the words of that son, Jesus. If Jesus is a reliable source (i.e. that he has a basis to know what he claims to know and that he is honest), then I am justified in trusting what he says. If so, then he is a good source of information about God. If he says that God has offered us salvation and prepared a place for us to spend eternity, I can trust that information if I can trust Jesus. I acknowledge that my confidence that there is a heaven is pure faith – I believe it because Jesus says it. But my trust in Jesus is not based on faith. That would be mere wishful thinking. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead not because the Bible says it, but because the evidence of it is very strong, and the evidence against it is not. I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because I have faith, or because the Bible said it; I have faith that what Jesus said was true and that the Bible is trustworthy because I first had proof that Jesus did what he claimed he would do. He fulfilled the prophecies of centuries before, died for us and then rose from the dead.”

“But,” she began, again shaking her head ….

Enough for one day, I concluded. The next step would be to show why what we know about Jesus is reliable. But I had places to go, and she needed more time to think about what we had covered so far.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z0YOHc

/by
Evidence Belief Shaky Grounds

Is An Evidence Based Belief On Shaky Grounds?

,

By Evan Minton

“If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. This is what I read from one theologian in a book a while back. I cannot remember who said it, but that was a direct quote from the book. I think it came from one of the volumes of A.W Tozer’s The Attributes Of God, but I’m not entirely sure. I only remember what was said, not who said it. Anyway, the point this preacher was making is that if one rests on arguments and evidence to justify their belief in Christianity, then their faith stands on shaky grounds, for “If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. If you were argued into believing the truth of Christianity by an apologist, then some atheistic philosopher or Muslim theologian or cultist could come along, give some arguments for their worldview, and you may find those arguments persuasive and abandon the faith. The preacher wrote that we should instead rely on the word of God (The Bible) and the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. We should spurn an evidential approach to knowing that Christianity is true and instead rely on faith and religious experiences.

I think that this argument is deeply flawed for a variety of reasons.

I Don’t Hang My Hat On One Argument

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally don’t hang my hat on a single argument for Christianity’s truth. There is a wide range of arguments for God’s existence, The Bible’s historical reliability, and for Jesus’ resurrection. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Contingency Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). I defend all of these in great detail in my book  Inference To The One True God. 

What would happen if one of these arguments were ever shown to be unsound? Would my belief in God collapse? Let’s say that The Big Bang was overturned some day, the second law of thermodynamics was somehow shown to not imply a universe of finite age, and the arguments against actual infinities were also refuted, so that we could not evidentially demonstrate The Kalam Cosmological Argument’s second premise (i.e “The Universe Began To Exist”), thus rendering the argument unsound? Well, we’ve still got The Ontological Argument, which argues that if God’s existence is even possible, then it follows that God exists. I would still believe in God in this hypothetical scenario because although the Kalam was shown to be garbage, no one undermined any of the premises of The Ontological Argument. Moreover, The Contingency Argument doesn’t even need the universe to have had a beginning in order for it to be sound. All the Contingency Argument needs with respect to the universe is that it needs the universe to not exist by a necessity of its own nature, which, as you’ll know if you read the article I linked to on that argument, can be demonstrated apart from arguing that the universe had a beginning to its existence. I could still say “The best explanation for the existence of the universe is God” on the basis of The Argument From Contingency despite there being no way to argue that the universe hasn’t existed forever.

Or what if the Kalam always stands strong, but it’s The Local Fine-Tuning Argument that suffers a fatal blow. Well, I’d still have The Kalam, the cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of the others I mentioned above. Even if it could be argued that, maybe on the basis of the universe’s size or whatever, that the 400+ characteristics could come together by chance, that wouldn’t do anything to the Kalam or Cosmic Fine-Tuning Arguments. And it, again, wouldn’t do anything to The Ontological Argument.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RyhTm8GO-cI/Wcr48Nbu-mI/AAAAAAAAFbk/vvvp9C8rGWo82LJtljVniukeR6OOTCkogCLcBGAs/s1600/

A meme I saw on the Facebook Page “Philosophy Memes and Theology Dreams”

You see, if one basis their belief on a variety of arguments that all point to the same conclusion, then even if one or two of them were shown to be fallacious, it wouldn’t remove the epistemological justification for belief. The meme on the left-hand side gets this point across magnificently. In this meme, a person is about to be thrown into skepticism about the existence of the external world. Clearly, if the external world isn’t real, then The Cosmological Arguments (both The Kalam and The Contingency) will fail. You can’t say the best explanation for the origin of the world is a transcendent Creator if there is no world of which to have an origin. You can’t say God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe is there is no universe. However, the Ontological Argument doesn’t hinge on the universe at all, beginningless or eternal, existent or non-existent. The Ontological Argument, as even its detractors will tell you, all hinges on whether that first premise is true (i.e “It is possible that a Maximally Great Being Exists”). So, despite jettisoning the Cosmological Arguments on the basis of external-world skepticism, he still has a fallback argument to run to.

If The Sword Cuts At All, It Cuts Both Ways 

“If you were argued into Christianity, you can be argued out of it.” — If we were to take this statement’s logic and apply it consistently, it would undercut even belief in God on an experiential or emotional basis. For example, one could say “If you came to know God through an experience of Him, you could come to know a false god through an equally powerful experience.” Suppose a person feels God’s presence in a mighty and inexplicable way during a church service as the pastor was preaching. As a result of this powerful experience, he comes to believe that Jesus is the one true God, that The Bible is true, that he is a sinner whom Jesus died for, and that God wants Him to follow Him. But 10 years down the road, he enters a mosque and hears the Quran being read. He now has the same type of experience he had before, only this time, he believes it’s Allah who is trying to get his attention. He abandons Christianity and converts to Islam.

