Book Review The Creator Revealed

Book Review: The Creator Revealed

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor, Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already “on paper,” I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss’ goal with “The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang, and the Bible” was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone.

The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn’t give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:

                                       

Now, on to the book review…

Chapter 1: An Important Question

Strauss begins his book with a discussion of the importance, for the Christian, of seriously and critically investigating the beginning of the universe. He explains that since God created the universe, it accurately reveals His character and His glory (Psalms 19:1). An investigation of the universe will present evidence for its Creator and the proper worldview. Those who are presented with this evidence should follow it where it leads. If evidence for God is presented by the creation, then it follows that the investigator should believe that God exists.

The reigning model among scientists is the general big bang model. Many scientists claim to hold to this model due to the evidence that the creation has presented to them for its truth. Strauss explains that if some form of the big bang model does accurately explain the beginning of the universe, it has great implications for the discussion of God’s existence, His character, and whether someone should follow Christ. Thus it is imperative that the Christian approach this topic with an open and evangelistic mindset that is committed to not only the inerrant truth and authority of God’s Word but also the truth revealed by God’s actions (His creation). With this, Strauss transitions into a description of the general big bang model and some of the evidence that convinced even atheistic scientists that it accurately describes the beginning of our universe.

Creator Revealed 1

Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character

Chapter 2: The Big Bang

While many Christians have heard of the big bang model for the creation of the universe, there are some dire misconceptions of it that prevent an accurate assessment of the scientific and biblical evidence for it. Strauss begins by correcting these misconceptions, including the ideas that the big bang was an explosion of preexisting matter and that it was an explosion at all. He explains that the big bang merely posits that the universe began from literally “no thing” some time ago in the finite past.

Strauss uses an analogy to the game of Mouse Trap to explain how we can reasonably conclude how the universe formed. Beginning with the proper setup of the elaborate trap and knowing how the laws of physics operate, without ever turning the crank, we can still accurately imagine how the process will unfold to finally trap the mice. Likewise, we can begin with the most fundamental particles of the universe and the laws of physics and use computers to “imagine” how the process will unfold to create a universe. As these computer simulations go through the process, we see that they generate what we observe in the universe today, thus it is reasonable to believe that the big bang model that they simulate accurately represents the beginning conditions of our universe and the elapse of time since that beginning.

Chapter 3: How Do You Know?

Many Christians raise many challenges to the idea of the big bang that question the certainty of the conclusion and that conclusion’s compatibility with the Bible. Strauss will address the biblical challenges later, but in this chapter, he addresses the strength of the observational and theoretical case. He begins by explaining how we can know the events of the past even though no person was “there” to observe them (a common objection). For instance, observing the presence of a snakeskin on the ground is evidence that a snake had shed its skin, even though no one was present to witness this past event. Just as if a snake shed its skin in the past, we would expect to find a snakeskin, if the big bang happened, we would expect to find certain features as we observe the universe.

Before getting into the observations and to keep things interesting, Strauss notes that at the time the evidence for the big bang starting coming in, scientists were perfectly satisfied with the current beginningless model of the universe at the time because it did not require any kind of Creator at all. However, when the evidence for a beginning of the universe started being discovered, it caused a huge philosophical uproar in the scientific community. Strauss describes the observations of the expansion of the universe, the radiation present throughout the universe, and the relative abundances of the elements. All the observations pointed strongly enough to the universe having a beginning. However, on top of that, theoretical physicists over the last century (including Einstein and Hawking) have done work that has been found accurate in their precise predictions of observations, and others have done work that solidifies the necessity of a beginning based upon both observation and theory. The beginning of the universe has been (reluctantly) accepted due to the certainty level demanded by the evidence even in the context of a philosophical presupposition against God’s existence.

Creator Revealed 2

Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator

But the big bang does not stop at merely providing evidence for the universe having a beginning. The big bang provides evidence of the identity of the Cause of the universe. Strauss explains that as will any good crime mystery story, the perpetrator leaves behind clues as to his or her identity that allows the investigator to accurately identify them. According to Romans 1:20, these clues are not only there but were intentionally left there and are clearly seen by those who investigate the universe. So, even if scientists are philosophically committed against the identity of the Cause of the universe, they will still clearly see clues that point to the attributes (thus the identity) of the Creator. Strauss emphasizes that this is exactly what is happening with the big bang.

The first attribute of the Creator that Strauss shows is demanded of a big bang universe (thus evidenced in our universe) is the transcendence of its cause. If the big bang was the beginning of all energy, space and time, then the cause of the big bang has to exist outside this universe. Strauss explains that this is significant to identifying the Creator because only the Bible explicitly identifies the Creator as acting prior to the beginning of (thus being outside or transcending) the universe. This means that the Creator is not made of anything physical (matter or energy) and is something completely different: spirit, according to John 4:24.

Chapter 5: Design in the Universe

To identify further characteristics of the Cause of the universe, it is important to examine the fine-tuning of various features of the universe for life. Of the hundreds of characteristics that would be examined, Strauss has chosen to describe three to keep from getting too technical and losing the reader. Strauss takes a look at the amount of matter in the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the formation of carbon. All of these, if their numbers were slightly different, one direction or the other, from what they are, the universe would be not only be devoid of life but would be hostile to life. The fact that these values could have been different, yet are not, indicates that the Cause of the universe intended for the universe to be an eventual home for life.

Creator Revealed 3

Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans

Building upon the finely tuned features described in the previous chapter, Strauss explains that Romans 1:20’s claim that God’s “attributes are clearly seen” is being demonstrated in the scientific literature. Strauss cites the works of several skeptical scientists who explicitly state that the design characteristics of the universe, that have been discovered as a product of modern big bang cosmology, point exclusively to the cause having the intention, forethought, and ultimately a purpose for the universe. Some scientists believe this so strongly, yet they want to deny God as the Creator, that they believe that man (as an intelligent designer with purpose) will eventually be able to reach back in time to create the universe themselves. Even though they refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, His attributes are clearly seen and recognized by these skeptical scientists. This recognition of the intentionality and purpose of the Creator is exactly what the Christian should expect from the correct theory of the universe’s beginning. Big bang cosmology is directly producing the results the Christian expects- that the universe speaks powerfully that it was created intentionally for humanity.

Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden

Continuing on the topic of design for humanity, Strauss zooms in from the level of the universe as a whole to our galaxy, solar system, and planet. He explains how the type, size, and age of the Milky Way Galaxy must be just right for advanced life to not only survive but be even possible. Zooming in closer, to our solar system, Strauss shows the specific characteristics of our sun are unique (and also finely tuned), and he discusses the importance of gaseous giant planets like Saturn and Jupiter for protecting life from cosmic debris. Finally, Strauss looks at some of the characteristics of our planet that make is uniquely suitable for advanced life. Again, in all of these investigations, we see that the creation reveals that is was created with intentionality and purpose.

Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator

Summing up the previous chapters, Strauss emphasizes that the Christian not only has the testimony of God’s creation that the big bang is an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, but the Christian also has the incredible alignment between the characteristics demanded of the cause of the big bang and the God of the Bible. These characteristics are not evident only to those who glance at the creation, but it is unmistakable to those who investigate it deeply. The Apostle Paul’s claims about the clarity of the revelation of the Creator through the creation Romans 1:20 is borne out with every new discovery that confirms that the universe had a beginning and was designed for the benefit of humanity.

Creator Revealed 4

Part 2: A Biblical Beginning

Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past

For the Christian, nature is not the only source of truth from the Creator. The Bible is the Creator’s written source of truth. Since both sources are from the same Author, when we interpret them, our interpretations cannot be in conflict because the sources themselves are not in conflict. Strauss explains to the reader that the Church has made mistakes in the past regarding interpretation that still make nonbelievers suspicious of the Church today, so it is important that we do not repeat the same mistakes as we search for the proper interpretation of debateable biblical passages. The two interpretive guidelines to always remember are that the passages are written from a particular perspective and that some passages do have multiple reasonable interpretations. While there is only one correct interpretation of these passages, honest disagreement on the correct interpretation can take place without questioning one’s commitment to the Bible as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word. These two guidelines are important in our humble pursuit of truth and will guide Strauss’ investigation of the creation passages and their possible agreement with the big bang.

Chapter 10: Rules of the Game

Before beginning to investigate the creation passages of the Bible, Strauss takes the time to describe three rules of interpretation. He emphasizes that if this step is not done beforehand, then those involved could easily be using different rules of interpretation that will result in very little progress. The rules that he covers are not new and have been used since the beginning of the Church, but since they may not be explicit in the mind of the reader, it is important to lay them out.

Strauss emphasizes the that the goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning that the author of a particular passage intended to communicate to the audience. The first of the rules is to always consider the literary context- the surrounding passages, the book, and the Bible as a whole. Driven by a commitment to biblical inerrancy, this rule requires that no two interpretations of two passages may be in conflict with one another. The second is to understand figurative language and recognize when it may be in use. Forgetting such an important thing can result in all sorts of misunderstandings, even in everyday life. Finally, we must consider the cultural context in which the passage was communicated. Strauss concludes the chapter with an exercise of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 using these principles to demonstrate how they are properly applied.

Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis

One of the big questions Christians have about big bang cosmology is whether or not it is compatible with sound exegesis (reading things out of Scripture rather than into Scripture). Essential to this question is the proper meaning of the word interpreted as “day” when used to describe the periods of time of God’s creation. Using the principles and guidelines described in the previous two chapters, Strauss takes the reader through interpreting this word. Of the uses of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2 that do not refer to the days of creation, there are seven instances, four of which are unique in their meanings. Some refer to less than twenty-four hours, and others refer to a lot longer. All of these definitions are considered to be literal interpretations. Because of these possibilities, it is reasonable to consider that the original author used the word literally and that he meant it as a longer period of time.

Many Christians, who strongly oppose even the possibility of this exegetical conclusion, often appeal to the immediate context to undermine this possibility. They propose that “day” in the presence of either a number or “evening and morning” necessitates that “day” is twenty-four. Strauss examines the wider context of Scripture to provide examples of the presence of both of these (one even believed to also be penned by Moses) that do not mean twenty-four hours. The presence of these examples in Scripture undermine the claim that their presence in Genesis 1 exegetically demands a twenty-four interpretation. Another attempt to undermine the long-period-of-time interpretation is God’s comparing the work week to the creation week in Exodus 20:9-11. Strauss points out that the same pattern is applied to a different period of time (years) just a few verses later, so if the application of the pattern necessitates that the compared period of time is twenty-four hours, then it requires that years are also twenty-four hours. But that conclusion is false, so it is also false that the application to the days of Genesis necessitates that they are twenty-four hours. Consequently, while the days of Genesis are periods of time, the Bible does not tell us exactly how long they are.

Strauss has, thus far, shown how big bang cosmology is compatible with an exegetical, historical and literal interpretation of Genesis; thus it is perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Chapter 12: As God Sees It

Even though the Bible does not tell us the details of how long the creation days were or when the universe was initially created, it does provide many incredible details that could have only been known by an eye-witness to the creation. Strauss takes this chapter to describe just a few. He begins his discussion of these details by reminding the reader that for proper exegesis (again, interpreting out of Scripture and not into Scripture) that all of Scripture is told from a perspective. We have to determine where exactly that perspective is in Genesis. Genesis 1:2 tells just precisely where the Spirit of God was, thus the perspective of the rest of the chapter- the surface of planet earth.

Strauss notes that a confirmation of this perspective is that the sun and moon are described as “the great lights,” yet we know that they are quite puny compared to other lights in the universe. The descriptor of “great” is only true if written from the perspective of the surface of the earth. Now, from this perspective, Genesis 1 describes the initial conditions of earth as formless, empty, dark, and watery. As scientists continue their investigation into the history of our planet and they develop and test theories of planetary formation, they are discovering that the descriptions of formless, empty, dark, and watery are a perfect match for the initial conditions of our planet. This could only have been known by the Creator since there were no human witnesses; this provides powerful confirmation that the Bible is truly inspired by the Creator of the universe.

Chapter 13: The Order of Creation

The other incredible details provided by Genesis 1 about the creation are present in the descriptions of God’s actions on those days. Using the perspective established from Genesis 1:2 and being mindful of the original Hebrew and the context of the passages, Strauss takes the reader through properly interpreting the passages and clearly states the claims of each of the days of creation. He then shows that each of the claimed events has been shown to be accurate by scientists in the appropriate fields. He also demonstrates how presumably problematic passages are resolved when the proper perspective is utilized, and the original Hebrew words are considered.

Not only is the content of Genesis 1 accurate, but the order is accurate as well. The Genesis 1 account of creation, when reading literally and from the correct perspective, provides accurate (though not comprehensive) historical record of the formation of our planet and life. Considering how many different claims are made throughout Genesis 1 about the history of earth that the author could easily have gotten wrong but didn’t, this evidence further solidifies the case that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe. This comes as no surprise to the Christian, for this is exactly what is expect since the Bible and nature have the same source: God.

Creator Revealed 5

Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future

One of the main concerns of Christians who reject big bang cosmology is that it requires that animals died before the fall of humanity. They believe that God created the world perfect with no pain, suffering or death, and Adam’s sin spoiled all that. If this belief is true, then any view that allows for animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be true. Strauss’ goal in this chapter is not a comprehensive examination of this view but rather a few surface observations that will cause the reader to consider that this is not the best way to interpret the Genesis text.

