Creator Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Creator

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians believe that God is an infinite being who has always existed. But what “evidence” can the theist put forth in support of this claim? This is a common challenge raised by the skeptic.

When a person asks for “evidence,” the usual response is to look for things like witness statements, or documents or fingerprints left at a scene. Since no one has “evidence” relating to things outside our universe, or to a being who preceded the Big Bang, it’s a safe bet, they think, that the Christian apologist can’t come up with any “evidence.” Or is it?

Teasing out the unspoken premise in the question highlights what is at play: the challenger assumes that it is only through physical or testimonial “evidence” that we can know things. But this is simply not true. While evidence and inferences from evidence are valid ways of determining what is true, they are not the exclusive ways. For example, when I know that no circle is also a square, where is the evidence for that? Or that A = C, when told that A = B and B = C? Or that rape is always wrong. These types of knowledge – based on logic and reason or on a basic moral sense – are part of the normal functioning of every human mind. Like a computer running software, our minds come equipped with certain basic programs, such as the ability to acquire and use language. Similarly, we are born with an appreciation of game-playing and fairness. Watch a child develop and you will see these subprograms at work. You may teach them how to play the game and what’s considered fair or foul, but they already intuitively understand the importance of the game and the rules.

The mind has an additional “pre-loaded” capability that helps us better understand where we came from and who created us: the ability to conceptualize, to make sense of patterns by grouping things into categories. For example, we don’t need an exhaustive list of possible ”chairs” or ”tables” to know whether a particular item can serve in that capacity. To know if something new qualifies as ”food,” we needn’t refer to a list but can instead ask questions, such as whether the item is edible and able to provide nourishment. An exotic fruit will pass that test but an ashtray will not. When we reflect on these conceptions, we can derive actual knowledge, even in the absence of traditional “evidence.” By realizing what a square is, we “know” that a circle can never be one. By knowing that people have a right to the integrity of their bodies, we know that rape – which violates that right – is always wrong. By employing logic, we know that A = C when A and C are both equal to B.

What does this have to do with God’s origins? Just this: it is by conceptualizing what is meant by God that we can determine – that we can know – certain important things about him. When we think of God, what exactly are we thinking about? We may of course disagree on specifics, but to qualify as ”God,” we must be referring to that ultimate omnipotent being that possesses and embodies infinite perfection. Well, the skeptic protests, why does that require existence? I can imagine a unicorn but that doesn’t mean I could ever find one.

This objection helps focus the inquiry, because it requires us to think more deeply. When we think of a unicorn, we are thinking of a white horse-like animal with a horn protruding from its forehead. Such a being may once have existed or may exist sometime in the future or may never exist at all. There is nothing about the conception of a “unicorn” that requires it to actually exist; the only requirement is that if such an animal did exist, it would have the noted attributes.

But when we get back to the conception of God, what is it that we have in mind? How do we best put words to the concept of the ultimate being, a being so great that it is simply not possible to conceive of anything greater? God embodies infinite perfections. Such a being, to qualify as ”God” within our minds, must necessarily exist. If you are contemplating two beings with similar attributes and one possesses the attribute of necessary existence and the other does not, it is readily apparent that the former is the greater being. Unless we’re conceiving within our minds this image of God, we have not yet actually begun to think about God but are instead thinking of something lesser.

Anselm of Canterbury is credited with first developing this argument, the ontological argument, ten centuries ago. When you follow where reason leads in conceptualizing what God entails, you realize that he must be an infinite being who necessarily exists. He was not created. He never came into being, and will never cease existing. All that there is, or was, or ever will be is contingent him upon him for existence, while he is complete in and of himself, contingent upon nothing. This is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the creation of something from nothing; it is where the “evidence” leads.

That God is the source of this universe, and all that is in it, is a product of recognizing that all created things had a preceding cause, sufficient to bring them into existence. There are no known exceptions and no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions. Moving to the very beginning of the space/time continuum we occupy, there must be a source adequate to the task of creating it. Two possibilities exist: the creator of the universe was himself created, and therefore had a beginning; or he was infinite, having no beginning. If you choose the former, you haven’t gone far enough in your reasoning because the only way for a being to qualify as “God” is to possess infinite perfection. You need to keep moving back in time to frame in your mind that original being, the one who was not himself created.

