Tag Archive for: apologetics

Historical Evidence of the Resurrection: A Debate with a Skeptical Friend

Historical Evidence of the Resurrection: A Debate with a Skeptical Friend

,

By Tim Stratton

While attending Biola University, Dr. Clay Jones gave me the assignment to engage in friendly and respectful debate with a skeptical non-believer regarding the historical resurrection of Jesus. A deep-thinking friend of mine (who happened to be an atheist who would debate my views quite often) graciously accepted my invitation to have this conversation. The following is my conversation with Justin.

I am humbled and honored to have a friend like you, Justin! Thank you!

My initial case

Dear Justin,

Thank you for having this conversation with me! Please feel free to take your time when responding. I will try to get back to you within one week after each of your responses. I will be making a case that we have good reason to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. To accomplish this task, I will not begin with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God; rather, I will begin by treating the 27 books of the New Testament as they were originally written – as individual historical narratives.

All of Christianity hangs on the Resurrection! Even the Apostle Paul realized this and said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain” (1st Corinthians 15:14). That is to say, if the Resurrection did not really happen, then Christians are idiots, and wasting their time on Sunday mornings! They should be out playing golf instead! However, if Jesus really did rise from the dead, then life has way more meaning than a game of golf!

Do Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? When it comes to studying ancient history, we need to abide by the “Rules of Historical Research.” As Mike Licona has pointed out, to establish something of the ancient past as historical, we need to have multiple, and converging lines of evidence such as:

  • eyewitness data
  • closeness to the facts
  • criteria

We don’t say, “Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great never existed!” In fact, we not only believe they existed, but we believe we actually know many things about them. When it comes to establishing historical data, it does not matter that something happened 2000 years ago — what matters is this: do we have access to an event that happened 2000 years ago? Licona has taught me that historians don’t just take one person’s word for it. They come to their conclusions through converging lines of evidence, such as:

–  written

–  pictorial

– inferential

– archaeological

– Etc.…

Again, no one doubts Alexander the Great, Caesar, or the history written about them. We have great historical reasons to conclude that we actually have knowledge of these individuals and many things they did. However, the sources confirming the historicity of these men, and their lives, are far inferior than the sources we have for Jesus! We not only have New Testament sources (27 individual historical documents collected into one volume) but even trained atheistic scholars and historians will go to the New Testament and use it for their purposes (I am treating it just as they do — I am not assuming anything special or supernatural about the Bible).

With this in mind, skeptical scholars will never say we cannot use the New Testament as a historical document — because it is a historical document — and it is recognized as such. Obviously, atheistic historians don’t conclude it is the inspired word of God, because, they don’t believe in anything “supernatural.” However, they conclude that the books that have been compiled into the Bible, are historical books written by people who lived a long time ago and who believed in God. These skeptics just arbitrarily choose to ignore the parts that have anything to do with the supernatural only because of their assumptions (blind faith) in naturalism (that nature is all that exists).

Moreover, on top of the many independent reports of the New Testament, we also have over a dozen non-biblical sources of Jesus within 100 years after his life! Every single one of them is NON-CHRISTIAN! Plus, we have archeological sources, and other Christian sources apart from the New Testament. When you compile all of this evidence together, it’s an incredible amount of historical evidence and information about the man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Justin, I know what you are probably thinking right now, “But how can you know anything about an event that happened 2000 years ago?”

When it comes to good history, the crucial time gap is not between the time of the event and today; the crucial time gap is between the time of the event and the evidence for the event! As William Lane Craig has pointed out, if the gap between the event itself and the evidence for the event is short, then it doesn’t matter how long the evidence and the event have receded into the past. Craig says,

“Good evidence does not become bad evidence, just because of the passage of time!”

Therefore, it’s irrelevant how long ago the Resurrection occurred. What’s critical is the GAP between the evidence and the event that the evidence is about! In the case of Jesus, that gap is extremely short.

Many volumes have been written providing evidence pointing to a historical resurrection of Jesus (from Josh McDowell to Lee Strobel, to N.T. Wright), but I want to offer some facts that a couple of my profs at Biola have been using in recent debates with famous skeptics. (I highly recommend the work of Dr. Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig when it comes to the evidence of the resurrection!) In fact, if you want to do your own study, I highly recommend a book by Michael Licona entitled, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

Let’s examine a little passage of scripture, with HUGE implications! Remember, I am only treating scripture as ancient history, nothing more! Consider this piece of evidence we find in the pre-biblical oral tradition that was handed down to the Apostle Paul, which he then records in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

This creed states, “that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, and that He died and was buried, and that He rose from the dead on the third day and that He was seen by eyewitnesses.” It is obvious from the wording used in this creed that it did not originate with Paul, the author of 1st Corinthians. This is even accepted by the vast majority of non-Christian scholars, that Paul must have received this creed by someone else in Jerusalem (probably Peter and James) anywhere from two to eight years after the crucifixion.

Paul says, “I gave you what I was given!”

Since this saying already existed when it was first given to Paul, we can logically infer this creed was established even earlier, and therefore, these beliefs would pre-date the oral tradition itself, which amazingly brings us right back to the historical moment of the crucifixion of Jesus!

We have early documentation that hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus and gave testimony of this within months of his death. This provides warrant to believe that the claims stated in this creed are true. Moreover, we must also consider the illogicality of this creed being invented and accepted in the very town Jesus was reported to have lived in and was executed in, at the very time of His execution, if this Jesus story was just a myth. To understand how unlikely it is that such a thing could happen if Jesus had never actually lived, or the resurrection being a myth, imagine the following scenario provided by Amy Hall:

Suppose you decide you would like to start your own religion (because there’s a lot of money in it), so you invent the story of an amazing man named Hobart. You head off for Los Angeles and start proclaiming that just a couple of years ago, Hobart had, in that very city, done countless miracles and caused such an uproar that, eventually, the city officials got involved and held a public execution (on Venice Beach), but then Hobart—amazing as he was—rose from the dead and made numerous appearances around L.A.

How many followers would you get?  Besides Tom Cruise, you would be lucky if you got one! Let alone thousands who would be willing to die for this story!

Everyone in Los Angeles would remember perfectly well that no such man had existed. You would never gain enough followers to get any sort of movement started. Such a plan is obviously ridiculous and doomed to failure. And yet, to claim that Jesus never existed, and the multiple appearances of the risen Jesus never happened, one would have to assume this very scenario occurred successfully in first century Jerusalem—a city with significantly fewer people than Los Angeles! This is not likely.

We can come to our conclusions through the multiple testimonies of people who were either companions of Jesus themselves and of other people who knew the companions of Jesus! This is fantastic and extremely EARLY evidence! When we look at the past to see what actually occurred, we look for multiple independent sources, eye-witness sources, early sources, embarrassing reports, etc… We have all of this in abundance when it comes to the Resurrection! In fact, as Mike Licona once told me,

“We have as much data that Jesus rose from the dead, if not more than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC!”

The vast majority of the harshest, skeptical, and atheistic historians admit up to twelve things as historical fact about Jesus. These twelve facts create an overwhelming cumulative case for the Resurrection of Jesus. However, we only need three of the twelve to make a minimal case. For our purposes, I will use five to come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead:

1- Jesus died by crucifixion.

2- Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.

3- The church persecutor and Christian hunter, Saul, was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.

4- The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the Gospel.

5- The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

These are the accepted facts regarding Jesus. So, as historians, we need to ask what hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts? The Resurrection hypothesis can account for all of them, and no naturalistic hypothesis offered can account for all of these together. I encourage you to come up with one.

To decipher the inference to the best explanation, we use the criteria of the historical method. The hypothesis that best meets all of the criteria is to be preferred and regarded as to what most likely (or probably) occurred. Here are the five points of criteria:

  • Explanatory Scope
  • Explanatory Power
  • Plausibility
  • Less Ad Hoc or Contrived
  • It provides Illumination

With the criteria in mind, Mike Licona said:

“The MAIN objection to the resurrection, is not a lack of historical evidence (we have that); rather, it’s a matter of WORLDVIEW, because the resurrection of Jesus requires a Supernatural Being to exist.