As with before Strauss takes the reader into the greater context of the whole Bible to help interpret. Staying within Genesis, though, he notes that “very good” is used instead of “perfect;” God increases Eve’s birthing pains, but does not create them; Adam knew what “death” was when God gave him the warning to not eat of the tree (indicating that he may already be familiar with death), and Adam did not physically die in the same twenty-four period that he first disobeyed God. The immediate context certainly does not require that the creation was without suffering and death before Adam’s sin. Additionally, when the context is expanded to the New Testament, the death referred to in the context of sin is almost always spiritual death. Meaning that the death that was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve did not affect non-spiritual beings (such as plants and animals). Plants and animals could have died (physical death) long before sin entered the world (consequence: spiritual death). Since the New Testament describes death that cannot be experienced by plants and animals (spiritual death), the kind of death that they do experience (physical death) is not a theological nor biblical problem for the Christian who affirms that it took place before sin entered the world to bring spiritual death to spiritual beings.

Part 3: Truth Changes Lives

Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free

Many Christians are so zealous for Christ that they offer stories and evidence that are simply not true. Strauss begins the final part of his book by giving an example of one such story that is often repeated as scientific evidence of the truth of the Bible but is not a true story in the least. He explains that Christians must be careful of repeating such false evidence because it reduces the credibility of the rest of our witness for the Gospel. Strauss explains that some Christians fall victim to false evidences because they are unconsciously fearful that further investigation will bring a crisis of faith. An example of this would be when Christians have been repeatedly told that big bang cosmology is an atheistic theory and they are hesitant to study and accept the evidence because it would mean that Christianity is false. Strauss reminds the reader that there is nothing to fear on such studies (whether it is the big bang or something else) because we serve the God of all truth. And no matter what we find to be true, it will always be compatible with Christianity. Investigating and accepting what is true gives the Christian true reasons that they can provide to the unsaved as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Evangelism is not the only place where investigating and accepting the evidence no matter where it leads is a blessing to the Christian. Strauss relates a story of a friend who was an amateur astronomer who knew the evidence for the universe’s antiquity yet he was taught all his life that the Bible only allowed for the universe to be young. This friend experienced a cognitive dissonance that resulted in his worship of God with his mind and heart being stunted. However, when the biblical compatibility of an ancient universe was presented to him, he was able to reconcile the evidence for an ancient universe with the truth of God’s Word. The truth set his mind free and heart free to worship God like never before. Because we serve a God of truth, following the evidence where it leads is nothing to fear, and God will honor you with a closer relationship with Him and a more powerful witness to Jesus Christ.

Creator Revealed 6

Chapter 16: With All Your Mind

Many surveys and statistics show that people lose their childhood faith in the college years. Strauss attests to this in his experience as a college professor. He attributes much of it to a serious lack of the North American church’s willingness to love God with all our minds. Our children are often discouraged from asking tough questions (see the previous chapter). They do not usually get intellectual recognition of their tough questions until they are in an environment where skeptics are all too eager to provide answers. When provided with evidence that contradicts what they have been taught about the first chapters of Genesis, they often reason that God is untrustworthy in the rest of His revelation, including the Gospel. If the Christian student does retain some semblance of faith, it is usually compartmentalized, but that compartmentalization does not last long; God is usually abandoned.

Strauss explains that there is hope, though, through our setting the example and loving God with our minds. We must investigate and follow that evidence (again, see the previous chapter). He provides an example of the results of such an effort. One student went through the process described above all the way to the end of leaving the faith. However, when the truth of what Scripture actually does teach about origins was shown to be fully compatible with the evidence being offered as defeaters by the skeptics he spoke to, his faith was renewed. He realized that God, in fact, was truly trustworthy in what He revealed in Scripture. He followed the evidence and the logical path of trust from Genesis to Jesus. Jesus commands us to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30), and when we do so, we can be the instrument that Christ uses to bring others back to Him.

Creator Revealed 7

Chapter 17: No God or Know God

In the concluding chapter, Strauss tells the story of an atheist who heard one of his talks covering the content of this book. While the atheist already understood and accepted the big bang as the beginning of the universe, he was never presented with evidence that it also powerfully supported the God of the Bible. After hearing Strauss speak of how the big bang was a theistic theory that was rejected for so long by scientists on that fact alone, he became interested and started investigating the claims of Jesus to be God. After completing his investigation he was convinced that the big bang, indeed, pointed to the God of the Bible as the Creator and that Jesus was who He claimed to be. This atheist surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, and Dr. Strauss has had the joy of watching him grow and become an enthusiastic ambassador of Christ. God spoke clearly to this atheist through His creation, and the Truth changed his life.

Creator Revealed 8

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As I mentioned in the introduction, when I read the sneak preview of the book, I was extremely excited and couldn’t wait for Dr. Strauss to get his book published. This is the most succinct yet non-technical book I have read about the implications of the big bang on Christianity. I love that Strauss presents the basic case for the big bang from both nature and the Bible side-by-side. I loved his focus on Romans 1:20 and his clarifying that the big bang is inherently a theistic theory (it is not an atheistic theory, as many Christians incorrectly believe), and that is what actually caused the majority of the scientific community to reject the clear evidence for so long. I particularly appreciate his dedication to biblical inerrancy as he presents a careful and exegetical case from Scripture. He addresses the most common challenges and questions from Christians to help remove any fear that they are compromising Scripture or God’s character at any point by following the evidence where it leads.

Strauss’ concise descriptions, use of analogies, stories from his life, and the sprinkling of jokes throughout makes a rather dry subject very enjoyable, understandable, and exciting. The length of each chapter and the book as a whole are perfect for those who are curious but do not have the time to devote to the more in-depth and technical works available (although it may spark an interest in pursuing a deeper investigation). With all of these characteristics and the fact that it covers an extremely important evangelistic tool, “The Creator Revealed” is a must-have book for every Christian who is passionate about the Great Commission. This book needs to be in every church library and on the bookshelf of every Christian parent and educator and pastor. Most every Christian knows someone who has dismissed Christ from their lives because they believe that the creation, via the big bang, eliminates the need for the Creator. God has placed you in their life to show them how they have unnecessarily rejected their Savior. Get this book, and prepare yourself to “give [them] a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

For more in-depth studies into the big bang and the Bible check out these great books:

 

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

/by
Can Empathy Ground Morality

Can Empathy Ground Morality?

, ,

By Timothy Fox

One of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is the moral argument. Basically, an objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. But many skeptics still aren’t convinced. They claim that they don’t need God or some holy book to tell them how to live; they have empathy.