The skeptic will usually persist in his challenge: why doesn’t your god need a cause? But again, to ask the question betrays the mistake in reasoning of the questioner. The error is in the premise: all things do not need a creator, only created things, or more specifically this universe and all that it encompasses. Something outside of the universe, something that is the source of all things, does not need to be created. In fact, reason leads us in the opposite direction. Since things don’t create themselves, there must be, at the very beginning, a being who always existed, who was never created and never in need of anything.

Seen in this light, the question becomes nonsensical, translating into: who created the uncreated being, or who caused the being which needed no cause? It is no different than asking what time it is on the moon. The time of day is a function of where on earth a person is; it is nonsensical when applied off planet.

Of course, none of this proves that God is the triune God of the Bible, who by the way does provide witness testimony of his eternal nature. But the skeptic will never begin to consider the truth claims of Christianity if he remains stuck doubting the existence of that God.

Why the “Odds” Favor the Existence of a Creator

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

With each passing year, science is providing more evidence that the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to support human life. Change any one of dozens of scientific parameters by even a small amount and life on Planet Earth would never have arisen. These findings provide strong support for the Christian argument that behind this universe lies an all-powerful, super-intelligent Designer who set this all in motion.

Many atheists try to sidestep the problem these scientific discoveries create for their worldview. Darwinism, after all, made belief in the possibility that life simply arose from inert matter a bit more respectable, so discoveries that make this seem unlikely, indeed implausible, cannot be ignored for long. After decades of Darwinism giving them false solace, atheists face a serious problem making sense of these discoveries, which challenge the wisdom of believing in random self-assembly over a long period of time as an adequate explanation for the magnificent complexity of the life we find on Earth.

A favorite way to dodge the issue goes something like this: there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about fine-tuning in the universe because, had it not been so, we would not be here to make any observations. We simply happened to arise because we just happen to be in a universe – probably one of an infinite number – that can support our form of life.

This is a clever argument because it makes the extraordinary nature of the universe seem, well, ordinary and in fact predictable. But the argument does not survive scrutiny, because it deliberately misses the point of the fine-tuning argument. It assumes that there is no designer, then asks to make sense of this fine-tuning we see all around. It does this by assuming that other universes exist, and with enough such universes, the existence of our particular universe, with its unique characteristics, becomes inevitable. But there is no evidence – at present anyway – that we inhabit one of a limitless number of other universes. In fact, since these other universes are separate and apart from ours, there is no way to even test for their existence, no way to establish whether they are there or not. The existence of this infinite number of alternative universes, this “multi-verse,” is assumed so that our presence in this one can be viewed as “no big deal.” It is apparent that the skeptic is assuming the conclusion he wishes to reach. Instead, the question we are trying to answer is whether such fine-tuning can truly be an accident – a true “billion to one shot” – or whether, by contrast, this evidence of design is the result of, well, a Designer. Because our existence is the result of the coinciding of hundreds of highly improbable events, basic probability theory tells us that to determine the cumulative probability requires that we multiply these probabilities. Increase the number of “just so” parameters and life becomes incredibly unlikely to have arisen by chance.

Some examples might help make the point. The Apollo 11 mission successfully landed men on the moon and returned them safely to Earth. Imagine that on his return, someone asked Neil Armstrong to comment on the stunning success of the mission. If he thought like the new atheists, he might have said: “There was nothing amazing about the mission’s success. After all, if something failed, I wouldn’t be here to discuss the effectiveness of the mission.” Such an answer is ludicrous; it simply avoids the question of what the odds were that each of hundreds of systems would work as designed. That such novel technology achieved its goals is a tribute to the intelligence and workmanship of its designers. To say that Armstrong just happened to live in the universe in which his mission succeeded is, in reality, to say nothing at all.

To this, the atheist will likely respond: your example is flawed, because we already know that the Apollo mission was designed by an intelligence, and we don’t know that about the universe. But this too misses the point. The Apollo mission was fine-tuned for success. If the universe shows signs of similar fine-tuning, then we can logically conclude that it too bears the marks of an intelligent designer.