If you consider my essay on the Kalam Cosmological Argument you will notice that we sound philosophical evidence — supported by the scientific data — that a Supernatural “Cause” of the Universe does exist! If we have evidence of a “Supernatural Cause and Creator of the Universe,” the resurrection of Jesus by this Supernatural being would be mere “child’s play!” Therefore, one has no grounds to reject the historical evidence in regards to the resurrection of Jesus.

What do you think, Justin? I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Tim

Justin’s first objection

Hey, Tim. Sorry for the late reply. I haven’t had that much free time as I work anywhere from 60-110 hours a week!

While reading your argument, something popped into mind. We do know about Alexander the Great. But, not as much as we think we know. Just like the possible life/death of Jesus. It’s written in the scripture that he died from the wounds, as a result of the crucifixion.

I ask you this question: Would it be possible that Jesus didn’t really die as a result? 1st century Jerusalem was not very medically advanced. So, it would be possible that the “examiner” would be wrong and placed his body in the tomb. When Jesus awoke, he left the tomb.

It’s not unheard of to hear about people being buried alive, as it happened all the way up to the early 1900’s.

Tim’s response

Those are very good questions, Justin! Is it possible that Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion? Is it possible that the Romans thought Jesus was dead when he was just completely “beat up?” Is it then possible that Jesus woke up in the tomb, and walked out?

As I mentioned in my original email, it is accepted as historical fact that Jesus was crucified; however, does this mean we can have certainty about his death? I agree with you, Justin, we have all heard of someone that has been declared dead, and hours later started breathing again. If this still happens today, how can we be sure it didn’t happen 2000 years ago? Let’s label this hypothesis as the “Apparent Death Theory” (ADT), and see how it stands up when compared to historical and medical research.

I think the ADT is highly unlikely, implausible, and NOT the inference to the best explanation for several reasons. First, when considering what we know about Roman scourging and crucifixion, survival seems quite implausible. In the March 21, 1986, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, a study was done on the effects of Roman scourging. I won’t bore you with all the details right now, but if you are interested in seeing what it was like, the movie, “The Passion of the Christ” seems to demonstrate quite accurately what a Roman scourging was like.

Something else to consider is that a scourging was just the warm-up! When it came to nailing a convict on a cross, each wound was intentionally inflicted to cause immense physical agony. The Journal reported that when the convict had his wrists nailed, “the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms.” This would eventually lead to death by asphyxiation.

On the cross, the convict wanted to take pressure off of his nailed feet. To accomplish this, he had to allow the weight of his body to be applied to his nailed wrists (Imagine doing pull-ups with nailed wrists!!!). Moreover, while in the down position the convict is being suffocated. Pull-ups become your only means of survival! I don’t care how strong a guy is, a person can only do so many pull-ups, let alone, pull-ups with nailed wrists! Thus, the victim would have to push up on his nailed feet in order to exhale. However, this would be extremely painful causing the nail to tear through the flesh on his feet. This would lead to severe muscle cramps and spasms making the act of breathing extremely painful.

Moreover, if Roman executioners desired to speed the process up, it was common for them to break the legs of the victims with clubs. This would stop the victim from exhaling, as they could no longer use their arms or their legs to lift their torso up to breathe out. The Romans had the “art of death” down to a science, and it was easy to know when the convict was dead as he was no longer pushing up for air. The team that published the article in the medical journal concluded the following:

“Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”

What’s more, the Romans had back up measures to ensure the death of the crucified convict. The Roman author Quintilian reports that Roman executioners would thrust spears into the side of crucified victims to ensure the convict that appeared dead really was! This is exactly what is reported to have happened to Jesus in the book of John 19:34-35. It is also written that after Jesus was stabbed with the spear, a combination of blood and water flowed out of his body. Two thousand years ago they may not have known why this occurred, but we do now! When the sac that surrounds the heart (the pericardium) is ruptured, water flows out, and if the right side of the heart is likewise pierced, blood and water would be combined as it was described in the book of John. This would ensure the death of Jesus.

The death of Jesus on the cross is known with a very high degree of historical certainty; however, suppose he did somehow survive the scourging and crucifixion. Would it really be possible for him to push the heavy stone of his tomb away with his pierced hands and feet after being recently scourged and crucified, let alone walk many blocks to find his disciples? The skeptical German scholar D.F. Strauss finally concluded that this would not be plausible.

Even if this bizarre scenario were somehow possible, is it plausible that after this beaten, wounded, and mutilated Jesus limped to the disciple’s residence, that the disciples would conclude that Jesus was the risen Prince of life? They would have concluded that he was barely alive, but hardly risen. It’s been said that if this scenario occurred, when Jesus presented his wounds to the “doubting” Thomas, Jesus would have responded with, “Ouch! That still hurts!”

In conclusion, it does not seem plausible that Jesus would have survived the scourging and crucifixion the Roman executors had down to an “artful” science. Moreover, even if one were to grant the survival of the crucifixion, it seems even more unlikely that Jesus would have not only recovered on the third day, but regained the strength to push the giant rock away from the tomb, and then walk a great distance to find his disciples, and then convince them that he was the risen Son of God. This is not the inference to the best explanation.

Justin, I think your questions are great and the possibilities you offered must be weighed by any historian worth his salt. However, when considering the criterion of plausibility when coming to historical conclusions, I think the ADT hypothesis must be rejected by the same historians.

What do you think?

Justin’s next objection

Tim- I’ve read your rebuttal. You make very convincing arguments and it even convinced me! I haven’t read much about the Romans (I’m currently studying bugs). But, with all of the facts you’ve backed your argument with, you’ll never hear that objection from me again.

Now, I raise another question, what if it wasn’t actually Jesus on the cross? But instead a “fill-in” of sorts. Someone who put themselves in Jesus’ place? Someone who looked almost exactly like [or very similar to] Jesus?

Tim’s next response

That’s a great question, Justin! Could Jesus have had a “doppelgänger,” a twin brother, or just a disciple who really looked like him who was willing to sacrifice himself on the cross in place of Jesus?

First of all, I might surprise you with my answer: YES, it is possible. With that being said, it is not plausible! 100% certainty eludes us in almost all things in life; however, adequate and even reasonable certainty is quite attainable. So, for example, when we say that a certain hypothesis is “true,” we mean that it corresponds with a good degree of accuracy to accepted conditions or past events.

The question is raised: how does one attain such knowledge? More specifically, how does a historian attain “historical knowledge”? Historians come to their conclusions by weighing hypothesis against specific criteria. Dr. Michael Licona explains this and says:

“Merely stating “what-if” possibilities without supporting evidence does not challenge a hypothesis with strong supporting evidence. What-ifs must be supported by evidence and argumentation. We established the following five criteria for the best explanation (listed in descending order of importance):  (1) plausibility, (2-3) explanatory scope, explanatory power, (4) less ad hoc and (5) illumination.”

From this point, Justin, a hypothesis can be awarded the distinction “historical” when it has either (1) met the five criteria better than competing hypothesis and (2) outdistanced competing hypothesis by significant margins. Remember the accepted historical facts regarding the man, Jesus of Nazareth:

1- Jesus died by crucifixion.

2- Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.

3- The church persecutor and Christian hunter, Saul, was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul!

4- The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the Gospel!

5- The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Let’s examine the hypothesis “Jesus had a clone,” using the criteria to infer the best explanation against the accepted facts regarding Jesus. Could this hypothesis possibly explain fact (1)? Yes, because even though Jesus would not have really died by crucifixion, it explains why everyone would have thought that he did. I do not think that this is necessarily plausible; however, it does have explanatory scope and power. With that said, it fails by being “ad-hoc.” One must assume, without any supporting evidence, that Jesus had a follower who was willing to save Jesus by going to the cross for him and just so happened to look exactly like him. That is quite unlikely.