Dictionary.com defines empathy as “the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” In short, it is feeling what others feel. Someone who endorses empathy-based morality will say that good is whatever makes others feel happy and evil is whatever makes people feel pain. This sounds a lot like the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). It’s a great way to determine how we should treat others. But to use empathy as the basis of morality has problems.

Blatantly subjective

First, by the above definition, empathy-based morality is not objective; it is blatantly subjective since it is “the psychological identification” of someone else’s experience. It is based on my feelings about another’s situation. Objective morality means that morality is real and binding regardless of how anyone thinks or feels. In this, empathy fails as the foundation of morality.

Moral obligations

Second, what obligation do I have to act a certain way based on my empathetic feelings? If I feel bad seeing a hungry child suffer during a TV commercial, I could decide to volunteer at my local soup kitchen, or I could just change the channel. Those are two different responses to my empathy and to say which is right requires a moral judgment. Therefore, empathy isn’t the basis of right and wrong.

Furthermore, why should I care about a starving stranger, so long as my belly is full? And instead of following my empathy, why not act on rage, aggression, or sexual desire? Again, we must choose which of these feelings to follow by appealing to some moral standard.

Knowing vs. being

Third, empathy does not make things right or wrong; it is merely a tool to help discover morality. Philosophically, this is the difference between knowing (epistemology) and being (ontology). For example, I know the grass is green because I see that it is green. My sight is the tool to help me discover the color of grass. But I can only see – and know – that grass is green because grass has the property of being green. Grass would still be green even if I were colorblind or could not see at all.

The same applies to morality. If I say “Murder is wrong,” I don’t mean that I have the psychological identification that murder is wrong. No, murder has the property of being morally wrong the same way grass has the property of being green. Stating that murder is good is just as wrong as claiming that 2+2=5. Moral facts are true regardless of my opinion or whether or not my moral faculties are working properly.

Empathy is one way of knowing right and wrong. But it does not determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. We have deep moral intuitions that certain actions are right and wrong, but these intuitions are just the way that we know it. I could be a conscious-less psychopath with no conception of morality, but morality would still be real and objective.

A better explanation

So if morality is just as real as the physical world, how do we make sense of it? That is where the moral argument comes in. An objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. God has provided ways for us to know this moral law: by sealing it on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15), His Word, and, of course, empathy. But morality itself is grounded in a holy, morally-perfect God. Good is whatever aligns with God’s nature, and commands and evil is whatever goes against it.

Without God, we would be lost in a sea of moral subjectivity, where morality is just a trend, fashion, or evolutionary survival instinct. But we all know better than that. Morality is just as real as anything else in the world, and the best explanation of this is an objective moral law founded upon a good and holy God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Nr71aC

/by
From a Sonnet to a Savior Finding ways to present a reason for Christian faith

From a Sonnet to a Savior: Finding ways to present a reason for Christian faith

, , ,

By Michael Sherrard 

A little while ago I was discussing a sonnet by Jon Donne with several high school students. (I know you discuss sonnets all the time.) The sonnet by Donne was one that mocked death, comparing it to a sleeping pill. Actually, it compared it to opium but said that opium was better. Anyway, the theme of the sonnet was that death was nothing more than a slave who was used to cause people to fall asleep only to waken unto eternity, and therefore, it should not be feared.

I asked the students if this was a good view of death. They concluded that it was provided there was life after death. So I asked, “Is there life after death?” Some said yes, and some said no. I asked them how they knew. No one had an answer. So I asked, “Do we just have to have faith one way or the other? Are we just left to wish and hope for an afterlife, or can we know?” This seems like an important question to answer. They agreed.

They then asked me what I thought. I told them that I think we can know if there is an afterlife because I think we can know if God exists. They, of course, asked me how. I, in turn, asked them if it was possible that God might exist. All of them said yes. Mind you, of this group of eleven, at least seven of them are not believers in Jesus; yet all of them agreed that it was possible that God might exist. This is what most people believe.

With an agreement that God might exist, I asked if this God could do unnatural things in this natural world. I asked if miracles would be possible. They all said yes, every one of them. I asked them why they thought miracles could be possible. They explained that if God existed and made the world, He could do what He wanted in it. They agreed that walking on the water you created is not really that hard to believe. I said they were smart. And then I asked, “So if God exists and could perform a miracle, could He not use a miracle to tell us who He is?” They all responded to my question with a yes. So I asked, “Has He?” They just looked at me, but I could tell that they wanted to know. So I told them about the resurrection of Jesus.

I told them that I think the resurrection both tells us that God exists and which religion is the right one. I then told them about the evidence. I explained that virtually all historians who have studied the resurrection believe three things: that Jesus died by crucifixion, that the disciples believed they saw Him risen, and that they died for preaching that He had risen. I then asked how they would explain these facts, how they could explain the rise of Christianity without the resurrection.

One student said, “Well, maybe Jesus didn’t actually die. Maybe He survived.” I said that is a fair idea, but let’s talk about it. A theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion would have to involve the following: before Jesus was crucified He was beaten, flogged, forced to carry a cross, and given a crown of thorns to be embedded in His head. We understand what a beating is. We can imagine a crown of thorns, regardless of the size of the thorns. But, let’s make sure we know what flogging is.

Flogging is when you are whipped by a device that has several leather straps with bone and metal and other sharp objects attached on the ends. Their purpose is to dig into the flesh and rip it off when it is pulled back. It tenderizes and defleshifies you. (They were repulsed at my made-up word “defleshify.”) I told them that many men die just from this type of torture alone.

After torturing Jesus, He was crucified. Many people are now familiar with the crucifixion. But just to be sure that my students had the facts straight, I explained to them that one often dies by suffocation on the cross and how it is excruciating. Hanging on a cross forces your lungs to stop working because the way you hang prevents you from breathing. The only way to breathe is to push up from your feet that have been nailed to the cross to relieve the pressure and take a breath. You live as long as you have energy, or until they break your legs to keep you from taking another breath.

Jesus’ legs were not broken, but this was the manner in which He died on a Roman cross. To ensure that He was dead, the trained Roman guards stuck a spear into Jesus’ side. After Jesus was taken off the cross, He was wrapped in seventy pounds of linen, placed in a dark and damp cave-like tomb, and there He remained for three days.

I told my students that to believe the theory that Jesus survived the cross you would have to believe that He woke up after three days, unwrapped himself, folded the linens, rolled away a stone, took out a couple of trained Roman guards, walked on nailed-pierced bloody feet, presented Himself to the disciples in this condition, and they said, “Oh my God! You have risen from the grave and are Lord!”