Which leads me to a different example: a condemned man stands before a firing squad, awaiting the crack of rifles that will precede his demise. The signal is given, he hears the shots and feels the bullets whizzing nearby, but not a single round strikes him. He has survived the execution and is here to comment on the probability of so unlikely an event. Imagine if he answered: “there was nothing special about this execution. After all, I wouldn’t be here to comment on it if it had been otherwise.” But this too would be so much nonsense. The question is whether we can infer from this result that each of the marksmen just happened to miss, or whether the better inference would be that missing was “designed,” that the marksmen were following a plan to miss.

Following the evidence where it leads should cause skeptics to question their deeply held beliefs. But if they do, the odds are in their favor that they will eventually find the truth – the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to support life because it was designed that way.

Systems Engineering in Nature

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Cathryn Buse

Before I had children, I worked as a systems engineer at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Through my career, I met a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers who were committed Christians. But I also encountered a lot of intellectual skepticism to Christianity, especially on the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is one of the most consistent challenges Christians face. How can we adequately answer that question, especially when the questioner is scientifically minded? One way is through the evidence of design, something known as the “teleological argument.” It simply means where there is design, planning, and order there must be a Designer, Planner, and Organizer behind it. Something designed cannot be explained by just a natural process or material cause; design requires intelligence.

So if there is design in the universe, then there must be a designer. But is there design in the universe?

Atheists say there is not. Before we can adequately answer that, we have to determine what would constitute something being “designed.” It isn’t just that a system looks complicated or has lots of parts. For something to be designed, it requires several well-matched, collocated, and integrated components in order to work, where it would not work if any one of those parts were removed. Something like that would need a designer with intelligence and forethought to select the right components, size them accordingly, and integrate them together so it could function – and ultimately survive and reproduce.

From my background, I like to refer to this as systems engineering in nature. Part of my job at NASA was reviewing the Ares I Upper Stage design to make sure each system would integrate correctly so the vehicle could actually get off the ground. I would be checking for things like if propulsion lines were placed too close to an electronics box because of the extreme cold temperatures of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Or I would make sure the battery boxes were located near a human access point so they could be changed out at the launch pad. I would verify that a valve needing power from the launch tower had a connector on the umbilical plate. One of my favorite projects was making sure the vehicle could be shipped without being damaged. It needs covers, environmental controls, and other ground support equipment, especially since it ships horizontally but sits vertically on the launch pad.

As you can see, a NASA launch vehicle requires lots of systems engineering – and lots of intelligent design! Each system must be designed alongside the other systems so they will function together. If one system changes something, it may have devastating effects on the other systems. It must be a collaborative design effort. A launch vehicle won’t function if only one system is in place while the other systems are being built. The propulsion system must work with the design of the structure, the avionics and software, the thrust vector control system, and the engine. Remove any one component and the vehicle won’t get off the ground – or worse, will have a catastrophic failure.

So the launch vehicle needs all of these systems and their components to be functional and integrated all at the same time in order to work. A successful launch vehicle requires planning, order, and design; it requires intelligence – and many Designers.

Granted, a launch vehicle is obviously man-made. But is there something comparable in nature? If we can show a biological feature that requires systems engineering, then, like that launch vehicle, it could not have been formed by natural or material causes. It must be explained by some intelligent power behind it.

Luckily, you don’t have to be rocket scientist to find design in nature. We can find systems engineering in the interrelationships of the human body organ systems. For example, the circulatory system pumps oxygenated blood from the heart to the other parts of your body so they can do work. The blood stream then returns the oxygen-depleted blood back to the heart. But the circulatory system cannot distribute oxygenated blood by itself. It needs the respiratory system to get the oxygen. Tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, transfer oxygen from the lungs to the blood vessels. When the deoxygenated blood is returned, the blood cells transfer carbon dioxide and water, the waste products from the cell, back to the alveoli so it can be breathed out. The circulatory system, therefore, is quite useless without the respiratory system.

However, both of these systems are dependent on the nervous system. The hypothalamus section of the brain controls the body’s autonomic functions, life critical functions our body continually does without us thinking about them, like breathing and pumping your heart. Without this part of the brain and the network of nerves running from it through the spinal cord to the organs themselves, our circulatory and respiratory systems could not work.