“That could never happen” you might say. Why not? “Because Allah isn’t the one true God. You can’t have an experience of a god who isn’t there.” Well, isn’t it possible that demonic forces could cause an effect in a person like the above in an attempt to deceive him and lead him to apostatize? Remember, I’m arguing against a preacher here who believes The Bible in its entirety. He has to admit that the devil might play with someone’s mind to get them to commit idolatry. After all, he’s “the father of lies” (John 8:44), who “seeks to kill and destroy” (John 10:10) and “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8), and can even make himself come off as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). This preacher has to keep open the possibility that demons could give people false religious experiences to get them to worship a false god. Why can’t we say “If you were experienced into the faith, you can be experienced out of it?”

If The Evidence Truly Did Point Away From Christianity, We Should Follow It

Thirdly, if the evidence truly did point to some other worldview, then we ought to hold to that worldview. It would literally be irrational to hold to a belief in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, I would become an atheist. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the book of Mormon is divinely inspired, I would become a Mormon. Or if it could be shown that the Quran is inspired, I would become a Muslim. Of course, the evidence would have to actually be beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, this isn’t like deciding what kind of job to get. Eternity is on the line here! Being wrong can have devastating consequences. I’d have to be pretty darn sure that Christianity was false before I’d be willing to abandon it.

For any atheist reading this, you would have to (1) demolish all of the arguments for God’s existence and you would have to discredit The Minimal Facts Case for Christ’s resurrection, and then (2) you would have to provide a positive argument in favor of atheism. If you just do 1, I’ll just be left with agnosticism. For the Muslim, you would have to likewise discredit the historical case for Jesus’ resurrection, and you would have to either refute The Moral and Ontological Arguments or show that Allah is compatible with those arguments conclusion. As in chapters 4 and 5 of my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, I don’t think Allah is the one true God because He cannot be perfectly loving and He cannot be perfectly loving, because He isn’t a Trinity. God has to be a Trinity in order to be a God of perfect love because He wouldn’t be able to express love prior to the creation of any creatures to love. Love requires 3 things; (1) A lover, (2) A Beloved, and (3) a relationship between them. A Unitarian God doesn’t have all the requirements for love to exist until He creates other persons, which means He was lacking in the love department prior to making people. Since God must be morally perfect to be the standard of morality (The Moral Argument), and since a Maximally Great Being must have all great-making properties and have them to the greatest extent possible (The Ontological Argument), since love is a virtue and a great-making property then the God of The Moral and Ontological Arguments must have perfect love. Allah, a non-trinitarian god, doesn’t fit the bill. No polytheistic god fits the bill. No God consists of more than one person than Christianity’s God. Therefore, it is my inference that The Moral and Ontological arguments point to the God of orthodox Christianity. Pick up my book for other explanations for why Allah is not God. 

What If A Christian Isn’t Relying SOLEY On Evidence?

For me, the reason my belief that Christianity is true is so strong is that I have both a plethora of arguments evidence as well as The Holy Spirit’s witness to my heart. I think my faith would be a lot shakier if I relied solely on arguments or solely on the inner witness. I believe in God because I’ve experienced Him….multiple times. I also believe in God because He is the best explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the fine-tuning of our local habitable region, the moral law, the possibility of doing science, the reliability of our reasoning faculties, and no explanation has been given over the past 2,000 years to explain the 5 minimal facts than “He is risen”.

Christianity is the inference to the best explanation, and moreover, God has been a living reality in my life. It seems to me that my belief has less of a chance of being destroyed if I lean on both of these epistemological pillars. If I relied on only one, either one, I think it would be a lot more fragile than it is.

Once Saved, Always Saved 

Not everyone will agree with me here, but I do affirm that someone who truly got saved will always be saved. He will never lose His salvation. First, we have Jesus’ statement in John 10:27-29. In this passage, Jesus says “My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. No one can pluck them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” In this passage, Jesus says that no one is able to pluck us out of His hand. This seems to suggest that once you’re saved, that’s it. Nothing can cause you to be removed from Jesus’ hand. Now, people who believe salvation can be lost have responded to this passage by saying that this passage only means that no outside forces will cause us to lose our salvation against our will (e.g demons, the temptations of the world), but it doesn’t follow that we can’t freely choose to jump out of Christ’s hand. Point taken, but there’s more to take away from the passage than merely the “no one can pluck them from my hand” part. Notice that in the earlier part of the passage, Jesus says “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish.” Jesus’ words here are a blunt, de facto statement. He doesn’t say “they shall never perish as long as they don’t hop out of my hand.”. He just says “they shall never perish” period. If we freely chose to jump out of Christ’s hand, what would happen to us? We would perish, in contradiction to Christ’s words. There’s no conditional statement in this passage. Jesus just says point blank “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish”.

Moreover, 1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This sounds almost exactly like what eternal security advocates say. “They were never saved. If they were, they wouldn’t have become unsaved.” The apostle John says “They went out from us, but they weren’t of us. If they were of us, they wouldn’t have left.” When eternal security advocates say to a former Christian “you were never saved. If you were, you wouldn’t have lost it”, they are merely echoing the apostle’s words in 1 John 2:19.

Now, I hold to a more nuanced version of eternal security than most Christians do, but I won’t get into that here. Just check out my 3 part series on what I’ve dubbed “The Can/Won’t Model Of Eternal Security”, here, here, and here.

Given this, if a person truly has been born again (John 3:3) and become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), then regardless of how he came to believe that Christianity is true, he won’t stop believing it. He will be a Bible-believing Christ-Follower until the day he dies. So, the fact that some were “argued into the faith” doesn’t mean that they can be argued out of it, at least if they were truly born again.

Conclusion

This attempt by Tozer (or whoever it was) to undermine the legitimacy of an evidential faith fails. For one, most evidentialists don’t put all of their eggs in one basket. Secondly, this logic could be applied to believing in God on the basis of religious experience (what the preacher was arguing in favor of). Thirdly, it’s a false dichotomy to say that one’s belief is based on either evidence or religious experience (why not both?). And finally, given the doctrine of Eternal Security, even if a Christian did lean solely on evidence, if he were truly born again, he would never fall away. God would find a way to keep him from doing so.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yEK2Wc

/by
Thinking Atheist

Are You Thinking Like an Atheist?