I asked my students, “Does this seem likely?” One responded and said, “More likely than a resurrection!” I said he was probably right in terms of probability but then asked if Jesus arriving in this condition would lead the disciples to think that He was God and perpetuate their preaching of His deity, forgiveness of sins by faith in Him, and a future hope of a resurrected body like His. First-century people were not idiots. They would have known the difference between a resurrection and a survival.

Many students agreed with this assessment. Some did not. One of those asked if it is possible if the disciples just hallucinated. I told them that was a fair question and many people hold that view. But, I asked him, “Do people share the same hallucination? If you and your friend were ‘tripping’ would you see the same thing?” He said, “No, and I know.” We laughed. Modern psychology agrees with him. Group hallucinations do not happen.

At this point, another student chimed in and said, “I think they just made it up!” So I asked, “You think that the disciples made up that Jesus rose from the grave and then died for their conspiracy for no reason? Why do you think this, do you have any evidence?”

He said, “No, but that’s just what I believe.”

I encouraged him to base his belief on something more substantial than his opinion because so much is at stake. He said, “Ahhh.” Not all stories end well, but hopefully, this is not the end of this student’s journey to Jesus.

Our group conversation ended with some believing, some being more open to Christianity, and some were exactly like they were before we talked. I encouraged them to have reasons for their beliefs. Much is at stake when it comes to God, and if He exists, you want to have settled that issue before you meet Him in the afterlife. I told them that I look forward to future conversations with them, and to this day, many more conversations have followed.

Opportunities to share the gospel abound if one is looking. In every situation with nonbelievers, ask yourself what about our immediate context and conversation points to God. Then be brave and steer your conversation to the cross.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2okR0rP

/by
Debate Frank Michael Reality

When Debating Atheists: Those Who Lack A Belief Lack An Argument

,

I just had a two hour plus debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, on the question: “What better explains reality:  Theism or Atheism?”  Given the title of the debate, both of us had the burden of proof to detect the cause (or causes) for certain effects we all see. That’s what scientists, philosophers, and investigators do—they observe effects and attempt to discover their causes. Since science is a search for causes, I thought Dr. Shermer, who writes for Scientific American each month, would posit adequate causes for reality in this debate.  He didn’t.

But before I unpack where I think Michael went wrong, I want to commend him for his kind manner and for agreeing to engage in cross-examination. So many formal debates are nothing but dueling speeches where the two debaters never interact and can, therefore, ignore each other’s points.  This debate was not like that.  After we each gave 20-minute opening statements, the hour after that was a spirited back and forth, first between us, and then between us and the audience.  (We then took it to a restaurant where my friends Oleg and Karina treated us to the best steaks we ever had!)

In my opening statement, I gave evidence to support my conclusion that six major effects comprising reality—presented with the acrostic CRIMES—are better explained by God, and, in fact, wouldn’t exist unless God existed. I started with the most obvious effect that needs to be explained:  the Creation and fine-tuning of the universe itself.   Then I moved on to our ability to Reason, the Information found in the genome of living things, objective Moral values and obligations, the existence of Evil, and an orderly natural world that allows us to do Science. (If you want more detail than a 20-minute statement, there is a chapter on each of the CRIMES in my book Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.).

In his opening statement, Dr. Shermer assumed he didn’t have any burden of proof.  Instead of giving evidence how reality could be explained by causes other than God, he just claimed that science is superior and would one day find naturalistic causes for CRIMES.  But that claim is, ironically, a faith position. In fact, it is a blind faith position because it’s impossible in principle to find a natural cause for each of the CRIMES.

Consider Creation.  If the entire natural world (space-time and matter) had a beginning as most atheists admit, then the cause can’t be part of the natural world but must transcend it. The cause of nature must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful to create the universe out of nothing, and personal and intelligent in order to choose to create. In other words, we’ll never find a natural cause for all of nature.  Whatever created nature must be beyond nature (which is what the word “supernatural” means).

The rest of the CRIMES are not subject to the scientific method either, which means, despite Dr. Shermer’s charge, they are not “God of the gaps” arguments that can one day be overturned by some future scientific discovery. For example, we’re never going to find the cause of orderly natural laws or our ability to reason—including the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics—by running some kind of experiment.  We must assume those laws in order to do the experiment!  In other words, science is built on metaphysical principles that can’t be explained by science—they are needed to do science.

Objective moral obligations can’t be explained through science or materialism either.  If there is no God and we are all just moist robots dancing to our DNA (as Richard Dawkins put it), then how does a materialist explain the fact that love is objectively better than hate?  You can’t explain that running an experiment or by appealing to mere molecules in motion.

Dr. Shermer didn’t even try.  Instead, he shifted the problem by talking about how we know what’s right rather than explaining how an objective standard of rightness exists in the first place.  (This is a common and illicit move by atheists: they want to focus on epistemology—how we know morality or goodness—and ignore ontology, which seeks to identify the grounding of morality or goodness.)

Michael asked the audience to think of reasons, other than God, as to why we ought not sexually abuse children.  He said it’s wrong because it hurts other sentient beings and you wouldn’t want anyone to do that to you.

But those “reasons” merely appeal to other moral principles that need grounding themselves.  He’s merely shifted, not solved the problem.  Why is it wrong to hurt other sentient beings?  Why should we follow the Golden Rule?  Who said?  If we’re just overgrown germs dancing to our DNA and fighting for survival, what is the cause or source of such moral obligations?

They don’t come from science or the natural world. Science can help you discover how to create a bomb, but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to use it.  You need a moral standard that transcends human opinion for that.  You need an immaterial, authoritative essence known as Goodness, Righteous or Justice.  You need God’s Nature (see our first debate for much more on that).

It might come as a shock to atheists, but science is not the only way of discovering causes.  In fact, in order to explain CRIMES, you need to use other disciplines outside of science. These may include philosophy, history, reason, and direct observation.

Dr. Shermer may scoff at philosophy, but he actually uses it as do all scientists.  It’s required in order to do science.  Why? Because science actually doesn’t say anything—scientists do. All data needs to be gathered and all data needs to be interpreted.  Science doesn’t gather and interpret the data; it’s scientists applying philosophical principles who do that.  The philosophical principle that Dr. Shermer applied was to rule out God in advance. Michael kept saying, “God is not an explanation.”  Well, how does he know that?  He’s assuming what he’s trying to prove.  He’s not showing it; he’s merely asserting it.

Perhaps Dr. Shermer thought he didn’t have to provide reasons for atheism because—according to him—atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. “It just means we don’t believe in God.  Full stop.” He said atheism entails no other beliefs. (By the way, that’s another philosophical position, not a scientific one).

But if Michael just “lacks a belief in God”, then he’s only making a statement about his psychological state and nothing about external reality.  Yet the cause of external reality is what we were there to debate!   So why did he even show up?

