If God Created The Universe, Who Created God

If God Created The Universe, Who Created God?

, ,

By Evan Minton 

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

What Does The Bible Say In Response To This Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

, ,

By Natasha Crain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. If God does exist, miracles ARE possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. There is strong historical evidence for the resurrection.

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Jesus validated the truth of the Old Testament.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by
Apologetics is Not For The Heart

Apologetics is Not For The Heart

By Richard Eng

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

But something happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by
Evidencias del ajuste fino del universo

Evidencias del ajuste fino del universo

By Hugh Ross

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

Strong nuclear force constant

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

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

Weak nuclear force constant

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

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

Gravitational force constant

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

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

Electromagnetic force constant

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

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the electromagnetic force constant and the gravitational force constant

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

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

Relationship between electron mass and proton mass

If it is higher: insufficient chemical bonds.

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the number of protons and the number of electrons

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

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

Expansion rate of the universe

If it is larger: galaxies would not form.

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

Level of entropy of the universe

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

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

Mass density of the universe

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

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

Speed ​​of light

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

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

Age of the universe

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

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

Initial uniformity of radiation

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

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

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

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

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

Average distance between galaxies

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

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

Average distance between stars

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

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

Proton decay rate.

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

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

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

If it is higher: insufficient amount of oxygen.

If it is lower: insufficient amount of carbon.

Base energy level of Helium 4 He 4

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

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

Decay rate of Beryllium 8 (Be 8 )

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

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

Excess of the neutron mass over the proton mass

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

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

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

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

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

Polarity of the water molecule

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

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

Supernova eruptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Binary white dwarfs

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

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

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

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

Relationship between exotic matter and ordinary matter

If it is smaller: galaxies would not form.

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

Note

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

 

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

Translated by Alejandro Field

/by
Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Por Huge Ross

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argumento 2: el diseño del universo es simple antropomorfismo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argumento 4: el orden puede surgir del caos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notas

[1] Swinburne, p. 165.

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Barrow y Tipler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2OERFPO

Traducido por Alejandro Field

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

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

Por Scott Youngren

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

-Astrofísico y Matemático de Cambridge University, Fred Hoyle

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

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

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

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

Lennox continúa citando la respuesta de Penrose:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo y María Andreina Cerrada

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2DaRUzM

/by
A Quantum Christian

Un cristiano cuántico

By Terrell Clemmons

The man to whom science proved religion

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

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

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

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

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

A dangerous book

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

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

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

A violent man conquered by God

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

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

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

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

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

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

A violent man conquered by God

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

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

 

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

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
5 Things Christian Parents Must Do to Raise Godly Children in a Secular World

5 cosas que los padres cristianos deben hacer para criar hijos piadosos en un mundo secular

Por Natasha Crain

En los últimos años, he tenido la oportunidad de hablar en varias conferencias cristianas y en iglesias acerca de la importancia de que los padres les enseñen apologética a sus hijos (cómo presentar defensa de la verdad de la fe cristiana). Cuando doy una charla, a menudo empiezo haciendo las siguientes dos preguntas.

Primero, les pregunto a los padres: “¿Cuántos de ustedes han venido aquí sabiendo que nuestro mundo se está volviendo muy secular y que, por esta razón, es probable que la fe de su hijo sea desafiada de alguna manera?”

El cien por ciento levanta la mano… todo el tiempo.

Segundo, les pregunto a los padres: “¿Cuántos de ustedes podrían afirmar que tienen la confianza de que saben específicamente cuáles serán esos grandes desafíos en cuanto a la fe?, ¿cómo tratarlos eficazmente con sus niños, y cómo se traduce eso en las responsabilidades parentales en el día a día?”

El cero por ciento levanta la mano… todo el tiempo.

Durante estos últimos cuatro años en los que he escrito en mi blog acerca de la crianza en los hogares cristianos, he tenido la oportunidad de recibir comentarios de cientos de padres. Esta brecha entre 1) saber que nuestro mundo secular afectará la fe de nuestros hijos y 2) comprender lo que eso significa exactamente para los padres, es casi universal, y con frecuencia, esto provoca temor y frustración: los padres saben que hay un problema, pero no saben cómo solucionarlo.