Does the “clone theory” explain fact (2)? As good historians, let’s try to put ourselves in the shoes of the disciples (or at least their sandals)! The disciples were in a position to know if one of the followers of Jesus looked like him, and was willing to sacrifice his life for Jesus as well. Moreover, after three years of spending every single day together, the disciples would surely have been able to distinguish any differences between Jesus and his look-alike. They would have been in a position to know if it was really Jesus who they watched being arrested and crucified.

Furthermore, on the third day when the real Jesus made his appearances to the disciples, they would have immediately come to the conclusion, “Dude… they crucified your look-alike, and not you! They got the wrong guy!”

Moreover, The Clone theory doesn’t explain the existence of the pierced hands, feet, and side which the “doubting” Thomas insisted upon examining.

The question then becomes, “Why would the cowardly disciples be transformed into bold proclaimers of the risen Jesus, even in the face of execution? This would mean that the disciples were willingly committing fraud. However, this goes against the accepted 2nd fact, that the disciples really believed Jesus was raised from the dead.

Fact (2) is held by the vast majority of scholars and historians because the disciple’s lives were radically transformed in the face of imprisonment, sufferings, and martyrdom. People die for lies all the time, but do people die for lies they know are not true? I cannot find any examples of such a thing ever occurring; however, even if one single example could be found, this is not the kind of thing that typically happens. Therefore, the “clone theory” ultimately supposes the disciples were willingly deceptive, and therefore, it is defeated by the martyrdom and sufferings of all of the disciples. This demonstrates that the Clone Theory does not explain fact (2).

Does the clone theory explain fact (3) about Paul’s transformation? At first glance, I think it could because Paul (unlike the disciples) probably was not in a position to know whether or not Jesus had a look-alike clone that was willing to suffer scourging, crucifixion, and death. However, it is unlikely that Paul knew exactly what Jesus looked like anyway since

the FBI’s most wanted posters were not out yet!

With this in mind, a look-alike of Jesus is not even needed. Anyone could claim to be Jesus, but there was something different about this appearance that Paul really believed he had and was willing to sacrifice his status as prominent Pharisee to attest that Jesus was the truth, and ultimately suffer and die for this proclamation. This is a problem for the clone theory.

Does this hypothesis best account for fact (4)? No, because James (the brother of Jesus) would be in a position to know about a supposed “Jesus clone” even more than the disciples. James was a skeptic who was not transformed and converted until after Jesus’ death on the cross. Our conclusions regarding James are arrived at because:

  1. The Gospels report that Jesus’ brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry (Mark 3:21, 32; 6:3-4; John 7:5).
  2. The ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (that I listed in my first email), states: “Then He appeared to James.”
  3. Subsequent to the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:12-21; Gal. 1:19).
  4. Not only did James convert to Christianity, his beliefs in Jesus and his resurrection were so strong that he died as a martyr because of them. (This is attested by both Christian sources and non-Christian, extra-Biblical sources).

Therefore, James would not only be in an outstanding position to know whether or not his brother had a clone, who was also the most loyal friend a guy could ever have, but his transformation from a skeptic to a martyr would be highly implausible.

The biggest problem for the ad hoc “Clone Hypothesis” comes when it is weighed against the accepted historical fact (5) of the Empty Tomb. If Jesus really did have a clone that was willing to give his life for the real Jesus, the tomb would not be empty. The tomb would still have the dead look-alike decaying inside. Even if the “real” Jesus was making appearances, the tomb would not be empty.

I must admit, the fact (5) is not accepted by all skeptical scholars or as many who affirm the other four facts; however, it is still accepted by most critical scholars (so I am in good company) when comparing it to the “Hobart Scenario” that I explained in my first email.

I think the “Clone Theory” is one of the best “what-if” natural hypotheses to explain the belief in the risen Jesus. However, it has many problems, it is implausible and extremely ad-hoc. Conversely, the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” explains every one of the five accepted facts. In fact, the only additional belief that one must hold to accept that hypothesis is a belief in God. As you know, I believe there are many good reasons based on philosophy and science (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to hold to a belief in theism.

For the theist, there are no additional beliefs that must be held to accept the hypothesis that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the best explanation of the accepted historical facts.

What do you think, Justin?

Your friend,

Tim

Justin’s final objection

I have no arguments against your first four stated facts. But, when reading fact five; I got to thinking, it is possible for the dead “clone” to have been “thrown-out,” much like week-old bread, so it would have appeared that Jesus has risen from the dead [the tomb would be empty] and the wounds on his hands and feet could be superficial.

Admittedly, it has been a few years since I’ve read the bible. So, it is possible that there is a passage that contradicts my argument, and I don’t remember.

What do you think?

Tim’s final response

Thank you for your reply, Justin! I am so thankful for your participation in this conversation. You have pushed me think and do some additional research which has been extremely beneficial to me! I know that you are extremely busy, and I really appreciate you taking the time to have this dialogue with me.

The hypothesis you are offering is fun to entertain and contemplate. With that being said, I hope you see that since the first four stated facts I offered are best explained by the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Therefore, even if the new “Clone Theory” you offer passes fact (5) of the empty tomb, the Resurrection hypothesis is still the most likely, and therefore, the best explanation as to what actually happened.

Remember, what I wrote earlier regarding the “Clone Hypothesis.” I said,  that I think the “Clone Theory” is one of the best “what-if” naturalistic hypotheses to explain the belief in the risen Jesus. However, it has many problems; namely, it is implausible and ad-hoc.

I don’t think adding these additional ingredients to the recipe makes this cake more believable. One must assume (without any historical supporting evidence) that Jesus had a doppelgänger. If that’s not enough, one must also assume that his close friends, followers, and family members did not know about this clone. Moreover, if that’s not enough, we must also assume that this clone was willing to die for a lie! People die for lies all the time, but they die for lies they think are true (like the Muslim terrorists on 9-11)! This clone would be sacrificing himself for a lie, which he knew was a lie! I cannot think of anybody in the history of mankind who was willing to do that!

On top of this already amazing scenario, this clone (that no one else was aware of) would also have to sneak in, and then trade places with Jesus, while Jesus skipped town for three days. After this, the perfect clone (which fooled all of Jesus’ friends, followers, and family members) was willingly tortured, scourged, crucified, and executed. AND THEN we must believe that the clone was buried in the tomb, but then, the clone’s body was discarded (which just so happened to work out perfectly for the real Jesus). This allowed Jesus to pierce his own hands, feet, and side (superficially), sneak back into town from hiding, just so he could come back to “punk” his friends, followers, and family!

Jesus also could only appear to his friends, followers, and family, because the authorities would have crucified him AGAIN if they caught him “appearing” to the hundreds of people that Paul reports. Speaking of Paul, he also had to appear to Paul, and take the chance that Paul would not have killed him with his own bare hands! He would have had to exist for the rest of his days in hiding or in disguise — kind of like Leonardo DiCaprio in the movie, “Catch Me If You Can.”

Doing all of this with the knowledge that this hoax would probably change the calendar, let alone the entire world, for at least the next couple thousand years.

I don’t even think the late Johnny Cochrane could sell this story to a jury in Hollywood! The principle of Occam’s razor states that the simplest explanation should always be preferred. The different clone hypotheses offered are not simple at all, in fact, they are extremely improbable, not to mention, ad hoc. As I mentioned before, the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” explains every one of the five accepted facts. In fact, the only additional belief that one must hold (to accept that hypothesis) is a belief in God. There are many good reasons based on philosophy and science to hold to a belief in theism.

So, for the theist, there are no additional beliefs that must be held to accept the hypothesis that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the inference to the best explanation of the accepted historical facts.