If two homicide detectives discover a dead body with a knife in his back, bloody footprints leading out the door, and a cryptic note from the killer, both should hunt down a suspect.  If one detective shows evidence that suspect A is the cause of this murder, the other detective isn’t doing his job if he merely says “I just lack a belief suspect A is the murderer,” and I’m not required to investigate anymore. He should give reasons why A isn’t the real murderer, and then provide evidence that another suspect had the ability, motive, and actually committed the murder.

Dr. Shermer did not do that.  He neither refuted the evidence for my suspect (God) nor did he identify another suspect who could account for CRIMES.  The materialistic causes he suggested—evolution, quantum vacuums, and speculations about aliens and bouncing universes— even if true require causes or preexisting laws themselves and have no ability to cause the immaterial aspects of CRIMES.

Instead of providing evidence for his position, Dr. Shermer did what most atheists do in debates. Despite being materialists, they grant themselves immaterial realities such as the laws of logic, math, morality, and orderly natural laws, and then extol the virtues of science that require those laws while making complaints about how God is running the universe.

Without an objective standard by which to judge, they steal a standard from God and judge that there’s too much evil in the world, God is evil, or if God existed He would do things differently (like heal everyone or write the atheist’s name in the sky).   And don’t forget—religious people are stupid and religion is evil.  None of that shows there is no God or explains reality in the absence of God. In fact, evil actually demonstrates God’s existence because there would be no thing such as evil unless there was an objective standard of Good, which is God’s nature.

In short, atheists don’t have arguments—they have complaints.  And complaints are not arguments.

So what best explains reality:  theism or atheism?  I gave my case for theism.  I’m still waiting to hear the case for atheism.

 

Frank Turek is an American Christian author, public speaker, radio host and the president of CrossExamined.org. He is the author of four books: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to make their Case, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. A former aviator in the US Navy, Frank has a master’s degree from the George Washington University and a doctorate from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

/by
Science And Imperialism

Science And Imperialism

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

The Wall Street Journal commissioned Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong to respond independently to the question, “Where does evolution leave God?” Their answers became an article in the Life & Style section called Man vs. God.

Richard Dawkins said of Darwinian evolution, “We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet.” Evolution, Dawkins concluded with his characteristic wit, is God’s “pink slip.” In other words, since science says Evolution is, we say God isn’t. (I discussed Dawkins’s argument for the non-existence of God in an earlier Salvo article.)

Karen Armstrong’s response was more artistic. She spoke of two complementary ways of arriving at truth, which the Greeks called mythos and logos, both of which were recognized by scholars as legitimate. Logos was reason, logic, intellect. But logos alone couldn’t speak to the deep question human beings ask like, What is the meaning of life? and, Why do bad things happen to good people? For that, she said, people turned to mythos – stories, regardless of whether or not they were true, that helped us make sense out of the difficulties of life. They were therapeutic. We could think of them as an early form of psychology.

“Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear [that] we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the ‘God beyond God.’ The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry.”

Not only is the veracity of any religious story irrelevant, she seems to be saying, it is incorrect to believe any account concerning God as objectively true. To do so is to construct an idol of certainty. How do we know that? Because of the certainty of Darwinian evolution.

Her response, at bottom, isn’t much different from the atheist’s. Evolution is. God isn’t. But some of us like to imagine that he is.

Notice the source Dawkins and Armstrong consult for certain truth: Science. Why? Because Science proclaims what is.

The questions I’m pondering and posing are (1) At what point do the proclamations of science become imperialistic? and (2) At what point does an appropriate respect for science morph into worship?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2w17uJN

/by
Q&A_ Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

Q&A: Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

, ,

By Evan Minton

Hi Evan,

I really like your work, really helped me.

But I have a brother, he is agnostic, and he has a few objections I can’t answer (it’s so uncomfortable), so I decided to ask you.

The first is on skepticism in general. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s “man is a political animal”?
And then on the fine-tuning argument, well he has a weird objection, but I found it difficult (not very well read in this topic, only read on guard and Strobel), couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?

I thought it was arguing from ignorance, but another thing he said fine tuning only works from the perspective that we are the final product (carbon-based life).

So, I hope you understood these questions, have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?

Thanks, Evan.

Hugs

Thanks for your question. I’m glad you’ve found my work helpful in your walk with Christ.
On Skepticism

First, you ask “Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’?

Based on how you worded this section, it sounds to me like your brother has been reading Immanuel Kant. He seemed to make a similar argument that Kant made regarding the knowability of the world. In his weighty Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793) he argued that God is unknowable, and Kant also insisted that our mind and senses are so structured that we cannot know reality in itself (the noumenal realm) but only what appears to us (the phenomena). Thus, as Frank Turek humorously puts it: “According to Kant, you Kant know what the world is really like.”

The major problem with Kant’s argument is that it is self-refuting. That is to say, Kant, in claiming that the external world is unknowable is claiming to know something about the external world! Namely, that it’s unknowable! But how would Kant know that we cannot know reality in itself unless he knew at least one thing about reality? Thus, Kant’s view saws off the branch it’s sitting on. To affirm it, one needs access to the very thing the view says we can’t access.

So should we be skeptical about anything? Not if the basis of that skepticism is that all perception is subjective, for that relies on a self-refuting philosophy.

As far as the affirmation of moral values, I have always defended the objectivity of moral values and duties in the same way that Craig has. William Lane Craig states that the evidence for the existence of objective morality is on par with the evidence for the existence of the external physical world. We recognize that both are real because we can sense that they’re there. He states “In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Craig argues that our moral experience is on par with our physical experience. Our five senses tell us that the physical world is real, that you are really sitting there reading this blog post. In a similar way, your moral senses tell you what is good and what is evil. Now, we can’t get outside of our moral senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information, but neither can we get outside of our physical senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information. Should we, therefore, conclude that we can’t know what the physical world is like? Of course not. But then, why should we deny the existence of objective morality because we can’t get outside of our moral perceptions to test their reliability? I’ve noticed that most skeptics, in trying to knock down the epistemological justification of the second premise of the moral argument, they tend to make arguments that would undermine our 5 senses if the same logic was applied to them. For example, some will point out that different people have disagreements on whether a certain action is morally right or wrong (e.g. abortion, the eating of animals). Based on this, they’ll say that we, therefore, can’t trust our moral intuitions. But what if this line of reasoning was applied to our sense of sight? No one could forget that a whole internet sensation was based on a debate as to whether a dress was black/blue or white/gold. People disagreed on what color “The Dress” was. I remember back in the day disputing with my friends on the playground whether James of Team Rocket from the Pokemon anime had blue hair or purple hair. However, would anyone argue that such disagreements on color render color a non-objective feature of reality?