The circulatory system also depends on the muscular system. The heart is a specific type of muscle made up of a specific cell type that allows it to contract and pump blood around the body. And it even depends on the skeletal system. The bone marrow produces the red and white blood cells and platelets that the heart is busy pumping around our bodies. Without the skeletal system, there would be no blood to pump.

Even the urinary system is necessary for the circulatory system to function. All of the body’s blood is circulated through the kidneys, where waste chemicals and excess water are filtered out. The kidneys then return clean blood back to the bloodstream. And there is even an interrelationship between the circulatory system and the endocrine system. Hormones from the adrenal gland can speed up your heart rate when it senses danger so you can run away quickly. Hormones from the pancreas are used to control blood sugar levels, which can be deadly if not maintained properly.

We know that everything in our body is dependent on blood flow, but it becomes clear that our blood flow is also dependent on everything else in the body! The human body is the epitome of systems engineering design. What does the body sound like? It sounds like that launch vehicle where the propulsion system needs the structural system, the avionics & software system, and the engine before it can ever get off the ground!

Now if the launch vehicle is missing a system, it fails to launch; we are delayed from resupplying astronauts or sending new missions to space until the design can be completed. But if a system is missing from the body, the body cannot live. All these body systems must show up at the same time, in the same place, fully functional and integrated for life to exist. And like the Ares I launch vehicle, its existence cannot be explained by a random, natural process. The human body has been uniquely and perfectly designed. And design requires a Designer.

What Is The Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence, And Does The Multiverse Counter It?

2. Does God Exist?

By Wintery Knight

One of the best arguments for the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe is the cosmic fine-tuning argument. The argument argues that individual constants and quantities in nature cannot be much smaller or larger than they are, because it would remove the ability of the universe to support life of any kind. Dr. Michael Strauss, an experimental physicist, explains some examples of the fine-tuning in a recent post on his blog.

He writes:

I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left, the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.

Consider the knob that controls the strength of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks inside the neutrons and protons and binds the nucleus of the atom together. If the strength were increased by 2%, the element hydrogen would be either non-existent or very rare. Without hydrogen, there would be no water (H₂O) or stars that burn hydrogen as their nuclear fuel like our sun. Without hydrogen, there would be no life. If the strength of the strong nuclear force were decreased by about 5%, then hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. That would simplify the periodic table and make Chemistry class very easy, but it would render life impossible.

All known life in this universe is based on the element carbon, which is formed in the final stages of a star’s life. The carbon you and I are made of is the result of the nuclear processes that occurred as previous stars ended their lives. One nice recent study showed that if the mass of the quarks that make up neutrons and protons were changed by just a few percents, then the process that makes carbon as stars die would be altered in such a way that there would not be sufficient carbon in the universe for life. The masses of the lightest sub-atomic quarks are the precise value that is required for carbon to form and for life to exist.

Regarding the multiverse, let me just quote from MIT physicist Alan Lightman, writing in Harper’s magazine about the multiverse:

The… conjecture that there are many other worlds… [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that the basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.

The multiverse is not pure nonsense; it is theoretically possible. But even if there were a multiverse, the generator that makes the universes itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.

It’s very important to understand that if these values were any different, then it’s not like we would bridges on our foreheads, or have green skin, or have pointy ears, etc. That’s what science fiction teaches you. And many atheists form their view of science by watching science fiction entertainment. But the truth is that the consequences of changing these values are much more consequential: no stars, no planets, no hydrogen, no heavy elements, the universe re-collapses into a hot fireball. You’re not going to have complex, embodied intelligent agents running around making moral decisions and relating to God in a world like that.

Questions like the existence of God should be NOT decided by feelings and faith and superstitious nonsense. They ought to be decided by evidence. Specifically, scientific evidence. Everyone has to account for this scientific evidence for fine-tuning within their worldview, and they have to account for it in a way that is responsible and rational. Punting to the multiverse, without any evidence for it, is neither rational nor responsible. Holding out hope that the evidence we have now will all go away is neither rational nor responsible.