, ,

By Adam Tucker

As anyone who attends the Southern Evangelical Seminary National Conference on Christian Apologetics knows, SES does its best to offer well-rounded apologetics training that meets the needs of the novice while also challenging those who are more advanced. Our goal is to challenge the status quo of popular Christian thinking about apologetics and theological issues while at the same time being true to what makes SES unique in the evangelical world.

One of those unique aspects was on display at this year’s NCCA in the Friday night debate between Dr. Richard Howe, SES Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, and Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. SES unashamedly builds its apologetics and theology proper (i.e., the nature of God) largely on the philosophical underpinnings laid forth by 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas (who basically used portions of Aristotle’s thinking to provide a systematic approach to Christian apologetics and theology). This “classical” way of thinking about God’s existence has, until the last 200-300 years, been the standard way to do apologetics and to think about God. Sadly, for various reasons, it was largely abandoned, though it was never actually shown to be false. SES is convinced that this abandonment has led to confused thinking about how to actually do apologetics, which leads to shallow (if not false) thinking about who God is. This can lead to dangerous consequences for evangelism. These are all very important issues about which SES is quite passionate. In fact, it was none other than SES co-founder Dr. Norman Geisler who concluded his NCCA session by stating that evangelicals need an inoculation of Thomism (the thinking of Aquinas).

This is exactly the approach Dr. Howe took in the debate. There are plenty of resources from which one can pull in order to learn about popular arguments for God’s existence. Those are numerous and readily available. Instead, Dr. Howe offered a classical argument for God (a la Aquinas) upon which all the traditional attributes of God necessarily follow (an argument included in the SES ebook most conference attendees should have received via email).

We understand that at least a portion of the debate attendees were rather upset with the debate’s outcome. Honestly, we share your frustration. The debate was designed to be about the existence of God, a topic Dr. Howe admirably argued for but one essentially ignored by Mr. Barker. Instead of engaging with the topic at hand, Mr. Barker attempted to derail the discussion with worn out fallacious appeals about how “nasty” God is (a topic we directly addressed in a Saturday breakout session). Dr. Howe didn’t take the bait because that was not the topic of discussion, and with limited time one can only discuss so many things. Rather, he took the approach of showing Mr. Barker’s ignorance of such classical thinking. In other words, Mr. Barker is writing books promoting his atheism and doing “anti-apologetics” while completely ignoring the classical thinking that formed the intellectual foundation of Christianity. It should have been apparent in the debate that Dr. Howe was extremely successful in showing Mr. Barker’s lack of understanding in the subject, and Mr. Barker failed to address in any substantial way Dr. Howe’s arguments. Therefore, it should have been clear that Dr. Howe easily won the debate. He’s the only one who addressed the debate’s topic.

Mr. Barker’s basic response to Dr. Howe was to claim he shouldn’t have to take a class in order to understand the arguments for God’s existence. In Barker’s estimation, if God exists it wouldn’t be that difficult to know. This is simply a species of the argument from divine hiddenness (i.e., if God exists, then His existence should be obvious to everyone). Ironically, we’ve received the same response from some Christians who seem to agree with Barker in this respect. I believe such a response is very problematic. Allow me to illustrate.

My seven-year-old is a pretty smart guy. He makes good grades, is a math wiz and can recite numerous sports statistics. He even understands that when his allergies are acting up he needs some allergy medicine, or if he has a fever, he knows he needs some Tylenol. But exactly how much medicine should he take? How will those medicines interact with other medicines he may be taking or medical conditions he may have? How did that Tylenol come about in just the right combination of chemicals so as to help rather than harm him? He doesn’t know the answer to any of these questions.

I know more than my son and can answer some of those questions. My wife, on the other hand, is a clinical pharmacist. She knows the detailed answers to all of those questions and more. I recall helping her study for her pharmacy boards many years ago. The chemistry she had to study, the names she had to pronounce and recall, and the drug interactions she had to memorize were mind-boggling. We appreciate, and utilize often, the expertise of pharmacists like my wife. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say, “I reject the study of pharmacology because God wouldn’t make chemistry and the human body so difficult to understand that someone must take a class to be trained. Those pharmacists should just stay in their ivory towers and quit confusing us with their terminology and study.”

Similarly, my seven-year-old can know that nothing comes from nothing, and right now he’s content with knowing that God is the cause of everything. But can he answer challenges from atheists like Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, or J.L. Mackie? Can he rightly refute the claims of the cults and their misunderstanding of God? Can he adequately respond to popular aberrant doctrines taught by some influential evangelicals? Many questions about God raised by both atheists and Christians require a good deal of background knowledge and, dare I say, philosophy in order to appropriately answer. The fact the someone is a Christian or has read one (or several) popular apologetics books does not necessarily make them an expert on the deeper issues that often need to be addressed when such questions are asked or challenges are raised. And it is simply a fact of reality that many of these deeper issues are difficult to understand (due in part to the abandonment of the classical Christian thinking mentioned above). As Edward Feser observes,

“Due to intellectual error and the complexity of the philosophical issues, [as mere humans we] sometimes fail properly to understand the main arguments for God’s existence, or mix all sorts of errors into whatever knowledge of God we do have. Due to the weaknesses of our wills, we also fall into moral error.  And when moral and intellectual errors multiply throughout a culture, the resulting general social environment may make it difficult for a given individual living within it to avoid more numerous and more serious moral and intellectual errors than he otherwise would have been prone to.”[1]

If we understand the need for intense and difficult study in order to comprehend the inner workings of the human body, why would we expect less intense study when learning about the infinite Creator of the human body? To paraphrase Dr. Feser, it’s actually not terribly difficult to demonstrate the existence of God, but it is often very difficult to clear away from someone’s thinking the mounds of bad philosophy that more than likely they simply have absorbed from the culture in order for them to be able to understand the arguments. This was on full display in the debate as Mr. Barker demonstrated his ignorance of the relevant subject matter.