I think the person is within his rational rights in affirming the objectivity of morality on the basis of his moral compass unless he is presented with a powerful argument that his moral compass has a spring loose, so to speak. However, I’ve never encountered such a refutation.

An Objection To The Fine-Tuning Argument

Your brother objects to the fine-tuning argument with “Couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?” This is an objection to The Fine-Tuning argument that I get all the time in my conversations with non-theists.

Often these people make use of an illustration by Douglas Adams, the well-known author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (although this quote is not from that book):

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

Richard Dawkins applied this to the fine-tuning at Adams’ eulogy. Now, these atheists argue that just as that man is a fool, so we would be fools to believe the universe was designed so that we could exist.

The problem with this argument is that it radically misunderstands the consequences of what would happen if the physical constants and quantities were off.  Take the expansion rate of the universe for example. If the universe expanded too rapidly, then gravity would not have had the opportunity to collect gas and dust and condense it into galaxies, stars, and planets. The universe would forever
exist as nothing but isolated pieces of matter, gas, and dust. Because if the universe expanded too quickly, then all of the stuff of the universe would fly apart too quickly for gravity to take them and to condense them into galaxies, stars, and planets.  If the ratio of the number of electrons to protons were off by a little bit, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet
formation. Again, the universe would be completely devoid of galaxies, stars, and planets. If you don’t have galaxies, if you don’t have stars, and if you don’t have planets, you can’t have any life. One reason is that without a planet, there’s no hope for life to evolve and live on. A second thing is that, regardless of whether life must be carbon based, you need stars to “cook” the elements needed for life. No stars, no elements. No elements, no life. Even if one thinks silicon-based life forms are possible, stars are needed to make the silicon.

If the Strong Nuclear Force were slightly weaker, it would be too weak to bind together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, no atoms could exist in the universe except the hydrogen atom; the simplest atom there is, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. In the case of The Strong Nuclear Force being weaker, the only existing element would be hydrogen. You couldn’t possibly get to any higher levels of complexity in such a scenario.

So, it is my judgment that comparing the fine-tuning to a man waking up in a puddle is an analogy that…. doesn’t hold water.

Recommended Resources

“Have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?”

Sure! First and foremost, I’d suggest my own Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, a book that I’m currently working on upgrading in Google Docs. In the book, I talk about The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments, as well as the historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. According to one reviewer on Amazon, “His easy conversational style throughout the text reminds one of Max Lucado, and he presents material of great import in a comfortable manner that is a joy to read. This book is an excellent introduction to the most significant and well-founded Christian apologetics in the modern era and is well-suited to high school and college students, as well as adults interested in Christian apologetics and philosophy. I highly recommend this book.” another Amazon reviewer wrote “Mr. Minton helpfully surveys some of the best arguments for God’s existence, appealing to the most robust scholars and answering the most difficult challenges to the arguments. While some of the scholars who have written about philosophy of religion might be too academic and difficult to read, this author’s writing style makes the most complicated arguments (even the ontological argument) relatable. Recommended for those who are new to apologetics or those who want to brush up.” 

Another book I’d recommend is J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene. Among books on Natural Theology, this one is really unique. Like his previous book Cold Case Christianity, it reads like a combination of a detective novel and apologetic book. He lays out the evidence for a Creator on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of the moral law, the complexity of the cell, and even argues for the existence of the soul based on the phenomenon of consciousness, and he does it all from the perspective of a detective, in a very easy-to-read manner.

But I think the most accessible book on these topics would be Leslie Wickman’s God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator. Wickman is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, author and inspirational speaker.and is also executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (a non-profit organization promoting the dialog between science and faith), and as a Professor of Aerospace-Industrial-Mechanical Engineering at California Baptist University. Her book God Of The Big Bang should certainly be not “be too difficult for a 14-year-old.”

So,
1: “Inference To The One True God” by yours truly.

2: “God’s Crime Scene” by J. Warner Wallace

3: “God Of The Big Bang” by Leslie Wickman

are what I recommend.

God bless you.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/Dsiuae

/by
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

,

By Ryan Leasure

We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.

It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too

I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.

When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.

I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.

Advice On Sharing Your Faith

While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.

Pray

Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.

Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.

Avoid Jesus-Juking

A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.

As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.

Build Relationships

The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.

As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.

Be Ready To Give An Answer

One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?

I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

You’re Not Alone

If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.

You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by
How The Discovery Of The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Falsified Atheism

How The Discovery Of The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Falsified Atheism

,

By Wintery Knight

Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang.” At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.

So a couple of quotes to show that.

An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view, the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe but also of spacetime itself.

Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag).

And another quote:

[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.

So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Here’s the history of how that discovery happened, from the American Physical Society website:

Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, “This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology.” Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings.

The CMB is “noise” leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched, and Echo became obsolete.2

With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent “noise” of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static.

Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out “urban interference,” and did an analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4

Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. “To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shotgun…and at the very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma,” said Penzias.5 “And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction.”6

At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low-level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said: “well boys, we’ve been scooped.”7

Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB.

The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: “Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.”8

It’s the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.

In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery – the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:

The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.

Just one problem with the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century: atheists don’t accept it. Why not?

Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and physical chemist Peter Atkins.

You cannot have the creation of the universe be true, AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

 

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

/by
You Gotta Be More Specific

You Gotta Be More Specific

,

By Brent Hardaway

A blogger named MarkCC demonstrates a few common misunderstandings regarding Intelligent Design (ID).

First, we need to clarify some terms, as there is some jargon given in the post that the reader may not be familiar with.

Specified Event – The phrase “Go Take Out the Trash” is a specified arrangement of letters. The jumbled letter sequence “smets qwoand nduams iba” is not specified, as it is not a pattern that is recognizable. How this relates to the ID is that if you come to the dining room table and see some Alpha-Bits arranged in the first sequence (even if not perfectly straight), you’d assume that your housemate purposely arranged them as communication to someone else, quite possibly you. That would be a specified event. But if you saw the second sequence not perfectly straight, you would be pretty likely to assume that your housemate carelessly spilled some out of the box and didn’t bother to clean it up. That would be non-specified. And applying this to the origin of life, there are many features of life (like DNA and proteins), that exhibit sequences of code that are specific. For example, the work of MIT molecular biologist Robert Sauer came to the conclusion that for a protein chain that was 92 amino acids long, only 1 in 10^63 could perform some function in cellular life.[1] So language and proteins are pretty similar in that letters/amino acids form chains of readable sentences/working proteins.