Esta brecha me llevó a escribir: “Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith” (Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios: 40 Conversaciones para ayudarles a edificar una fe duradera). Con este libro, deseo ayudar a los padres a identificar y a comprender 40 de los desafíos más importantes en cuanto a la fe que necesitan abordar con sus hijos para que tales desafíos ya no se vean ambiguos e inmanejables. Pero una vez que los padres logran tener este entendimiento crítico, sigue presente la pregunta: ¿cómo se traduce eso en las responsabilidades parentales?

Aquí hay cinco puntos clave a tener en cuenta.

  1. Los padres deben comprometerse a profundizar continuamente en el entendimiento del cristianismo.

En un mundo secular, los niños con frecuencia se enfrentarán a desafíos en cuanto a su fe: especialmente de los ateos verbales. Los ateos a menudo están bien preparados para presentar sus argumentos en contra de Dios, y del cristianismo en particular. Desafortunadamente, muchos padres cristianos no están igualmente preparados para enseñarles a sus hijos a defender la verdad del cristianismo y proclamar sus creencias. Las preguntas que aparecen a continuación son de suma importancia para que los niños entiendan hoy, pero pocos padres están equipados para tratarlas de manera proactiva: ¿Qué evidencias hay en cuanto a la existencia de Dios? ¿Por qué un Dios Bueno permite la maldad y el sufrimiento? ¿Cómo un Dios amoroso puede enviar gente al infierno? ¿Es la fe en Dios contraria a la razón? ¿Cuáles son los hechos históricos de la resurrección con los que casi todos los eruditos están de acuerdo? ¿Cómo pueden creer los cristianos que los Milagros son posibles? ¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia que tenemos hoy dice lo que los autores escribieron originalmente? ¿La Biblia apoya la esclavitud, la violación y los sacrificios humanos (como alegan los escépticos)?

En el pasado, cuando la sociedad era más cristiana —al menos nominalmente—, es posible que los padres podían evitar tratar las preguntas más difíciles de la fe con sus hijos (¡no que lo hayan hecho!). Pero los desafíos del presente requieren mucho más de los padres cristianos fieles. Debemos conocer cuáles son los grandes desafíos, equiparnos para hacerles frente y comprometernos a profundizar continuamente el entendimiento de nuestra fe para que podamos guiar a nuestros hijos debidamente.

  1. Los padres deben hacer intencionadamente un “espacio espiritual” en sus hogares.

Por supuesto, no basta profundizar tu propio entendimiento del cristianismo. De alguna manera debes traspasar tu entendimiento a tus hijos, y ese traspaso requiere de un tiempo apartado cuidadosamente. El tipo de conversaciones de fe que necesitamos tener con nuestros hijos hoy (al igual que las preguntas que aparecen en el punto 1) no van a suceder simplemente de manera significativa, a menos que te hagas un espacio espiritual para ellas. Por espacio espiritual, me refiero a un tiempo exclusivo para comprometerse como familia a crecer en el entendimiento y en la relación con Dios. No hay ninguna razón por la que un momento como éste no debe programarse, al igual que todas las demás actividades (menos importantes) de tu vida. Si actualmente no lo estás haciendo, comienza con unos 30 minutos por semana. Es una cantidad de tiempo razonable para cualquier familia, y siempre puedes desarrollarlo a partir de allí.

  1. Los padres deben estudiar la Biblia con sus hijos. De verdad.

Aun cuando has de saber que el estudio de la Biblia es importante, las estadísticas muestran que probablemente no lo estés haciendo: Menos de 1 de 10 familias cristianas estudian la Biblia juntos en una semana determinada. Si tus hijos perciben que has puesto la Biblia a un lado de las cosas importantes, tienen muy pocas razones para verla como el libro de autoridad tal como lo afirmamos nosotros como cristianos. No tiene ningún sentido que digas que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios si no la tratas como tal.