Yes, God’s existence is obvious enough that my seven year old can understand the basics, but we’re not all seven years old. In order to understand the details, we need to put aside childish thinking (1 Cor. 13:11) and devote time to thinking deeply about reality and the conclusions that follow. We should also appreciate those who have devoted their lives to studying these things in order to help equip the rest of us and not be surprised if we don’t instantly understand every detail they communicate. As a seminary hosting a conference, our goal is to challenge our audience to go deeper. I don’t immediately understand half the things my wife talks about from her day at work, but I sure am grateful that she knows what she’s talking about and that she is willing to teach me if I’m interested in learning.

I want to challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ to not think like an atheist. Do not be content with what is often incomplete and unreflective thought. Our faith (and our knowledge of God’s existence) must be built upon deeper foundations that are not so easily disturbed by the tired old fallacious comments made by someone like Mr. Barker. We can’t believe something about God simply because it makes us feel good or it’s easier to think about that reality. The fact is, as was mentioned above, answering Mr. Barker with simple or pithy slogans from pop-Christianity or pop-apologetics will not get to the heart of the matter. In fact, it may even make the situation worse by not first properly defining and understanding terms and concepts relevant to the discussion. Such a failure in thinking can often lead to misunderstanding, a false sense of security, or even outright heresy. We must be careful to build our understanding of God upon reality rather than with our emotions and oft-times misdirected thinking.

Some of us are closer to my seven years old than we should be regarding our knowledge of apologetics, while others are closer to my pharmacist wife. But all of us are capable of learning from each other and going just a bit deeper each year. That doesn’t mean we will or even have to, understand the deeper philosophical arguments and the like (I certainly don’t plan on studying pharmacology any time soon!). But it should at least mean we recognize their existence and appreciate that we can learn from those who do understand them (and point unbelievers to them when needed). We are all on this journey together, and we’re at varying places along that journey. That’s great as long as we all remain teachable and willing to learn. As Mortimer Adler notes,

“Not only must we honestly announce that pain and work are the irremovable and irreducible accompaniments of genuine learning, not only must we leave entertainment to the entertainers and make education a task and not a game, but we must have no fears about what is “over the public’s head.” Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles. The school system which caters to the median child, or worse, to the lower half of the class; the lecturer before adults-and they are legion-who talks down to his audience; the radio or television program which tries to hit the lowest common denominator of popular receptivity-all these defeat the prime purpose of education by taking people as they are and leaving them just there.”[2]

SES will never diminish or ignore our responsibility to become better communicators and seek constantly ways to clearly and effectively break down and explain complex topics. And there will be times when we don’t do that as well as we’d like. In the process, however, may we all show grace to one another and work together to help raise up the church as a whole in loving God with all their minds. In a desperately lost and confused world, the truth and clarity of the Gospel must be communicated and defended now more than ever. We are honored to partner with each of you in that endeavor.

Interested In Going Deeper?

For more on a brief introduction to the importance of Thomism, read Dr. Doug Potter’s article.

For more on classical apologetics, read Dr. Richard Howe’s article.

Be sure to watch my NCCA debrief with Dr. Howe HERE.

Consider the SES Lay Institute Apologetics and Biblical Studies courses.

SES also offers several certificates (for credit) or the ability to audit classes (not for credit).

Notes

[1] Edward Feser, “Modern Biology and Original Sin, Part II,” accessed October 27, 2017, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html. (Since all truth is God’s truth, it should be irrelevant to the reader that Dr. Feser is a Catholic. We can agree philosophically even if we disagree on other theological matters.)

[2] Mortimer Adler, “Invitation to the Pain of Learning,” accessed October 27, 2017, https://www.monticellocollege.org/sites/default/files/liberal-arts/invitation_to_the_pain_of_learning.pdf

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2h3YqMr

/by
Tornado, Simulation, Tyson and God

Tornado Simulations, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and God’s Existence

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

For nearly all my life, I’ve had a fascination with the physical sciences. Meteorology and astronomy were two of them that always caught and kept my attention as a kid. In my teens was when I started to focus more on information technology, and in my twenties, I was drawn to defending the truth of the Christian worldview through science, philosophy, and other knowledge disciplines. Living in Oklahoma, the weather is always in the news, and being that I frequent philosophical and scientific sites, popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson comes across my screen once in a while as well. In the last year, a few different articles have shown up from the meteorological, astronomical, and philosophical worlds, which the combination is what caught my attention. Today, I want to take some time to show how technology, being used to simulate natural phenomena, can be used to show that God exists, and I will address a popular naturalistic alternative explanation that was proposed by Tyson (and others). Let’s start with the weather and super-computers.

Tornadoes And Technology

One of my earliest memories was that of a weather event in Lubbock, TX in the mid-to-late 80s. I was about five years old, and my brother was only two. We were with our parents at the local mall on a spring afternoon. This was pretty typical and nothing exciting, but what happened that afternoon seared this memory into my brain for life. As we were wrapping up our trip and on our way out, nearly everyone in the mall started running frantically, screaming and crying. My parents grabbed my brother and me, and we ran outside to see what was going on. All I remember once we were outside was seeing traffic stopped on an overpass not far from the parking lot and an odd funnel-shaped cloud connecting the sky to the ground. As a five-year-old, I had no idea what was going on, but I knew that that funnel was the cause, and it terrified me. Later, it was explained to me that what I saw was a tornado. Since then, I have had a great fascination with tornadoes, and living in Oklahoma has definitely provided a great opportunity to feed that fascination. Over the years, like most mid-westerners, I have had a few close calls with tornadoes, including one that inspired a blog post a few years ago about God’s potential purposes for allowing natural evil.