Justin, I hope you see that the reason anyone rejects the resurrection of Jesus is not due to a lack of evidence (we have that), but rather, based on their presuppositions in naturalism (The blind faith that nature is all there is). The arguments I referenced above provide a strong case against naturalism, which effectively demonstrates that there is no problem with following the evidence leading to the resurrection. This evidence supports the proposition, “God raised Jesus from the dead!” Thus, we have good reason to place our faith in Christianity. You see, Christianity is a reasonable faith.

Justin, as far as my assignment goes, you have helped me complete it. I want to let you know that I am more than willing to continue our friendly and respectful conversation if you would like.  I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I am praying that you would come to know the Risen Jesus the way I do!

I am honored to have a true friend like you!

Sincerely,

Tim

Notes

Justin gave me permission to publish our dialogue! More importantly, Justin no longer opposes Christianity! Happy Easter!

 

(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by
Resurrection Frank

Christianity is True Even If Some of the Bible Isn’t

,

Is Christianity true just because the inerrant Bible says it is?  No.  Christianity would still be true even if the Bible was never written.

Let me explain.

It’s a common belief prevalent among some Christians today that what we know about Christianity depends on an inerrant Bible.  Sure, we know that there are several non-Christian writers from the ancient world that make brief references to the first-century events and the beliefs of the early Christians, corroborating what we read in the New Testament.  We also know that there is an increasing number of archaeological findings that support characters and events in the Christian storyline.

But some of us erroneously think that Christian beliefs cannot be sustained unless the Bible is without error.  That would mean that the Christian faith is a house of cards ready to collapse if one verse or reference in the New Testament is discovered to be false.

Although I think are good reasons to believe in an inerrant Bible, inerrancy is an unnecessarily high standard by which to establish the central event in Christianity—the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which we celebrate this Sunday).  Christianity hinges on that historical event.  If Christ rose from the dead, then, game over, Christianity is true.  On the other hand, if he didn’t rise from the dead, then, as a first-century eyewitness by the name of Paul admitted, Christianity is false.

But you don’t need inerrant sources to establish that the Resurrection actually happened, or any other historical event for that matter.  For example, if you found an error in the stat line of a football game, should you assume that every game, story and stat line in the newspaper was a complete fabrication?  Then why do some people do that with the New Testament?   Why do they assume that unless every word of it is true, then most of it is false?

They assume that because they are confusing the fact of the Resurrection with the reports of the Resurrection. Conflicting reports of a historical event are evidence that the event actually occurred, not the reverse.  In other words, to return to our sports analogy, the only reason there is an error in the stat line, to begin with, is because the game was actually played and someone tried to report on that game.  Neither the stat line nor the error would exist unless the game had actually been played.  After all, who reports on a game that didn’t actually take place?

The same is true with the documents comprising the New Testament and the Resurrection.  Even if one were to find an error or disagreement between the multiple accounts of the Resurrection story, the very fact that there are several eyewitness accounts shows that something dramatic actually happened in history—especially since the folks who wrote it down had everything to lose by proclaiming Jesus rose from the dead.

That is, all of the New Testament reporters (except Luke) were observant Jews who would pay dearly for proclaiming the Resurrection.  Why would Jewish believers in Yahweh—people who thought they were God’s “chosen people” for two thousand years—invent a Resurrection story that would get them excommunicated from the “chosen people” club, and then beaten, tortured and murdered?

Answer:  they wouldn’t. They saw something dramatic that they weren’t expecting.  Then they proclaimed it, altered their lives because of it, and later wrote about it, despite the fact that doing any of that would get them killed.

So Christianity isn’t true just because the Bible says it’s true. Christianity is true because an event occurred.  True, we wouldn’t know much about Christianity if the reports of the Resurrection had never been written, but the Resurrection preceded the reports of it.

As my friend Andy Stanley asks, “Do you realize that there were thousands of Christians before a line of the New Testament was ever written?”  Paul was a Christian before he wrote a word of the New Testament.  So was Matthew, John, James, Peter, etc.  Why?  Because they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Contrary to what some skeptics may think, the New Testament writers didn’t create the Resurrection—the Resurrection created the New Testament writers.   In other words, the New Testament documents didn’t give us the Resurrection.  The Resurrection gave us the New Testament documents!  There would be no New Testament unless the Resurrection had occurred.  Observant Jews would never have invented that.

This why the foundational beliefs of Christianity—what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity—are true even if the reports have some errors.  Getting details wrong in reporting the Resurrection doesn’t change the larger point that the Resurrection actually happened.  In fact, if all of the accounts agreed on every detail, we’d rightly assume they colluded.  Actual eyewitnesses never describe the same historical event in the same way.

For example, survivors of the Titanic disagreed how the ship sank.  Some say it broke in two and then sank.  Others say the thought it went down whole.  Does that disagreement mean that we shouldn’t believe the Titanic sank?  Of course not.  They all agree on that!   They were just viewing the same historical event from different vantage points.

Likewise, all the writers agree that the Resurrection occurred, but they differ on the minor details (Who got to the tomb first?  Did you see one angel or two? etc.).  And these differences aren’t necessarily contradictions, but the natural result of viewing the same historical event from different vantage points.

The historical documents we’ve collected and put into one binding we call the New Testament are just what the name implies— they are testaments or reports of what honorable people witnessed and had no motive to invent.  In fact, given who they were and how they suffered, they had every motive to say it wasn’t true.  And there are several other excellent reasons that show it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

So inerrant Bible or not, the Resurrection we celebrate on Sunday actually occurred about 1,985 years ago. That means you can trust that one day you’ll be resurrected like Jesus if you put your trust in him.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case

/by
Scientists Like Stephen Hawking Believe in God?

Why Don’t Brilliant Scientists Like Stephen Hawking Believe in God?

,

by Natasha Crain

The famous physicist, cosmologist, and author Stephen Hawking died this week. He was widely known as one of the most brilliant scientists of our time.

He was also widely known as an atheist.

In fact, many of the most famous scientists today are atheists.

This point has not escaped the attention of skeptics who often promote the idea that science and God are in conflict. As supporting evidence of that supposed conflict, skeptics often claim that virtually no scientists believe in God. More specifically, they back up their claim by citing a 1998 research study that showed 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite scientific organization in the United States) don’t believe in God. That finding caught the media’s attention, and it’s been continually quoted ever since as a known fact about the relationship of religious belief and scientific professions.

For example, atheist neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris has written:

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God, yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

My purpose in this post isn’t to dissect Stephen Hawking’s personal religious beliefs. I only refer to him here because his death has once again raised this subject in popular discussion. My purpose is also not to dissect whether God and science conflict (I address this in multiple chapters of Talking with Your Kids about God). My purpose instead is to look at the question of whether it’s true that scientists don’t believe in God and the implications of the answer.

While we know that truth isn’t determined by vote, statistics get people’s attention—and young people especially trust “expert opinion”—so it’s well worth our time as parents to explore this question. When your kids ask why scientists don’t believe in God (because they’ve heard that’s a foregone conclusion), this is the discussion you need to have.

What Do Scientists Believe about God?

This is the subject of Chapter 12 in Talking with Your Kids about God. In that chapter, I explain in detail the five major research studies that have been conducted on this question (with all corresponding references). I’ll briefly summarize the findings here:

  • James Leuba Study (1914) with Edward Larson and Larry Whitham Follow-Up (1996-98): In 1914, it was found that 42 percent of scientists believed in a personal God. Among the scientists Leuba identified as “greater” (leading scientists), the number dropped to 28 percent. In 1996, Larson and Whitham attempted to replicate the study to see how the scientific developments of the twentieth century may have changed religious views amongst scientists. Their results were almost identical: 40 percent said they believed in a personal God. To replicate Leuba’s attempt to survey a subset of elite scientists, Larson and Whitham surveyed the National Academy of Sciences. In that group, belief in a personal God dropped to 7 percent. This is the specific study so often referenced to demonstrate that scientists don’t believe in God.
  • Religion among Academic Scientists Study (2005-8): Sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed nearly 1700 scientists at 21 elite universities on their views of religion and science. She found that nearly 50 percent identified with a religious label. Importantly, Ecklund conducted statistical analyses to identify which factors were the most significant predictors of religious beliefs and behaviors. She found the strongest predictor of religious adherence to be childhood religiosity.In other words, those scientists raised with a religious affiliation were more likely to be religious as adults, and those raised without religious affiliation were more likely to be irreligious as adults. Ecklund concludes:

It is an assumption of much scholarly work that the religious beliefs of scientists are a function of their commitment to science. The findings presented here show that indeed academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are less religious than many of those in the general public, at least according to traditional indicators of religiosity. Assuming, however, that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religious commitments is untenable when we take into account the differential selection of scientists from certain religious backgrounds. Our results indicate that people from certain backgrounds (the non-religious, for example) disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.