Mientras tanto, la Biblia es el punto de ataque favorito de los escépticos y nuestros hijos tendrán una enorme oportunidad de oír que es un libro antiguo e irrelevante, lleno de inexactitudes y contradicciones. Si no estudias tu Biblia con tus hijos regularmente, llegará un buen momento en que a ellos ya no les importará lo que tiene para decirles. (Lee mi artículo: “Don’t Expect Your Kids to Care What the Bible Says Unless You’ve Given Them Reason to Believe It’s True” para ver más sobre este tema) [No esperes que a tus hijos les importe lo que la Biblia dice a menos que les hayas dado razones para creer que es verdad].

  1. Los padres deben, proactiva y regularmente, preguntarles a sus hijos qué tipo de consultas tienen sobre la fe.

En un mundo secular, donde los niños constantemente oyen sobre las cosmovisiones que compiten entre sí, te garantizo que continuamente surgirán las preguntas. Pero hay muchas razones por las que los niños no las hacen: a ellos les pueden estar pasando demasiadas cosas, tienen temor a tus reacciones o tal vez, ellos simplemente no están suficientemente interesados como para hablar de ellas.

En nuestra casa, hemos implementado una “noche de preguntas” programada para ayudarles en este respecto. Puedes leer sobre cómo empezar la tuya en mi artículo: “How to Get Your Kids to Ask More Questions about Their Faith” (Cómo hacer que tus hijos te hagan más preguntas acerca de la fe).

  1. Los padres deben hacer a sus hijos las preguntas difíciles que a ellos no se les ocurren.

Si regularmente animas a tus hijos a que te hagan preguntas sobre la fe (ver el punto 4), tendrás un montón de conversaciones geniales. Pero muchas de las preguntas que son importantes para que tus hijos entiendan a la hora de prepararse para enfrentarse al mundo secular son aquellas que tal vez jamás se les han pasado por la mente. Por ejemplo, a la mayoría de los niños no se les ocurre preguntar cómo sabemos que la Biblia que tenemos hoy dice lo que escribieron los autores originales. Pero eso no quiere decir que sea menos probable que se van a encontrar con escépticos que les dirán que la Biblia no es para nada confiable por esa misma razón. Así como no esperamos que nuestros hijos nos hagan preguntas sobre la Segunda Guerra Mundial antes de decidir qué, cómo y cuándo enseñarles acerca de ella, no debemos esperar a que nuestros hijos tengan que enfrentar los desafíos para empezar a hablar de ellos. Indudablemente, van a oír acerca de estos temas de los escépticos en algún punto, así que no hay razón para que no los escuchen de nosotros primero.

keeping your kids in God's side

Recursos de mayor impacto:

 

Natasha Crain es una bloguera, autora y oradora nacional que siente pasión por equipar a los padres cristianos para educar a sus hijos en la comprensión de cómo presentar un caso y defender su fe en un mundo cada vez más secular. Es autora de dos libros de apologética para padres: Talking with Your Kids about God (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios) (2017) y  Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (Manteniendo a tus hijos del lado de Dios) (2016). Natasha tiene un Maestría en marketing y estadísticas en la UCLA y un certificado en apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Ex ejecutiva de mercadotecnia y profesora adjunta, vive en el sur de California con su esposo y sus tres hijos.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ST55uL

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Redeeming the Kavanaugh Debacle

Redeeming the Kavanaugh Debacle

By Michael Sherrard 

People are hurting. People are angry. And truth be told, fear is the likely emotion consuming many right now– fear of losing position and power, fear of retaliation, fear of exploitation. Some fears are appropriate and some fears misplaced, but all fears can become something dangerous if left alone. Christians, now, is the time to quench this spirit of fear and to bring comfort and peace into the midst of this politically hostile mess created by those lacking restraint and discernment. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to redeem this time by forging unity in the fire that has been stoked by the Kavanaugh confirmation, and even more, I think there is a chance for the Gospel to be heard.

It is often difficult to find common ground with opponents. Some issues are polarizing with little common interest. This is not true of the Kavanaugh case. Let me explain. On one side of the fight is a group that is passionately proclaiming that victims of sexual abuse should feel free and safe to come forward and report that they have been attacked. Now, who in their right mind could disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create an oppressive society that blames victims and generally distrusts them? Of course not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school bullies. We agree.