By the way, if you are looking for a good book on the cosmic fine-tuning, especially for evangelism and debating with atheists, you really need to get a copy of “A Fortunate Universe. “ Although it is from one of the most prestigious academic presses, it is pretty funny to read, and the main points are made clear, even if you don’t understand science. Two astrophysicists wrote it – one who believes that God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning, and one who doesn’t. I really think that Christians need to get used to the idea that evangelism can be pretty easy, so long as you are arguing from peer-reviewed facts. When you get a good book on evidence for God that is not in dispute, then you are invincible. Everybody ought to believe in God in a universe with this much overt scientific evidence spilling out everywhere. Whether this Creator and Designer is the God of the Bible, who visited us as Jesus of Nazareth, takes more work to establish. Working through the emotional objections people have to God, and coaching them to take on the difficulties of living out an authentic Christian life (very unpopular!), is even harder.

Could The Universe Be Eternal?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

One of my favorite arguments for God’s existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While this argument has historical roots, contemporary Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has popularized it more recently. The argument goes like this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a logically airtight argument. That is, if we can demonstrate that both premise (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows as true. Let’s consider the premises in turn.

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

This first premise seems intuitively obvious. To reject it, one would have to posit that something can come from nothing. But that view has to be the height of absurdity. Nothing can’t produce anything. After all, our own experiences and scientific observations tell us that things just don’t pop into existence uncaused. None of us, for example, have ever experienced a new Corvette popping into existence in our driveways, as nice as that would be. Additionally, if things can pop into existence uncaused, then it remains inexplicable as to why this doesn’t happen all the time.

As one might imagine, most embrace this premise, although a few have sought to refute it over the years. Quentin Smith, for example, suggests that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”¹ But I must confess, I’m not sure I understand how this is possible. How did we come from nothing? How did nothing have the capability of causing anything at all?

If prior to the existence of the universe, nothing existed – including space, time, matter, or God – how did the universe come to be? People, like Quentin Smith, must violate everything we know about the cause and effect relationship in our universe to adopt this position. Even the great skeptic David Hume once remarked, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”²

To get around this metaphysical impossibility, skeptic Lawrence Krauss suggests that the universe came into being from nothing. But then he goes on to explain that “nothing” is really a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy. And as many have already pointed out, Krauss equivocates on the word nothing. After all, a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy isn’t no-thing. It’s something. One still needs to explain how this vacuum came to be.

Additionally, others have adopted the position that premise (1) is true for all things inside the universe, but it’s not necessarily true of the universe itself. The problem with this view is that it commits the taxicab fallacy. That is to say, it adopts the standard cause and effect principle when it’s convenient but then hops off — like one would a taxi — once it gets to its desired destination. Not only is this view logically inconsistent, it assumes that the causal principle is only true of the material world. But the cause and effect principle is a metaphysical principle, in that it’s true for all reality. Being cannot come from nonbeing.

Finally, the last objection to premise (1) usually comes in the form of a question: “Who caused God?” But this misunderstands the premise. The premise doesn’t state that “whatever exists has a cause.” Rather it states that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” And theists have maintained that God has never had a beginning. He exists eternally by necessity. If he doesn’t, then he’s not God. This is what we mean when we say “God.” If he owes his existence to an external cause, that external cause would be God. So asking the question, “who caused God?” doesn’t help the skeptic get around premise (1). Theists have maintained for millennia now, that God is necessarily eternal. And to ask, “what caused him?” misunderstands our position.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

Since it’s difficult to disprove premise (1), many skeptics set their sights on premise (2) which asserts that the universe began to exist. In a previous post, I laid out scientific evidence which suggests the universe is not eternal. In this post, however, I want to focus on the philosophical reasons for rejecting a past-eternal universe.

To get around premise (2), the skeptic must maintain that the physical universe has existed for all eternity and has thus existed for an infinite number of moments. However, while we use infinity in mathematical or theoretical worlds, infinity, in reality, is impossible as it results in all sorts of logical absurdities.

Think, for example, about a meter stick that you divide in halves forever. Could you divide the meter stick in half an infinite number of times? How do you know the point at which you cross the threshold of a natural number to infinity? And if you reach infinity, isn’t it true that you could subdivide the meter stick one more time?