  • Pew Research Center Study (2009): Findings suggest that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.
  • Religious Understandings of Science Study (2012-15): Ecklund conducted another study which included 574 scientists. In this survey, 36 percent of scientists said, “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it,” versus 56 percent of the overall sample.

Let’s now consider the implications of these studies.

  1. It’s not true that 93 percent of scientists don’t believe in God.

This frequently quoted statistic refers to just one of several available studies, and there are two good reasons we shouldn’t consider it to be the representative statistic. First, it’s clear from the other research that this finding was an outlier—the other major studies on this subject suggest that 33 to 50 percent of scientists believe in a personal God, with the numbers even greater if we include those who believe more broadly in a higher power. Second, this study was conducted with a unique group—members of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization of about twenty-three hundred scientists who were elected to membership by other members. We could speculate all day about why these particular scientists are less likely to believe in a personal God, but the bottom line is that this organization is not representative of the broader scientific community. The most that can be said from this study is that 93 percent of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences and responded to the survey don’t believe in a personal God. It’s highly inaccurate to suggest that 93 percent of all scientists are atheists because this is not a representative sample.

  1. Correlation does not equal causation.

In statistics, correlation simply means that two variables tend to move in the same direction—in this case, those who are scientists do tend to be less likely to believe in God. This doesn’t mean, however, that being a scientist necessarily causes someone not to believe in God. (Think of it this way: in some parts of the world, it rains almost every Easter, but that doesn’t mean Easter causes it to rain.) If we determined that becoming a scientist did cause people to drop their belief in God, we might have reason to think there is some inherent conflict between the practice of science and theism. But to the contrary, Ecklund’s Religion among Academic Scientists study showed that the irreligious are simply more likely to become scientists in the first place. The available research does not suggest that scientists become irreligious as a consequence of their occupation, though this is what skeptics typically assume. And if becoming irreligious is not a consequence of their occupation, then the whole topic of what scientists believe about God quickly becomes less relevant.

  1. What scientists believe about God ultimately has no bearing on whether God exists.

While we should explore this subject because it’s often raised as a challenge to the truth of Christianity, we must remember that, ultimately, beliefs aren’t true depending on who holds them. They are true because they correspond to reality. Scientists don’t have any more expertise on the reality of God’s existence than anyone else. 

For more background on these studies and a full conversation guide to use with your kids in discussing this subject, see Talking with Your Kids about God pages 125-132.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DQI3M6

/by
Christian Vs. Secular Ideology

Christian Vs. Secular Ideology: The Power Of The Resurrection

,

by Justin Steckbauer

There is a war on today.  It’s not a war of guns or bombs, but a war of ideas.  The war is about worldview.  The war is about the course of human history.  The war is about religion and the eviction of God from modern society.

Battles rage on the horizon at this very moment.  We can hear the echoes and thuds in the distance.  We can feel the reverberations.  We can smell the tension in the air.

The battle is waged by major media outlets, television networks, church organizations, charities,  psychology organizations, scientific think tanks, atheist groups, corporations, big businesses, banks, neighborhood churches, universities, seminaries, and a thousand other institutions and enterprises.

The ideologies are extremely wide-ranging within such a massive expose’ of entities.  But one side seeks to quietly evict God from all aspects of modern society.  They want to put any of religious leanings out of government, out of the public sector, and simply out of society.  You could call it secularization, the eviction of religious thought.  It’s a battle of ideology.  The other side wants to keep a reference to God in government.  They want the freedom to practice faith in public, at any time they choose.  They want religious people to have a respected and honored place in society.  They want the freedom to share their faith while at work, or at home, or at the store or anywhere else.  They want a nation that honors God.

We see the battle on the national stage on a daily basis.  It seems to be a constant battle for the moral high ground.  Who is abusing who?  Which side is right and which side is wrong?  Who is the victim?  Who needs to be protected?  Both sides fight for the moral high ground, for the sympathy of the great silent majority.

Who will win?  I have no idea.  Maybe left, maybe right, maybe neither.  Throughout the history of the United States, there have been great divides within the ranks of the citizenry.  Think of the revolutionary war and the contentions between loyalists and revolutionaries. Think of the great debate over slavery.  Think of the war between the north and the south during the civil war.  Think of the civil rights movements.  And think of today, in the war of ideas fought between the progressive left and the conservative right.

There are certainly noble causes on both sides of the aisle.  In the past, I supported mainly liberal causes.  I was a member of the Sierra Club.  I helped with the Wal Mart protests and helped workers fight for wages that were fair so they wouldn’t all have to be on welfare while working full-time hours at a rich business.  I’ve helped with causes on Moveon.org.  I fought against the citizens united ruling.  I stood up for Net neutrality.  Those were and are all good and noble causes.  I participated in the local protest against the corrupt business practices of Monsanto in my hometown of Wausau, Wisconsin.  I’m skeptical of GMOs, and I’m also skeptical of groups who say more government is the answer to some of these issues.  I’ve also supported anti-war groups and stood against unnecessary wars and excessive military spending.

Yet I’ve also stood for many conservative causes.  I donate to and support Alliance defending Freedom, Liberty Institute, and the ACLJ.  I stand for religious liberty and the right to practice faith in all areas of life.  I’m an advocate for the organization “Abolish human abortion.”  I support Gospel for Asia and Compassion International.  I receive newsletters from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.  I also support the causes behind Liberty Counsel, and I receive their newsletter.  I’ve given to CRU and advocated for groups like the Veritas Forum, RZIM, Reasonable Faith, and Cross Examined.  I’ve stood against Planned Parenthood.  I’ve advocated for conservative economic policy.  I’ve fought for a natural view of marriage, of one man and one woman.  I’m a firm advocate of Liberty University.  I support conservative organizations like the Salvation Army, St. Vincent De Paul, Thrivent Financial, and the Heritage Foundation.

We have to ask ourselves, what spurs us to do right and to do wrong?  Is it conditions?  Is it society?  Is it our upbringing?  I’m sure those things do contribute.  Yet there is one factor that seems to build into everything.  It upsets every system.  It corrupts every process.  It pushes every nation off course from prosperity.  That is the human capacity for evil.  We have an inordinate desire to do wrong.  But it’s more complicated than that.  It’s not that we’re just simply evil.  Most of us want to do the right thing.  We really really do.  But there is another force in there that upsets our good intentions.  There is an allurement that takes us off course, every time.  And terrible things happen as a result.

The point is simple: We want to do the right thing.  But we can’t.  Something else is at work within us.  The truth is we need a savior.  We need a spirit beyond our spirit to come within us, and help us to overcome our own harmful desires.  It’s not an easy thing to admit.  But it’s the truth.

Thankfully we do have a savior and his name is Jesus Christ.  The power of the resurrection is the power of Jesus Christ to give life to those who are in need of it.  All of us fear death, but in Christ, we need never fear again.

The power of the resurrection has changed the world forever.  It led to the birth of orphanages, hospitals, and universities.  It led entire generations to turn from their selfish desires and seek to live in a God-loving biblical manner.  It led to the founding of organizations like the Red Cross, Goodwill, YMCA, and of course the Salvation Army.