Similarly, on the other side of the fight, there is a group passionately proclaiming that we should not allow anyone’s life to be ruined or suffer a severe penalty because of an accusation that cannot be verified. Does anyone disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create a whimsical court of public opinion where we feel obligated to choose sides based on who we think is more believable? Surely not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school cool kids. Again, we agree.

I think this is amazing. In one of the most heated political battles among many recent heated political battles, there is an opportunity for unity. Let’s redeem this pain. Let us join together and fight to ensure that we have a world of justice and equity where victims are safe to name their attacker and citizens are protected from false accusations. Are we too stupid of a people to figure this out? Or are we too selfish to pursue what is commonly good instead of using every public event to advance our personal agenda?

Christians, let’s be the peacekeepers here. This is an occasion to put on display the teachings of Jesus and the fruit of His Spirit. Love your political opponent by being self-controlled, patient, gentle, and kind as you listen to another’s point of view. Being heard is a joyful experience that results in peace. Give this gift to others and build bridges instead of lighting them on fire. Take a deep breath, control your emotions, and forge unity with those that are on the other side. Imagine the gift of hope we can give this world right now if we are able to do this. Think of the public good God will have accomplished through us, and think of the gospel implications.

Let us live in such a way that we earn the right to be heard. When we have a well-earned platform, make much of Jesus. Stop griping and complaining that the world is going to Hell. Instead, take advantage of every opportunity to make sure that it doesn’t. I think this is our time to let the light of Christ shine through our patience, discernment, and gentleness. May this be so in all of us.

 

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/2yIjd1m

/by
How the Most Important Attribute of God Relates to Christian Apologetics

How the Most Important Attribute of God Relates to Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Many issues that surround Christian apologetics are philosophical in nature. Thus, if we are going to be good apologists we need to be good philosophers. Evangelical apologists and philosophers typically follow the analytic tradition in philosophy, which seeks to answer individual questions or problems, but it lacks a systematic approach to philosophy. For example, instead of starting with a complete philosophical system from which to make sense of things, analytic philosophers tend to take issues individually without trying to connect them with other issues. A systematic approach tries to tie everything together. There are several weaknesses to taking such an aggregate approach to philosophy. One is that positions on certain issues have a tendency to become ad hoc (sort of made up as they go). A systematic approach is more complete and consistent.

Generally, systematic approaches start with metaphysics (one’s view of reality, what it means to be real, etc.). Without going into all of the underlying metaphysics, which would be another article (book!) in itself, I am going to argue that divine simplicity, which is born out of an Aristotelian metaphysics that was adapted for Christian theology by such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas, is a foundational starting point for our view of God but also offers invaluable help to the practice of Christian apologetics. (I have written an article explaining what divine simplicity is, so if you don’t know, you may want to read the article before proceeding.)

Divine Simplicity Strengthens Christian Apologetics in these Areas:

God’s Existence

When arguing for God’s existence, we are making philosophical claims and arguments. Natural science cannot lead us to God without using philosophical categories and moves. (See my article that argues philosophical arguments for God are better than “scientific” ones.) Those who hold to Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics argue that any God arrived at via theistic proofs that do not demonstrate a simple God does not arrive at God period. The reason is that the ultimate cause for all finite being cannot itself be caused, or it wouldn’t be the ultimate cause. There also can’t be an infinite regress of causes in this regard as that is tantamount to having no cause at all. Only a simple God is really God because only a simple God is not composed of parts that need to be put together.

Of course, the notion of divine simplicity doesn’t prove his existence, as that would be circular. My point is that a God that is composed is no God at all. Simplicity then is a conclusion arrived at via metaphysical demonstration regarding God’s existence. (See Thomas Aquinas’ First Way to see how this simple being that is pure existence, or Pure Act, is demonstrated.)