Perhaps the most famous example demonstrating the absurdity of infinity, in reality, is David Hilbert’s thought experiment — Hilbert’s Hotel. Hilbert told us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Additionally, he said to imagine that all the rooms are occupied so that not a single room is vacant. Now, suppose a guest comes to the check-in desk and asks for a room. The manager says, “yes, of course, you can have a room.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #3, and the person in room #3 to room #4, and so forth to infinity. He then takes the new guest and places them in the vacant room #1. But remember, before the guest showed up, the infinite number of rooms were already occupied.

Now, Hilbert says to suppose an infinite number of guests show up to a fully occupied hotel asking for a room. “Of course, the manager says.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #4, and the person in room #3 to room #6, and so forth to infinity, always putting the previous occupants in a room number twice their original one. Because all the former occupants now reside in even-numbered rooms, the infinite number of new guests all go into the odd-numbered rooms. Remember, though, before the infinite number of guests arrived, all the infinite number of rooms were occupied.

In the first example, we already had an infinite number of guests, but we were able to add one more. So, the equation would look something like this: infinity + 1 = infinity. In the second example, we had an infinite number of guests already staying in the hotel before adding another infinite number of guests. This equation would look like this: infinity + infinity = infinity. Despite adding a different amount to infinity in both equations, we still ended up with the same sum of infinity. The mathematical impossibility of such a hotel demonstrates the absurdity of an actual infinity in reality.

Consider another example. The medieval philosopher al-Ghazali asks us to imagine both Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the sun from eternity past. If for every time Saturn orbits the sun, Jupiter orbits it 2.5 times, which planet has orbited the sun more times? Well, if both planets have been orbiting from eternity past, the answer is that they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount — infinity. But doesn’t that seem absurd? In fact, we know that the higher the number of orbits, the greater the discrepancy that exists between the two. But if Saturn has orbited an infinite number of times, even though Jupiter has been orbiting 2.5 times for every Saturn orbit, they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount.

These illustrations help demonstrate that an actual infinite number, in reality, is impossible. And if an actual infinity is impossible, the universe could not exist for an infinite number of moments.

These absurdities raise another significant problem for the person who wants to reject premise (2). And that problem is that it’s impossible to traverse the infinite. Put another way; if the universe has existed for an infinite number of days, we could never arrive at today because that would mean infinity came to an end. But infinity can’t come to an end. That’s what it means to be infinity.

Or think about it another way. Before we can arrive at today, yesterday would have to occur, and the day before that, and the day before that, and so on to infinity. But how does one know when we’ve reached infinity in the past? There’s no point at which we could start counting the days backward to today. That would be like counting all the negative numbers from infinity back to zero.

Interestingly, many skeptics acknowledge our universe isn’t past eternal based on the scientific evidence. A lot of these same skeptics, however, attempt to get around this problem by suggesting an eternal multiverse. But the absurdity of infinity still applies to a multiverse. It’s impossible to traverse an infinite number of points in any physical universe, even one beyond our ability to detect. So, the skeptic still faces the same problem.

In sum, since it’s absurd to suggest that the universe has existed for an infinite number of moments, the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (1), and the universe began to exist (2), it follows necessarily that the universe has a cause (3). Based on this argument, what can we know about the nature of this cause?

First, whatever caused the universe must come from outside the universe itself. That is to say, it must transcend the natural world.

Meaning, this cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since space, time, and matter all came into existence at the beginning of the universe. Especially relevant to this argument is that the cause is timeless and, therefore, never had a beginning. Now, the skeptic might object that a past eternal cause faces the same dilemma of a past eternal universe. But he would be mistaken because the cause of the universe exists outside of, or independent of, time. That is to say, this cause existed in a timeless state and thus hasn’t traversed over an infinite number of points.

The cause must also be personal. We reach this conclusion based on the fact that there are only two possibilities for a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial entity — either an abstract object like a number or an unembodied mind. But abstract objects don’t possess causal power. They can’t do anything. This leaves a conscious mind who made a free will choice to create as the best explanation.

Finally, based on the size and complexity of our universe, this spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal being must be all-powerful and extremely intelligent. And this being is what theists refer to as God.