While I never went to school for meteorology, I did get to take one meteorology course at the local college one spring semester. That same semester I had the opportunity to watch a supercell develop overhead. While that also is nothing odd for a mid-westerner, this was the first time that I purposely went outside to watch it and was actually paying close attention. Seeing the rapid circulation of the dark clouds around me and the scuds develop and get sucked into the circulation was astonishing. Luckily, no tornado developed, but we did get some nice-sized hail. This particular experience in my mid-20s was one of my turning points for realizing the incredible beauty and power of one of nature’s most destructive forces (at least for my area). If you’ve never experienced a storm this way, take a look at this time-lapse video of a supercell and imagine yourself watching it develop from directly below it:


Nebraska Supercells – 4k StormLapse from Chad Cowan on Vimeo.

Historically, weather has been quite challenging to predict despite the continued increase in power of today’s super-computers and the amount of data that they process in the latest models. In early 2017 atmospheric scientist Dr. Leigh Orf at the University of Madison released a video produced by the most extensive and precise simulation of a real supercell that became tornadic. The EF-5 tornado struck Oklahoma in 2011, and Dr. Orf’s team reproduced the entire supercell for the life of the tornado. Here is the simulation video he released:

The enormity and beauty of the storm astound me which creates a sense of wonder and worship of the Creator (not the creator of the simulation, but the Creator of nature which produced the storm). But something else does as well. The amount of time required, on our fastest computers to simulate the visuals of such a small portion of our universe for such a short period of time with precision orders of magnitude less than what this universe exhibits, created that same sense of wonder and worship in me. Some naturalists have posited that perhaps this universe is a simulation, much like what was explored in the movie trilogy, “The Matrix.”

What If We Live In A Simulation?

Popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson moderated a scientific debate a couple years ago where he suggested that science lends credit to the idea that we live in a simulation. Being that he is an agnostic (if not an atheist) he proposes this idea as a possible naturalistic explanation for the evidence coming from the sciences. The idea that this universe may be a simulation presses the bounds of the word “ludicrous” for a naturalist to make for three reasons.

First, the fact that a naturalist would even suggest such a thing is a philosophical concession to intelligent design on two levels. We know that simulations can only be the product of intelligent designers: the designers of the hardware and the designers of the software. To suggest this universe is a simulation is to suggest the universe was intelligently designed. Let us also not forget what a simulation is: an imprecise representation of something else. So, not only has the naturalist conceded intelligent design but they have merely pushed back the explanation, for they must then assume a universe of greater complexity and precision is what is being imprecisely simulated in the designed hardware by designed software. If this universe is, indeed, a simulation then it has a Designer.

Second, just as the 2011 Oklahoma City tornado was more complex than Dr. Leigh Orf’s simulation, the universe that this universe is imprecisely simulating would be more complex as well, so the naturalist has inadvertently increased the difficulty level of the problem of design because they now need to explain the complexity and design in the universe that our universe is simulating.

Third, all simulations (once the hardware is designed, programmed, and put together, and the software is designed and loaded) must begin. Someone must be there to start the simulation. If the universe is a simulation, all simulations begin, and anything that begins has a cause outside itself, then the simulation (universe) has a beginning outside itself. The universe, if a simulation, indeed must have a Beginner.

If the naturalist wishes to posit that our universe is a simulation, then they have conceded that our universe is designed (thus has a designer), that there exists another universe of greater complexity and design, and that the universe has a beginning (thus a beginner). If a naturalist proposes the option of a simulation, these three issues can be used to show how they have actually granted God’s existence.

Do We Live In A Simulation?

The but the question remains: “Do we live in a computer simulation?” The latest research published in the journal Scientific Advances addresses this possibility. According to one summary of this paper,

“The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.”

In other words, not a chance! Lucky for the naturalist the problem is not actually more difficult due to our universe being some big simulation. But they are still stuck with the universe’s beginning and the universe’s design and fine-tuning. The naturalist simply cannot escape these two realities. The possibility of the universe being a simulation appeared to explain these realities (the agent could have been an alien race in the multiverse, or intelligent machines like in “The Matrix,” after all), but when working out the logical implications, it did not, and recent research shows that the whole discussion is moot anyway. So, the naturalist, even if they were right, is still stuck. Evidence for design in the universe is so strong that the naturalist cannot reasonably appeal to an “appearance of design;” they know that they must come up with a way to affirm that the design is real, and they almost (not really) had a way to affirm actual design via the simulation hypothesis, but now they must deny it yet again.

Conclusion

If we conclude from the design in the universe that it is a simulation (based on what we know about the origins of computer simulations), but we discover that the universe is real (not a simulation), shall we then deny the design of the universe again just to avoid the notion of a cosmic Designer and Creator? Shall we further deny the design of the computer simulation by the scientists and say that the simulation was nothing special and just a “chance” occurrence? I do not believe that Dr. Orf would appreciate such a conclusion. Let’s now apply this to the universe.

Rather than denying the evidence, there is an option that has been established, not only through the process of elimination (a negative argument) but also through argument by analogy (positive argument): God. Just as we know that purposeful designs created by human designers exhibit lesser levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe and we know that those levels are the product of designers, so too we can know that the greater levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe are the products of a Designer. We can either follow the scientific evidence where it leads, or we can continue to deny it, even though we know deep down that to do so is a denial of all that is rational. Given the numerous other positive arguments for the God of the Bible, when the whole of reality is considered (quoting homicide detective J. Warner Wallace from his book Forensic Faith– “Everything counts as evidence”), only the God of the Bible stands as the logical explanation. We can either follow the evidence and logic and surrender our lives to Jesus Christ, or we can deny reason and the evidence and live our lives in opposition to our Creator and Savior. It is our free choice, and no one is morally responsible for making the wrong decision but us.

For more on God’s existence from the Sciences, I recommend:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home by Dr. Hugh Ross

Where The Conflict Realy Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross

Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy by Dr. Norman Geisler

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2gNtq3R

/by

Are There “Limits” to God’s Power?