Without the resurrection, the world would be a very different place.  It would be a very dark place.  We can only imagine what it might be like.

Western civilization has come together in a way where there is a great deal of prosperity and liberty.  Think back to the time of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The world was chaotic and authoritarian.  Then came the disciples of Christ, the followers of the way, bringing salt and light to an ancient civilization called the Roman empire.  At first followers of the way were persecuted, hated, murdered, and eventually exterminated in massive persecutions.  But eventually, the Roman empire was transformed by the power of the gospel.

In the United States in the 1700s something very special happened.  The persecuted of Europe took to the United States to be free to conduct their religious beliefs in the way they saw fit.  The grand experiment took place, of a free nation, creating their own Constitution.  The result was one of the most prosperous and free nations the world had ever seen.  In all these things was the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the power to change the character of people.  One person at a time the message transformed cultures and societies.  Today we live in the result of the power of the resurrection to guide a nation.  If our nation ever turns from the gospel, the results could be terrible.  Think of the secular revolution in France just after the American revolution.  What did they often say?  “Heads will roll,” and they certainly did.  Without an outside reference to base all beliefs on, natural law, then there is nothing but a subjective vacuous morality pinned to the changing moods of the populous of a nation.  Hope and pray that America never turns from her foundation, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The power of the resurrection is to transform cultures and nations.  Yet even more so the power of the resurrection is the power to make dead people live forever.  Amen.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ukDPx0

/by
Miracles Keener

Miracles with Dr. Craig Keener [Part 1]

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume’s argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. Frank interviews New Testament scholar Craig Keener not only about the reliability of the miracle eyewitness accounts of Gospels and Acts but also documented modern-day miracles. The evidence will leave with more than just something to think about.

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
by Craig S. Keener
Link: http://a.co/irMXMQs

 

 

/by
Rally For Reason

Rally For Reason

,

By Terrell Clemmons

“Don’t be surprised to find out that there are atheists and agnostics in your midst,” Ted said to me, after railing against the evils of organized religion. I got the impression he expected some kind of visible reaction from me.

But I wasn’t surprised. He’d already said he was a humanist. The two kind of go together. Besides, I’m not horrified over atheists. I took the bait. You wanna discuss atheism, Ted? Let’s discuss atheism. “So, I get that you have problems with organized religion, Ted. But human organizations aside, do you believe there is a God? Or do you believe there is not a God?”

Ted didn’t give me a straightforward answer, though. Instead, he referred me to Sam Harris, one of his “favorite authors and Freethinkers,” who takes issue with some Catholic teachings and other Christian ideas about God. That was fine for Sam Harris, but Ted didn’t answer for himself. So I repeated the question.

This time he answered. “I don’t believe there is a God,” he said and followed up with a caricature of Christianity. “I don’t believe there is a supreme being that created the universe; and sits in heaven and watches every movement and monitors the thoughts of every human. I see very clearly the problems of organized religion…the hypocrisies, the greed, the sadistic, bullying behavior.”

Now I had something to work with. In the language of the basic logic of reasoning from premises (P) to conclusions (C), I reflected his own reasoning back to him. “Ok, Ted, correct me if I’m wrong. From what I’m hearing, your reasoning goes something like this:

P: People associated with organized religion have engaged in the objectionable behavior.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”

Since he’d quoted Sam Harris, I did the same for Harris’s reasoning. “And Sam Harris’s reasoning goes something like this:

P: The character traits of God as presented by some organized religions are objectionable to me.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”

At this, Ted clarified himself a bit. He was a “science guy,” and God, if he exists, is either “impotent…or evil.” And then he was ready to be done with it. “But, enough about what I think,” he said, and he shifted the subject to something else.

This exchange illustrates something about non-theists, whether they call themselves humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, or whatever label they prefer. At root, the atheist’s position is intellectually unsound.

Here’s another example:

Ivan: “I’m definitely an atheist. I am an atheist because I cannot believe in fantasy. There is no God. There is no Heaven. There is no Hell. That stuff was created by man to help a man feel better about himself. When I look at the scientific facts, I cannot believe in that. So yes, I am an atheist. Absolutely.”

Terrell: “Which scientific facts?”

Ivan reads off statistics about the size of the universe, emphasizing its vastness. “To think that there’s some type of supreme being, call it God or Jesus, that is bigger than that? That is concerned about us on earth? About our welfare? About our future? It’s absolutely preposterous,”

Ivan’s reasoning went like this:

P: The universe is really huge.
C: Therefore, there is no God.

Like Ted, Ivan considers himself a “science guy.”

Well, I like science, too. And, sure, the size of the universe is a marvel. But it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing, whatsoever. Soon, Ivan was ready to call it quits too. “I believe that at some point, people end up with firm convictions,” he wrote to me in an e-mail. “Their viewpoints should be respected and further attempts to convert them should be avoided because not everybody wants to be converted.”

Ahh, now we have arrived at the heart of the matter: Not everybody wants to be converted. These two exchanges expose the heretofore hidden reality that Ted and Ivan have made a personal, philosophical faith choice to disbelieve. Believers need to remember this and press those vocal non-theists to make their case. The prevailing posture among atheism says the atheistic worldview is more intellectually sound and evolutionarily advanced—that atheism is the belief anyone would come to if he merely examined the scientific facts, all other belief systems being vestiges of Stone Age superstition on a par with moon worship and child sacrifice. But it’s not. Get the facts out in the open and it becomes pretty obvious. Theism stands. Atheism falls. Because there really is a God who created the universe.

The smart atheists seem to know this. Tom Gilson invited David Silverman, president of American Atheists, to co-sponsor an open, reasoned debate at the Reason Rally which will take place this weekend. He declined. William Lane Craig invited Richard Dawkins to debate. He declined.

Nevertheless, unreason notwithstanding, the Reason Rally will go on this weekend. Take it as an invitation to reason together with the non-theists in our midst. Theism is up to the challenge. Atheism isn’t.

Related Readings

This post first appeared at Robin’s Readings and Reflections, where I will be guest blogging on occasion. Check it out.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FY2I76

/by
5 Reasons Why I Believe in God

5 Reasons Why I Believe in God

, ,

By Brian G. Chilton

Last week, notable physicist Stephen Hawking died. Hawking was known for his brilliant work as a physicist, especially working with black holes, the big bang, and for his exploration of the so-called Theory of Everything (a theory that is purported to hold the glue to the four major laws of the universe). In addition, Hawking was known for one additional thing: his atheism. This has led many people to inquire, “Why does it seem that so many notable scientists are atheists?” While I do not believe that all notable scientists are atheistic in their worldview, this does lead one to ask if there are any good reasons for believing in God’s existence.

While I do not claim to hold the brilliance of Hawking, I was one who was led into the mire of agnosticism earlier in life. Tampering with a theistic-leaning-agnosticism, I was open to the idea that God could exist, I only didn’t know if there were good reasons for accepting God’s existence. Furthermore, if God existed, I wasn’t sure that one could know that God was personable and that he could be known in any certain religion. While the latter questions are things I will cover in later articles, suffice it for now, one needs to ask, “Are there good reasons for believing in God?” Among other issues, five major arguments or evidence, if you will, led me to a strong belief in God’s existence. Counting down from the fifth to the first, the following are the issues that led me to become a strong theist.

#5: Moral Argument

If you really think deeply about it, isn’t is strange that the strongest proponents of social change and ethical behavior are those who do not hold to God’s existence? I am certainly not saying that Christians have not led to social change. Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley both vocally opposed slavery. Nevertheless, it is strange that atheists fight for social change because their worldview does not support objective morality. I am not saying that atheists cannot be good people. I have known many fantastic people who adhere to atheism. I am saying that atheism cannot sustain objective morality because if God does not exist, then all of humanity is nothing but random molecules in motion.