We Live In A Beautiful World

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

In classical thinking, saying that something is beautiful is not a matter of subjective opinion. It’s a way to identify an objective feature of the world. We don’t construct beauty; we discover it. And we try to mimic it. A lot of ink has gone to a paper discussing this view when it comes to truth and goodness. In fact, Christians make the case that truth and goodness are grounded in the character of God. But there’s more to the story. The ancient philosophers who talked about those also included a third feature with them. They called it beauty. For some reason, we don’t talk the same way about beauty anymore. But don’t be confused. Beauty is in the same category. Classical thinkers have always linked truth, goodness, and beauty together as interdependent, objective features of the world.

The Ancient Idea of Beauty

The ancient Greek philosophers saw beauty in objects that displayed symmetry, order, balance, unity, and proportion. In fact, the Greek word we translated into “beauty” was hora. This is the root from which we have derived the word hour. That’s because beauty includes a sense of timing. It takes into account what we know about the purpose for which the object exists.

Think of a flower. The ancients saw beauty not only in the symmetry of the flower’s petals or the vivid colors it displayed. They also recognized that these properties became most prominent when the flower reached its prime – when it bloomed. In the same way, fruit was most beautiful when it ripened. A mature woman was beautiful – and a young girl was beautiful – each in a way that fulfilled their purpose for that stage of their being. There was no beauty in an older woman trying to look younger than she really was. Nor was it beautiful when a young woman tried to look older than she should.

In other words, the characteristics that made something beautiful were built into the object one was observing. Beauty was dependent on an object’s nature and purpose.

It had nothing to do with an observer’s opinion of it.

Recognizing Beauty

design in a Chambered Nautilus Shell — Photo by Pixabay

Scientists uncover evidence of this kind of beauty everywhere in nature. We see it in “eerie proportional coincidences” like the “Golden Number,” Phi (1.618), and the “Golden Triangle” derived from it. The ratio shows up in commonly-accepted shapes of rectangles used to frame pictures and in the triangle-faced sides of the Great Pyramids. Humans design things using these proportions because they make them look pleasing to the eye. The mathematician Fibonacci derived his infamous Fibonacci Sequence from it.

But this ratio also shows up in nature all on its own. The radius of a spiraling Chambered Nautilus shell expands in relation to it. The similarly appealing geometry of flower petals — and the radiating pattern of combs in a honey bee hive — grow by the same proportions. These kinds of forms and patterns appear so often in nature; we use them to our benefit … and for our pleasure.

Leveraging Beauty

In their book, A Meaningful World, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt show how “the arts and sciences reveal the genius of nature.” One of the examples they use to demonstrate this is the Periodic Table of Elements. That table, we all learned about in junior high school is a snapshot of nature’s beauty. The chemists who developed it did so by finding “elegant mathematical relationships between atomic weights of elements and the properties of elements.” Doing so drove them to predict the existence of elements we didn’t even know to exist. It was the beauty that led them to fill the table in.

Resonant Beauty

The same type of patterns and relationships that led to the Periodic Table bring meaning and transcendence to our lives. Consider the relationship between mathematics and music, for instance. We can describe musical harmony using mathematical equations. But it works because it resonates with our souls.

The philosopher Leibniz described music as “the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.” But music has a way of moving more than just our feet to the beat of a song. It stirs our emotions. Tradition has it that when Handel was composing his epic Messiah, one of his servants walked in on him while he was writing the famous “Hallelujah Chorus.” The composer was weeping.

Handel is said to have remarked, “I do believe I’ve seen the gates of Heaven.”

Beauty Inspires Us

The beauty of a rainbow inspires us — Photo by Frans Van Heerden

The God-glorifying nature of music is just one of the many ways beauty is manifested in our world. The symmetry, form, and vivid colors of a butterfly enchant us. We marvel at the complexion and immensity of a rainbow, or at the power and majesty of a grand landscape.

These things elicit involuntary reactions in us when we experience them. They can take our breath away. They can make our feet start tapping. They can bring us to tears. They are the kinds of things that add richness and depth to our lives.

Reproducing Beauty

We discover beauty in our world and then try to reproduce it in the things we create. And we long to create things because we are made in the image of the ultimate Creator. Part of what it means to be “made in the image of God” is that we attempt to mimic Him. And when we’re successful, the results are stunning.