Universal Probability Bound – What if we could spill some Alpha-Bits every second? Wouldn’t we eventually get the phrase regarding the trash? Well, if we were able to spill exactly the same amount, and the odds of a space appearing as often as a letter was equal, it would happen about once every 1.14 Octillion years.[2] So even if I live to be 100, it’s absurd to think I would ever achieve that sequence by randomly spilling Alpha-Bits. I’d have an astronomically far greater chance of winning the lottery. There are only so many “rolls of the dice,” in such cases. So, in other words, beyond a certain point, we have to rule out blind luck as an explanation and attribute an improbable event to design guided by some intelligence. That would be the “Universal Probability Bound.” Dembski suggests that this should be any odds around 1 in 10^150. This is what he calls the number of “probabilistic resources.” This is based on the number of possible events in the universe. And when he says “events,” he’s using the most minimal definition possible. It is the maximum number of times that all the elementary particles in the universe could have reacted with energy!

Now on to the post –

“Here’s the fundamental dishonesty: None of those numbers have *anything* to do with what he’s supposedly trying to prove. He’s trying to create a formal-sounding version of the big-number problem by throwing together a bunch of fancy-sounding numbers, multiplying them together, and claiming that they somehow suddenly have meaning. But they don’t. It’s actually remarkably easy to show what utter nonsense this is. I’ll do a fancy one first, and a trivial one second.”

Rather, MarkCC has not understood Dembski’s argument. As the second example is easier to understand, we’ll start with that one.

“Grab two decks of distinguishable cards. Shuffle them together, and lay them out for a game of spider solitaire. What’s the probability of that particular lay of cards? 104! , or, very roughly, something larger than 1×10166. Is god personally arranging my cards every time I play spider? Anyone who’s ever taken any class on probability *knows* this stuff.”

The blogger has missed Dembski’s point. Yes, the odds of ANY one sequence with two decks of cards is 1 in 10^166, but what Dembski is looking for is a SPECIFIC sequence. To put it another way, what MarkCC must do to falsify Dembski’s point is either to 1) Predict a specific sequence of 104 cards or 2) Shuffle the cards randomly twice, and get them in the same sequence each time. The odds of that happening are indeed 1 in 10^166, but the percent chance of getting another result is 99.9999999999%, carried out to 164 decimal places. In other words, a non-specific sequence is virtually certain, and a specific one is virtually impossible.

One commenter named Corkscrew notes this, but then goes on to say,

“Of course, this presents two further problems. Firstly, as you’ve mentioned before, the whole concept of specification is complete bollocks. AFAICT it basically boils down to how cool something looks – if it makes Dembski go “whoa…” it’s specified.”

This is actually kind of humorous, as this very statement is itself an example of a specification. I don’t say that because it made me go “Whoa,” but because it’s recognizable as an English sentence. What would Corkscrew think if I said “I can’t tell if a person actually wrote this. Perhaps they’re just random letters generated by a computer”? And as we noted before, written sentences are a valid analogy to the coding required in DNA and proteins.

“Secondly, the whole concept of probabilistic resources is completely borked. It assumes a discrete universe. We do not live in a discrete universe. It assumes that every configuration has effectively the same chance of appearing. This is blatant bull.”

This is true enough – but that is only relevant if the bases that make DNA and the amino acids that makeup proteins are significantly (to an astronomical degree) more likely to group together in ways that make them actually function than not. Corkscrew does not provide any evidence that this is the case. And as we shall see that, in fact, Dembski’s estimation of probabilistic resources available to get life from non-life is far too generous.

Now, let’s move onto his “fancy” example –

“Let’s create an incredibly simplified model of a region of space. Let’s say we have a cube of space, 1 kilometer on a side. Further, let’s suppose that this space contains 1000 particles, and they are all electrons. And further, let’s suppose that each 1mm cube in this cubic kilometer can only have one electron in it.”

He goes on to calculate the number of possible configurations of these particles as 10^5232, way more than Dembski’s probability bound. He asks,

“So what Dembski is saying is that *every* possible configuration of matter in space in the entire universe is impossible without intelligent intervention.”

That isn’t at all what Dembski is saying. In fact, this moves us on to the next point of the ID argument. The number of possible combinations greatly outweigh the possible number of trials. As it relates to life forms, the late astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that there are 10^40,000 amino acid combinations for the complete set of 2,000 actual known enzyme proteins that exist [3]– and this is just one of many features of life that need to appear. It isn’t that God is necessary to arrange any possible sequence of these amino acids. The problem is there are only 10^150 possible events. If each event was a complete trial arranging different combinations of amino acids, we still wouldn’t come close to finding the very few specific sequences that can form life.

But it’s actually much worse than that for three reasons –

1) Each event is only what one elementary particle does with energy. When molecules form, quite a few particles are involved – and each one would consume at least one event, reducing the number of available trials to form life.

2) In reality, no one believes that a cell or group of proteins came together all at once, but that these things formed via a step-by-step process. But a step-by-step process would take many events. This would also reduce the number of trials.

3) There are plenty of environments, such as the air that you are breathing, or the sun, that are not at all conducive to forming any of the building blocks of life. This reduces the number of trials even further.

Once these misunderstandings have been cleared up, Dembski’s argument stands.

Notes

[1] Meyer, Steven. Darwin’s Doubt, p. 180

[2] The calculation is 27 ^21 = 1.14 * 10^30.

[3] “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981 p.105

 

Brent Hardaway is a Financial Analyst living in the Tampa, FL area. Originally from Northern CA, he has a B.S. in Accounting from San Diego State University and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is an avid baseball and football fan, and enjoys reading and playing golf in his spare time.

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

/by
Why Do You Believe In God_

Why Do You Believe In God?

, ,

by Justin Steckbauer

If someone asks me, “Why do you believe in God?” I don’t necessarily say “I just have faith.”

Many might say that. But for someone who asks that question, I need to know how to defend my faith. So my response is this:

I think it’s very reasonable to believe in God. Let me tell you why:

  1. The universe exists, and it must have a cause, everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist. Evolution can’t create, neither can science. The universe needs a first cause that is timeless, outside the system and infinitely powerful.  God is the logical first cause (cosmological argument).
  2. The universe is finely tuned, there is order in the universe at work that allows for planets, stars, and galaxies. There are laws in the universe, constants like gravity, relativity, and so on. It’s reasonable that when we find mathematical laws and cosmological laws in the universe, that there is a powerful being that created those systems (argument from design).
  3. Within the human cell, we find massive amounts of information. When we look at the human eye, we see a system so incredibly complicated that it could never come about by chance. When scientists look into the human body, they see a complex yet harmonious system of machinery. We see cells and tissue, and DNA and systems that all function as one, and are irreducibly complex. (specified complexity, irreducibly complexity).
  4. The human mind intuitively knows that there is good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad. Objective moral laws exist, they are universal. If objective morals exist, then an objective moral lawgiver must exist; therefore God exists (moral argument).

 

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

/by