Christians claim God is “all-powerful”. Does this mean He can accomplish anything? Skeptics often test this notion by offering the following challenge: “Can the all-powerful Christian God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?” The question highlights an apparent dilemma: If God cannot create such a stone (or cannot lift what He has created), He is not all-powerful. Does this apparent paradox prove an all-powerful Being cannot exist in the first place?

It’s true the Bible describes God as an all-powerful Being and often uses language that suggests that “nothing” is impossible for Him (as in Luke 1:37). At the same time, there are many places in Scripture where certain behaviors or conditions are described as “impossible” for God to accomplish. This apparent contradiction is inexplicable until we examine the nature of the activities (or behaviors) described as “impossible” for God:

Moral “Impossibilities”
The Bible clearly indicates there are many things that God cannot do. Most of these are “moral” in nature. For example, it is impossible for God to sin (James 1:13). According to the Bible, God always acts and behaves with certain moral considerations in mind and it is impossible for Him to do otherwise. Our moral laws are not simply the decrees of God (as if He could have chosen otherwise) but are, instead, a reflection of his unchanging moral nature. God cannot violate His nature. For this reason, it is impossible for God to sin.

Logical “Impossibilities”
The Bible also clearly indicates that there are a number of things that God cannot accomplish based on logical necessity. For example, it is impossible for God to change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) or to deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). According to the Bible, God always acts and behaves with certain logical considerations in mind and it is impossible for Him to do otherwise. The laws of logic are, once again, a reflection of God’s unchanging nature.

These “Divine Impossibilities” provide us with insight into God’s character and power. Objective moral truths and transcendent laws of logic are simply a reflection of God’s eternal being. They are not rules or laws God has created (and could therefore alter recklessly), but are instead immutable, dependable qualities of his nature reflected in our universe. They exist because God exists (not because God created them). In addition, the Bible describes God as omnipotent and capable of doing anything he sets out to do. God’s choices, however, are always consistent with His moral and logical nature; He never sets out to do something contrary to who He is as God.

When someone asks, “Can the all-powerful Christian God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?” they are asking a logically incoherent question. It is the equivalent of asking, “Can God create a ‘square circle’?” Circles and squares are mutually exclusive by their very definition. As a result, the question nonsensically queries the creation of something similarly nonsensical. God cannot create square circles for the same reason He cannot sin; He acts dependably in a manner consistent with His moral and logical nature, and our universe is the beneficiary of God’s dependable nature. Those who ask logically incoherent questions of this kind are requiring God to violate His nature (His logical coherency) in order to demonstrate His nature (His power).

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Why Is God So Hidden?

As a young atheist, I denied the existence of God for practical, experiential reasons. During my elementary school years, I found it difficult to understand why anyone would believe in God without visible evidence. I knew my parents, teachers and friends were real, because I could see them and I could see their impact on the world around me. God, however, seemed completely hidden. I often thought, “If God exists, why would He hide in this way? Why wouldn’t God just come right out and make it obvious to everyone He exists?” As I examined these questions many years later, I began to consider other factors and considerations, particularly related to the nature of “love”.

I held love and compassion in high regard, even as an unbeliever. These were values I embraced as essential to our survival as a species, and values I considered to be foundational to human “flourishing” (as many atheists commonly describe it). But love requires a certain kind of world, and if loving God does exist, it is reasonable that He would create a universe in which love is possible; a universe capable of supporting humans with the ability to love God and love one another. This kind of universe requires a number of pre-requisites, however, and these pre-requisites are best achieved when God is “hidden” in the way He often seems to be:

Love Requires Freedom
True love cannot be coerced. We love our children and we want them to love us. We cannot, however, force them to do so. When we give our kids direction and ask them to accept this direction as a reflection of their love for us, we must step away and give them the freedom to respond (or rebel) freely. If we are “ever-present”, their response will be coerced; they will behave in a particular way not because they love us, but because they know we are present (and they fear the consequence of rebellion). If God exists, it is reasonable that He would remain hidden (to some degree) to allow us the freedom to respond from a position of love, rather than fear.

Love Requires Faith
Love requires a certain amount of trust; we must trust the person who loves us has our best interest in mind, even in times of doubt. There are occasions when trust requires us to accept something as true, even though we can’t immediately see this to be the case. In essence, trust often requires “hiddenness” on the part of the “lover” if love is to be confident, powerful and transformational.

Love Requires Evidence
Love does, however, require sufficient evidence. While we may not want to coerce our children, we do need to give them sufficient reason to believe we exist, support and love them. While many non-believers may deny there is any evidence for the existence of God, the natural world has provided us with sufficient (albeit non-coercive) evidence God exists. We have the ability, however, to deny this evidence if we choose.

Love Requires Response
In the end, we do need to show our children our promises have been reliable and their love and trust in us has been well placed. Even though we may have to be “hidden” at times in their lives, at the end of the day, love requires us to make a visible response. The Christian Worldview maintains that God will respond visibly at “the end of the day”. While He may sometimes seem “hidden”, He will ultimately be evident to all of us.

If God exists, it is reasonable He would personify and fulfill the requirements of love, as described in Christian scripture:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they (we) are without excuse.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

God created a world reflecting His holy nature: We live in a universe where love is possible. This kind of universe can sometimes be a scary place, because it requires un-coerced human freedom. God offers us this dangerous liberty (and often remains hidden) so our love will be genuine.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Who Created God?

Richard Dawkins, the famous English evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, revived an objection related to God’s existence in his book, The God Delusion. In the fourth chapter (Why There Almost Certainly Is No God), Dawkins wrote, “…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.” In essence, Dawkins offered a restatement of the classic question, “Who created God?” On its face, this seems to be a reasonable question. Christians, after all, claim God created everything we see in our universe (all space, time and matter); He is the cause of our caused cosmos. Skeptics fail to see this as a satisfactory explanation, however, because it seems to beg the question, “If God, created the universe, who (or what) created God?”