If morality is objective—that is, there are things that can be considered right and wrong, then there must be an objective lawgiver. In essence, I have described the moral argument. Think about a speed limit sign. You are driving down the road, and you see a sign with the big numbers 35 on the white rectangular sign. You may not agree that the speed limit should be 35 miles-per-hour. Nevertheless, some lawgiver did. The sign did not magically appear. Rather, someone decided that the particular stretch of the road upon which you are traveling should only maintain that speed. If there are morals, then someone must have set them in place. In addition, morality points to the importance of life. All of this is only true if God exists.

#4: Consciousness Argument (NDEs).

Consciousness argues for God’s existence, especially if the mind is shown to be separate from the body. That is, if there is an immaterial self (otherwise known as the soul), then spiritual entities exist. The mounting evidence in favor of near-death experiences (i.e., NDEs) demonstrates the reality of the spiritual self. While space does not allow for me to fully engage with this issue here, plenty of material is available which describes the reality of these experiences and how it demolishes the concept of materialism (i.e., the idea that only the physical world exists and nothing else). While NDEs do not necessarily prove the existence of God, it does show that the idea of the Holy Spirit, angels, demons, and the like are not as far-fetched as the skeptic might think.

#3: Design (or Teleological) Argument.

My dad used to have a saying that went, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck; then chances are likely that you are looking at a duck.” The more I learn about the universe, the more I understand how much intricate design the universe possesses. The universe is full of design. Everything from the way gravity and the universal forces operate[1] to the vastness of the universe itself[2] illustrates not only the design found in the universe but that the universe was designed to support sentient beings like us. If something appears to be designed, then it is logical to infer that its design and structure came from a designer.

#2: Cosmological Argument.

The idea of a causal relationship is at the center of science. That is, every effect must have an underlying cause. This is the heartbeat of science. Yet, this heartbeat seemingly flatlines with the atheist notion that the universe somehow spontaneously created itself. Cosmological arguments for God indicate that if the universe had a beginning, then it is rational to imply that a Creator brought forth creation into existence. For creation to bring itself into existence, creation must be considered to be a conscious self-existent thing. How so? Any time a process of decisional action is placed upon a certain thing, that thing is anthropomorphized. That is to say; we make that thing alive. Evolutionists often do this with the process of evolution itself with claims like “Evolution decided this or that.” But, how can a mindless process decide anything?

William Lane Craig has popularized a brilliant argument called the kalam cosmological argument which goes as follows:

“1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.”[3]

“But, wait,” one may infer, “if there is a multiverse, doesn’t this get around the problem?” Unfortunately, for the materialist, the Borg-Vilenkin-Guth theorem “closed the door on that possibility.”[4] All physical universes, including a multiverse, must have a finite past, meaning that even a multiverse must have a beginning. Thus, one is left with one of two possibilities: either eternal non-existent nothingness (which means the absence of anything including vacuums) brought about something from nothing, or an eternal Someone brought something from nothing. For me, the latter is MUCH more intellectually satisfying.

#1: Information Argument

The last argument is not an official argument. Rather, it is something I call the information argument. It came to me that any process or program must contain information. Information requires a programmer. The universe contains programs and processes that require information. Therefore, the universe must have a Programmer—that is, God. I am not an evolutionist. Nevertheless, even if evolution were true, it seems to me that this process could not have created itself. How does mindless nothingness come up with anything anyhow? It is nothing, and it is impersonal. So, how does mindless nothingness do anything? It can’t. Consider the information found in DNA and the information found in the processes and programs of the universe. To claim that it came from nothing and no one and simply arranged itself would be like Luigi telling Mario that their virtual world needed no programmers. It is utterly absurd!

A cumulative case considering these five pieces of information and much more show—at least to my mind—the absolute necessity of God. I have to agree with Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. How true!

Notes

[1] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 98-110.

[2] Hugh Ross argues that even the vastness of the universe is important for two reasons: the production of life-essential elements and the rate of expansion. See Hugh Ross, Why the Universe is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 33-34.

[3] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 111.

[4] Ibid., 150.

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

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

/by
Miracles

Failed Arguments Against Miracles

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If miracles are not possible, then Christianity cannot be true. Many across the centuries have tried to bring arguments against miracles. Maybe the most famous advocate against the possibility of miracles is David Hume. Almost three hundred years after his death, Hume’s argument is still being taught in philosophy courses around the world today. In this podcast, Frank shows why Hume’s argument fails and why other arguments against miracles tend to be circular.

 

/by
Bas-Relief

Bas-Relief: The Big Picture Amid Gay Demands

,

By Terrell Clemmons

Dear Mick,

They say fools rush in where angels fear to tread. This territory is contentious, but I’m neither rushing in nor fearful to tread. You have pushed me to the wall, all but demanding a response from me, so here goes. Yes, I have seen the news reports about gay teens who have taken their own lives, including the most highly publicized one, Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University freshman who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his sexual encounter was filmed and broadcast on the web. Yes, I agree with you that teen death is always tragic, and when it comes to suicide, it’s especially heart-wrenching. Yes, I have seen the videos posted online by celebrities, calling for an end to harassment of gays, and yes, I have heard your cries for action.

I certainly won’t argue with, “Stop the bullying.” Aggression and abuse are never acceptable.

So why do you overlook the actual aggressors? Instead of calling them to account, you have leveled your sights on something else. At bottom, your demand really isn’t, “End the bullying.” It’s, “End the religion-based teachings about homosexuality.”

About Defamation

It’s a chorus that’s been building for over a decade. In 1998, after Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student, was abducted, beaten, and left for dead by two local thugs, NBC Today show host Katie Couric also ignored the perpetrators and questioned whether Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family might be responsible, having created “a climate of hate.” As I read Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America, I heard the same theme. The primary impediment to gays’ mental health and wholeness, according to Mitchell Gold who collected and edited the stories, is religion-based bigotry and religious intolerance. Not bigotry, but religion-based bigotry. Not intolerance, but religious intolerance.

Now the meme has gone global. That became apparent in the NPR article you showed me recently.  “Christians?” you asked, one eyebrow raised. A lawmaker in Uganda introduced a bill imposing the death penalty for some homosexual acts and life in prison for others. I read the article, wondering exactly how Christianity played into this development. It didn’t. The reporter had drawn that conclusion for readers, adding in the final sentence, “The legislation was drawn up following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy they say allows gays to become heterosexual.”

That conclusion dovetails with your grievance. I and people like me have the blood of gay teens and many others on our hands. I’ll grant you this, Mick. Where others stop at dropping hints, you do have the chutzpah to come right out with it.

About Intolerance

So I will be equally straightforward. As I write this, I am wearing a purple t-shirt. Today was designated by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD) as “Wear Purple Day,” to raise awareness and “bring an end to intolerance” in honor of the deceased teens. As a mother of three, I am moved by the plight of troubled teens too, but there’s more to my personal “Wear Purple Day” than yours. I will explain.

My purple shirt also has a cross on it, and on the back you can read, “I’m souled out, are you?” Yes, Mick, it’s a play on words that refers to my religious convictions. I bring that into the discussion because you seem to have a bigger problem with my personal convictions concerning sex and morality than you do with the actual crimes that have been committed.

Fortunately, the legal system hasn’t taken your approach. The boys who killed Matthew Shepard are sitting behind bars, and probably will be for the rest of their earthly lives. Likewise, the students accused of webcasting the escapades of Tyler Clementi are under investigation by local authorities, as are the perpetrators of other crimes you’ve brought to my attention. (You call them hate crimes. I just call them crimes.) But this doesn’t seem to matter to you. What matters to you is that people like me be called upon to either change our beliefs or … or what, Mick? The cries are increasingly sounding like a threat, “Endorse homosexuality or else!”

About Harassment

I have not asked you to live by my code. But you are demanding that I adopt yours. To be honest, Mick, I’m starting to feel bullied. In recent months, you have called me, directly or indirectly, a bigot, a homophobe, a hater, an extremist, and now a virtual murderer. To the best of my memory, I haven’t called you anything but Mick. Honestly, who’s harassing whom?