God-talk

If God is thus a simple being, he is very unique. In fact, there is nothing like him. Created being is not like uncreated being. The former is limited, changing, temporal, etc. (except for angels which are in a different category). God is unlimited, unchanging, and eternal. This means that the way we talk about God is not like how we talk about the things in the world. We can know the things in the world directly (for the most part). We know God indirectly through creation. As Paul says in Romans 1, we know about his invisible qualities via the visible creation. Thus, our knowledge of God is not direct, and we must understand that our language does not track him like it tracks the created world. So terms that are applied to creatures don’t mean the same thing when applied to God. In fact, in some ways, they don’t even mean the same thing when applied to other sensible things. For example, when I say something like “my cheeseburger is good,” “my shoes are good,” “my car is good,” or “John is good,” I don’t mean exactly the same thing by “good” in each statement. To be a good cheeseburger is different than to be a good pair of shoes, or car, or person. This is because the concept of “good” is contracted to the referent in question. In other words, the objects have different natures and when I say “x is good” I’m saying that x is a good example of what it means to be a part of that category of things. But the only way we can say something is good is by being able to know the nature of the thing in question. We know cheeseburgers, shoes, cars, and people. However, we don’t have such knowledge of the infinite, uncreated being of God. What does it mean to be a good God? Well, whatever it means, it doesn’t mean that God is good by doing something. He does not measure up to some standard in the way that humans do. To be a good human means that we act the way a human should act. But there is no such scenario with God if he is simple. Humans actualize a potential to be good or virtuous. But God exists necessarily if simplicity is true. He can’t actualize anything since that would make him composed and thus not simple. This way of talking and “knowing” God has profound effects on many issues, including how we understand his attributes, how he relates to us, and the problem of evil.

God’s Attributes

Divine simplicity is foundational for the rest of his attributes. If he is not simple, then he can change, be in time, be affected, etc. In other words, process theology would be true since God would be in a process. This is a flat denial, explicitly or implicitly, of classical/orthodox Christianity. If God is simple, then he is metaphysically perfect, eternal, unchanging, and impassible. Other areas, such as divine omnipotence and omniscience are influenced by simplicity. Whatever divine knowledge would be, if God is simple, then his knowledge could not be passive since that would mean that his knowledge is changing, which requires a composition of what he actually is as opposed to what he could be (e.g., learning new truths). Christian apologetics seeks to defend the traditional God of Christianity. A God of process theology is no such God.

Such a view of God also defends classical theism from views that are held by evangelicals and otherwise mainline Christians. For example, it is in vogue to argue that if God knows changing things like what is going on in the world, then his knowledge is changing and he is thus temporal, changeable, and possible. However, if God is simple, then such cannot be the case. But this view of knowledge supposes that God knows in roughly the same way that humans know. Humans have to “look outside” of themselves and passively receive sense impressions. However, if God is pure act, then he cannot receive anything or be changed in any way. It is this notion of God being a pure act that argues against the notion that God is a bystander just watching the world or creating it and letting it exist on its own apart from him. Such a view is deism. God does not stop being the cause of things after the come into existence. He is the sustaining cause and keeps them in existence. Thus, he doesn’t have to look outside himself in any way. He knows all of creation by knowing himself as the cause of all else that exists. Thus, to know something that is temporal does not make it such that his knowledge must be passive and temporal. Rather, his knowledge is active and even causative. Such distinctions change the contours of philosophical theology, which has an application in apologetics.

Problem of Evil

How can a good God allow evil? This is one of the hardest questions to answer, and it is also probably the most frequently asked question too. Much of the time the question of evil and suffering is brought up against God’s existence since it doesn’t seem like a good God could allow so much evil. One major aspect to this issue is what is known as theodicy, or the justification of God regarding evil. Most evangelicals seem to want to justify God in the face of evil and thereby offer some kind of theodicy. However, if God is simple and a completely different kind of being than humans, we should ask if God is, in fact, a being that can even be good in the moral sense. If he is not a moral being, then offering a theodicy to justify God is a waste of time and also wrongheaded. If simplicity is true, then God is metaphysically perfect in that he is a complete unlimited existence that lacks nothing; but he is not subject to moral standards. He transcends those types of categories. This does not solve every aspect of the problem of evil, but it should show that the argument that a good God wouldn’t allow evil is on the wrong track since God is not subject to moral categories. (See this article on why God is not a moral being and this article on how God is good.)

Conclusion

I hope I have demonstrated that divine simplicity is important not only to a correct philosophical theology but also to apologetics. There are many objections to divine simplicity. I have explained and responded to some of those objections here, so I won’t re-write that material. There are only two views of God: classical theism that maintains divine simplicity, and process theology that denies it.

 

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

/by