Part of the problem lies in the nature of the question itself. If I were to ask you, “What sound does silence make?” you’d start to appreciate the problem. This latter question is nonsensical because silence is “soundless”; silence is, by definition, “the lack of sound”. There’s something equally irrational about the question, “Who created God?” God is, by definition, eternal and uncreated. It is, therefore, illogical to ask, “Who created the uncreated Being we call God?” And, if you really think about it, the existence of an uncreated “first cause” is not altogether unreasonable:

It’s Reasonable to Believe The Universe Was Caused
Famed astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “The Cosmos is everything that ever was, is and will be.” If this is true, we are living in an infinitely old, uncaused universe that requires no first cause to explain its existence. But there are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe the universe did, in fact, begin to exist. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe, the Radiation Echo, and the problem of Infinite Regress cumulatively point to a universe with a beginning. In the classic formulation of the Kalam cosmological argument: (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, therefore, (3) it is reasonable to believe the universe has a cause.

It’s Reasonable to Accept the Existence of An Uncaused “First Cause”
This “first cause” of the universe accounts for the beginning of all space, time and matter. It must, therefore, be non-spatial, a temporal and immaterial. Even more importantly, the first cause must be uncaused. If this was not true, the cause of the universe would not be the “first” cause at all. Theists and atheists alike are looking for the uncaused, first cause of the cosmos in order to avoid the irrational problem of an infinite regress of past causes and effects. It is, therefore, reasonable to accept the existence of an uncaused, first cause.

It’s Reasonable to Believe God Is the Uncaused, “First Cause”
Rationality dictates the ultimate cause of the universe, (even if it isn’t God), must have certain characteristics. In addition to being non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial and eternal (uncaused), it must also be powerful enough to bring everything into existence from nothing. Finally, there is good reason to believe the cause of the universe is personal. Impersonal forces cannot cause (or refuse to cause) at will. The minute an impersonal force exists, its effect is experienced. When the impersonal force of gravity is introduced into an environment, for example, its effect (the gravitational attraction) is felt immediately. If the cause of the universe is simply an impersonal force, its effect (the beginning of the universe) would occur simultaneous with its existence. In other words, the cause of the universe would only be as old as the universe itself. Yet we accept the reasonable existence of an uncaused first cause (one that is not finite like the universe it caused). For this reason, a personal force, capable of willing the beginning of the universe, is the best explanation for the first cause of the cosmos. This cause can be reasonably described as non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial, eternal, all-powerful and personal: descriptive characteristics commonly reserved for the Being we identify as God.

All of us, whether we are atheists or theists, are trying to identify the first cause of the universe. The eternal nature of this non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial cause is required in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress. It is, therefore, irrational to ask “What caused the uncaused first cause?” It is far more reasonable to simply recognize the attributes of this cause as an accurate description of God.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Modern Thinkers Designe Universe

Modern Thinkers Increasingly Confirm a Designed Universe

,

By Joel Furches

The idea that the universe might bear some marks of design has traditionally been denied in academic circles. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins has famously stated that:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” [“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85]

And writer Raj Bains points out that:

“Right now, it is raining methane on Titan. The planet Uranus is orbiting the sun sideways, while Venus spins backwards. There are stars exploding, black holes gorging, galaxies colliding. And here we sit, on a planet pock-marked by collisions, rocked by earthquakes, shaken by storms. A planet doomed to be fried in radiation as its magnetic fields collapse, until finally the sun grows into a red giant and leaves nothing of the Earth but dust. Here we sit, glasses on our noses, inhalers in our pockets, braces on our teeth, waiting to die as our heart muscle expires, our cells become cancerous, or a blood vessel just pops, and sometimes in unnatural ways too. Here we sit, and some of us say, behold, look at the order of it all.”

In fact, scientists who have affirmed that the universe might contain marks of design have found themselves the subject of hostility in academic environments. Dr. Jeffrey Schloss, who is the Professor of Biology at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, says:

“…it is absolute professional suicide to be a young earth creationist in a geology department or an anti-evolutionist in a biology department at any institution outside of a few parochial colleges. And it may be just as bad to be an [Intelligent Design] advocate in any science department.” [emphasis added]

And Edge journalist John Brockman writes:

“To date, scientists have held back with regard to engaging the proponents of ‘intelligent design’ on the battlefield of scientific discourse, reasoning being that by simply having a discussion, the ID crowd gains a respectable platform for their views.”

For years, any idea that there might be some kind of “design” in the natural world has been regarded as the domain of religious ideologues and conspiracy nuts – not of any serious scientist. However, there have been a number of prominent figures in technology and science fields who have recently affirmed the idea of a designed reality – whether implicitly or openly.

Take Elon Musk: Musk is the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, who recently had a conversation on stage at a tech conference in California about video games. Musk made the following statement:

“40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That’s where we were.

“Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality.

“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”

Musk went on to say that if, in the future, simulations were indistinguishable from reality, and, that billions of such simulations would be running at any given time, that the chances of any given person is living in the real world is a billion to one. That is to say, any person at this point in time is more likely to be a simulated character inside a simulated world, than they are to be a real person in the physical universe.

Musk is not the only person to chase down that line of thought. Science popularizer Bill Nye, who once stated “You can believe what you want religiously. Religion is one thing, but science, provable science, is something else,” said in answer to the simulation hypothesis: “I think you can argue that whoever has written the simulation – whatever super entity has written the simulation – could make it so sophisticated that even your memories are a result of this being programmed by the simulator or simulatrix,”

Astrophysicist and popular media figure Neil deGrasse Tyson, who once made the statement that “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on,” hosted a discussion on the simulation hypothesis at the 17th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate this year at New York’s Hayden Planetarium. Interestingly, the discussion wandered into questions previously explored only by theologians: things like “why would a simulator choose to put certain features into the simulation” and “would a simulation allow for such things as resurrection and eternal life.”