I could make the dissension between us go away overnight by mouthing a blessing on your homosexuality. It would make my life easier, but I can’t do that. My conscience won’t let me. In fact, to be gut-level honest, Mick, love won’t let me. Love for you and for those teens struggling to figure out love in a hyper-sexualized culture. You see, I believe homosexuality is less than what God made you for. You may be content with it (though I would venture your escalating demands for affirmation suggest otherwise), but there are many who aren’t.

About Questioning Sexuality

College professor J. Budziszewski records a poignant conversation with a graduate student in his book, Ask Me Anything, that illustrates the soul-searching is going on among today’s youth.

Adam had been living the gay life for five years, but he was growing disillusioned with it. He had no problem finding sex, but even in steady relationships, the lack of intimacy and faithfulness was getting him down. “I’m starting to want … I don’t know. Something more,” he said.

“I follow you,” the professor said.

“Another thing,” Adam went on. “I want to be a Dad.” His gay friends couldn’t relate to that. Get a turkey baster and make an arrangement with a lesbian, they said. But he didn’t find the joke funny.

And there was one more thing. He’d started thinking about God. He’d been to a gay church, but something about it didn’t sit right. Adam was confused, and he’d come to Dr. Budziszewski to get the Big Picture about sex.

I don’t know what you might have said to Adam, but I know what one prominent gay author counsels. In Growing Up Gay in America: Informative and Practical Advice for Teen Guys Questioning Their Sexuality and Growing Up Gay, Jason Rich recommends making contact, anonymously online if necessary, with other gays. “You can also access the tremendous amount of gay pornography on the Internet and see, for example, if hot naked guys and/or sexual images of guys having sex with other guys actually turns you on,” he adds.

About Discrimination

Adam had already tried all those things and found them wanting. Now he was thinking about leaving homosexuality. Which leads to a subject that is even more contentious for you. Ex-gays. Mick, you have a lot to say about gays being mistreated, but it appears to me the most abused and reviled group of people in America today is not gays, but ex-gays. The Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), a non-profit advocacy group, has documented a lot of incidents of hostility and blatant discrimination against men and women who have left homosexuality. Ex-gay Perri Roberts, in the preface to his autobiography, Dying for Love, pleaded with homosexuals to simply grant him the space to change his life if he chooses and to allow him to help others who want to leave homosexuality do so freely.

Would you grant Perri that freedom? Would you even grant Dr. Budziszewski the freedom to explain the Big Picture? Or would you have them censored and silenced, effectively consigning young people like Adam to homosexuality with no way out?

About Acceptance

Mick, I respect your freedom to live out the sexuality you prefer, but I will not jettison the Big Picture. Adam is onto something. Sex has its place, but the human soul longs for more than sex. Things like intimacy and permanence. Becoming a parent and raising a family. There is a Big Picture about sex, Mick, and all those things are part of it. I will not withhold that from Adam or others like him.

I do not accept responsibility for the teen suicides, nor do I accept the charges of bigotry, intolerance, or hate. I realize my Judeo-Christian construct for sex causes you distress, but I can’t surrender it for you or anyone else. That would be giving you a cheap substitute for love. Still, I value your friendship, so I leave it to you to decide whether you will accept me as I am or jettison me from your life.

I leave you with one final thought. You may succeed in silencing me and others like me who hold to the Big Picture, but that won’t make the Big Picture go away. It’s part of the created order.

Even your protestations attest to that.

This article first appeared in Salvo 15, Winter 2010.

Related articles:

  • Who’s Bashing Whom?“Gay-marriage is a legitimate moral and political topic for debate — for civil debate, that is. And name-calling, demonization, and intimidation are nothing but attempts to shut off the debate and to shout down the opposition.”
  • Beliefs or Bigotry?“According to Judge Walker, if you believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, you are a homophobe and a bigot. Such legal reasoning not only charts the course for destroying religious liberty, it paves the way for societal chaos.”
  • Dig Deeper: What’s Behind the Scenes at the White House Anti-Bullying Summit?

 

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

/by
Science, Stephen Hawking, And Free Minds

Science, Stephen Hawking, And Free Minds

,

By Terrell Clemmons

Last night my 11-year old daughter Sally asked me if I’d like to watch “Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking” with her. How could a mom refuse that invitation? So we cozied up in our jammies and tuned in. It was a great show, and highly educational. But not in the way you might think.

The subject of this, the first installment of a series on the Discovery Channel hosted by Hawking, was Aliens. The show opens with Hawking alone in an empty room in his wheelchair. We hear his computerized voice say,

Hello. My name is Stephen Hawking, physicist, cosmologist, and something of a dreamer. Although I cannot move, and I have to speak through a computer, in my mind, I am free.

Another narrator picks up from there,

Free to explore the universe and ask the big questions. Such as, Do aliens exist?

The question, Hawking says, cuts to the heart of how we see our place in the universe. “Are we alone?” He thinks probably not, even though scientists have been looking and listening out for about forty years to no avail. The narrator continues, speaking for Hawking,

The possibilities are infinite. How do we know where to look?

The answer brings us back home to Earth, where the only known examples of life exist. From there, Hawking explains what is currently known about the origin of life on Earth:

Exactly what triggered life here is still a mystery, but there are several theories.

He presents two. The most common theory is that life began purely by accident in pools of primordial soup. Images on the screen evoke Darwin’s “warm little pond,” teeming with amino acids randomly bumping into one another for eons and eons until just the right combination of circumstances caused just the right bump:

It somehow just happened … the ultimate lucky break that started the chain of life.

That’s the first theory. The other one is an

intriguing idea, called Panspermia, which says that life could have originated somewhere else and have been spread from planet to planet by asteroids.

Let’s pause there. Panspermia, as I pointed out in this article from Salvo 11, falls within the boundaries of Intelligent Design theory (ID), with which regular Salvo readers are familiar.

I explained Panspermia and ID to Sally. It took about one minute, and she grasped it well enough. Then we re-wound the recording to listen again to Hawking’s musings about the first, and “most common,” theory. He admits the improbability of it,

It is extremely unlikely that life could spontaneously create itself, but I don’t think that’s a problem with this theory. It’s like winning a lottery. The odds are astronomical, but … someone hits the jackpot.

“Yes, Sally,” I said, “but that’s because someone outside the system created the lottery, and funded it so that it could be there in the first place.”

Light bulbs went off immediately. “Ah-HAH,” she laughed out loud. “I didn’t think of that, but that makes sense!” We laughed together for a moment then watched the rest of the show.

The point I’d like to make is she’s a 6th grader, and she’s capable of thinking with a free mind, taking in competing theories about something, and, to a certain extent, analyzing them. This is how critical thinking skills are developed. But as this Crosshairs, also from Salvo 11, points out, wherever the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) gets its way, teachers are prohibited from informing students about competing scientific theories concerning the origin of life, including the one offered, though not by name, as a valid theory by no less a science luminary than Stephen Hawking. (The NCSE also opposes students being informed of different views concerning global warming, but that’s another issue for another post.)

Stephen Hawking is an amazing and inspiring man, and we enjoyed watching his show. I’d like to focus on that ideal of a free mind and note two things. First, the NCSE, by intentionally ignoring ID (and vehemently opposing it when active ignorance is no longer an option), limits free inquiry and hinders, rather than advances, science. They do our children a disservice.

Second, while Hawking does believe that alien life likely exists, including the life of superior intelligence, he allows no room for the possibility that that intelligence might be a supernatural being. In so doing, I suggest he limits himself and his scientifically brilliant mind more than he realizes. To limit experimental science to only those things which can be seen, heard, and touched is reasonable. To limit your mind and imagination, in the same manner, hinders free inquiry.

Even a 6th grader can understand that.

This post first appeared in the Salvo Signs of the Times blog. (By the way, a very interesting discussion ensued. If you like open discussions, check it out.)

 

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

/by