In fact, at one point one of the panel suggested that there is no way to know that the world was a simulation unless the programmer were to directly reveal it to humans – like re-ordering the stars to spell out “YOU ARE IN A SIMULATION.” This rings surprisingly close to Lawrence Krauss’ statement about what he would accept as evidence for God.

It must be pointed out that in order for this to even be a discussion, those involved would have to concede some aspects of design in the natural world. If the world could not possibly be the product of design, then it is clear that it is not a simulation. If people such as Tyson are willing to even entertain the concept that the observable world might be a simulation, then they would have to admit that it could be the product of design.

However, the simulation argument is not the only thing in current news that puts forth the possibility of design in the natural world. Recently, world-leading theoretical physicist Michio Kaku made waves by announcing that he had discovered proof of design in the natural world.

Kaku’s evidence comes in the form of String Theory and the Grand Unified Equation which, he says, would “…allow us to unify all the forces of nature, and allow us to read the mind of God.”

Says Kaku:

“All this is pure mathematics. And so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And …the mind of God, we believe, is Cosmic Music – the music of strings, resonating through eleven-dimensional hyperspace.”

Kaku makes a great deal of Supersymmetry and the unification of physics and mathematics in order to explain the functioning of the natural world, such that, even if he was using the term “Mind of God” metaphorically, it could not escape notice that he frames his understanding of the order and functioning of the universe in terms of “mind.”

It is becoming less and less clear in academic and scientific circles that the universe is without order or intent. As science and philosophy advance, discussions about reality cannot avoid the language of design.

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

 

 

/by

Wouldn’t a Loving God Make Sure Everyone Gets to Heaven?

The concept of Hell is daunting for many Christians. It’s not pleasant to think our unbelieving loved ones might spend eternity separated from God, regretting their decision forever. Several religious traditions seek to avoid the problem by offering a second chance to those who reject God’s gift of forgiveness. They envision a place where rebellious souls can, in the next life, reconsider their choice or earn their way toward heaven; the Catholic tradition offers “Purgatory” and Mormonism describes a “Spirit Prison”. Both seek to offer solutions to commonly asked questions: Wouldn’t a Loving God love all of His creation? Wouldn’t He make sure everyone goes to Heaven (regardless of what they might believe in this life)? A loving God would never limit Heaven to a select few and allow billions of people to suffer in Hell, would He?

Let’s consider, however, the nature of Heaven and the truth about humans. Heaven is the realm of God, and those who ultimately enter into Heaven will be united with God forever. While that sounds fantastic for some of us, it sounds ridiculous, boring or offensive to many who reject the existence of God (and resist God’s guidelines and obligations). If everyone will eventually end up in Heaven, it is inevitable and compulsory. This type of eternal destination seems contrary to the nature of God and the nature of human “free will”:

A Compulsory Heaven Would Eradicate “Free Will”
People who deny the existence of God relish the fact they have the freedom and ability to do so. Some of these same people, however, argue a loving God would make certain everyone goes to Heaven after they die. But this kind of “universalism” actually denies human “free will” altogether. If Heaven is the only destination awaiting us (based on the assumption all who die eventually end up there), it is truly compulsory. In this view of the afterlife, we have no choice about where we end up; everyone is united with God, like it or not. A compulsory Heaven rejects the importance of human liberty, the very thing those who deny God cherish the most. By offering (but not forcing) Heaven to those who freely choose to love the One who reigns there, God is actually honoring and respecting our “free will” universally. He is, in fact, treating us with the utmost respect and dignity; something we would expect if He is all-loving in the first place.

A Compulsory Heaven Would Embrace the “Unsuited”
In addition to this, a Heaven including anyone and everyone is counter intuitive and un-reasonable. Just think about it for a minute. Most of us would agree: A Holy place of eternal reward is simply not suited for people with a certain kind of character or certain kinds of desires. All of us can think of someone from history who (by our estimate) is unqualified for eternal reward. We may not all agree on who should or shouldn’t be included in such a place, but most of us would hesitate when considering people like Hitler (or perhaps lifelong unrepentant pedophiles with murderous desires) for eternal reward in Heaven. If there is a Heaven, it is surely unsuited for certain kinds of people, and even the most skeptical among us can find someone he or she would place in this category. A compulsory Heaven, including the most vile and dangerous people from history, is not likely what skeptics have in mind when they argue for an all-inclusive final destination.

A loving God would make Heaven possible for all of us while respecting the free will desires of some of us. A loving God would reward those of us who have decided to choose Him while dealing justly with those of us who have decided to choose against Him. For this reason, Heaven simply cannot be the destination of every human who has ever lived. Heaven is not compulsory, but is instead the destiny of those who love the God who reigns there and have accepted His invitation.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Mathematics God Apologetics

Mathematical Apologetics: Discovering Divine Attributes in Math

,

By Brian Chilton

On today’s podcast, Brian discusses how one discovers the mark of the divine in math. In the book Faith and Learning: A Handbook for Christian Higher Education, edited by David S. Dockery, Jeanette Russ, in her chapter “Christian Scholarship in Math, Physics, and Engineering, provides several ways that math demonstrates the divine attributes of God. Brian discusses the mathematical apologetics that he found in Russ’s work. Such as:

Calculus and Physics: The infinitesimally small and extremely large note the unlimited nature of God (see Dockery, Faith and Learning, 394).

Georg Cantor’s Theory of the Infinite: The nature of the infinite (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: There is no passage of time at the speed of light, which could illustrate God as he is explained as light (1 John 1:5) and that he exists outside the scope of time (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: The principle shows that God could intervene in the world and that humans play a role in the great, as Russ notes, “cosmic drama” (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Concept of Unification: This could show that all truth is God’s truth (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Come join us for this interesting journey into mathematical apologetics as we step into the arena of idea on today’s edition of the Bellator Christi Podcast.

About the Host

Brian 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 studies in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

 

 

/by