Today, we are beginning to use the digital capabilities we have discovered in biology to revolutionize our computers. We design airplanes based on the features we see in birds. We write literature and poetry that elevates our aspirations and invokes the divine. We paint landscapes to reflect the majesty of the world we live in.

We build cathedrals that point to the heavens.

And that’s the point.

Beauty Transcends Us

This all makes sense inside the Christian worldview because beauty is just another form of truth. And like truth itself, we don’t make it up. It draws us in. The character of God is the common reality that explains the trinity of truth, goodness, and beauty. They are the essence, character, and reflection of Him.

Beauty is not subjective. It’s part of the fabric of the universe. It inspires us to think outside ourselves.

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

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

July 24, 2019/by Guest

15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang’s Revelation of God’s Invisible Attributes

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title “The Creator Revealed.” He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator’s existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

“I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth.”

“How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture…and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth.”

“I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God’s personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God’s power and majesty.”

“When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God’s character revealed.”

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

“If the big bang was God’s method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don’t yet know God.”

“Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don’t know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible.”

“The evidence that the big bang was God’s method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn’t just reveal God’s character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation.”

“Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God.”

“When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder.”

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

“Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago–because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence.”

“The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some.”

“There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it… [T]his is exactly the case with the big bang.”

“It doesn’t matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn’t believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant.”

“It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do.”

“An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that.”

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2R7yRJU

January 27, 2019/by Guest

Book Review: The Creator Revealed

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

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

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

Now, on to the book review…

Chapter 1: An Important Question

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

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

Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character

Chapter 2: The Big Bang

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

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

Chapter 3: How Do You Know?

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

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

Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator

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

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

Chapter 5: Design in the Universe

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

Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans

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

Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden

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

Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator

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

Part 2: A Biblical Beginning

Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past

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

Chapter 10: Rules of the Game

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

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

Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis

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

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

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

Chapter 12: As God Sees It

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

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

Chapter 13: The Order of Creation

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

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

Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future

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

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

Part 3: Truth Changes Lives

Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free

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

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

Chapter 16: With All Your Mind

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

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

Chapter 17: No God or Know God

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

Reviewer’s Thoughts

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

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

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

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

September 11, 2018/by Guest

Why God Is Not In Time

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Is God in time? This is a popular question. Does it matter? What does it mean for God to be in time or not? In this article, I will argue that the answer to this question is terribly important in maintaining a biblical and orthodox view of God. In order to answer this question, we must first ask, “What is time?”

“Are you an A-theorist or a B-theorist?” I’m often asked. A-theory and B-theory have been two major views of time since the early 20^thcentury. The A-theory states that the past, present, and future exists in some way. We are moving “through” time in a sense. Some views of this theory hold that the past is getting bigger with each passing moment; others hold that the future is getting smaller. The commonality is that time is moving from future to past. Since this view holds that there are different tenses, it is considered a “tensed” theory of time.

The B-theory holds that there are no tenses and that all events exist either simultaneously, before, or after one another, because time doesn’t “pass” through one moment to the next. Thus, it is considered a “tenseless” theory of time. Instead of saying event A is past in relation to event B, the B-theorist would say that event A is before event B. For example, George Washington exists before Abraham Lincoln, but not in some temporal existence called “the past.” In both of these theories, time is said to “exist” in some way. Thus, time is not moving in any way, but we can describe events temporally by saying one event is before or after another event without using tenses such as “past” or “future.”

An oft-forgotten view says that time doesn’t “exist” at all. The A and B theories “reify” time (from the Latin res meaning “thing”). That is, they make time into an existing thing. Rather than saying time is a thing, those who follow Aristotle say that time doesn’t exist; rather, things exist and time is a measurement of how those things change. For example, there is no such thing as a year. A year is simply the measurement of how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun. It is a measurement of the Earth’s change. In my view, this view has more explanatory power and creates fewer problems. This discussion gets very technical very fast, but this is the gist of it. So how does this relate to God?

Methods of Inquiry

There are two basic ways to ask, “Is God a temporal being?” One is to look at all of the problems that arise with one view or the other and take the opposite position. Such a method has become par for the course in issues of metaphysics and philosophy of religion. The other way is systematic. Instead of simply seeing which view has fewer problems, a systematic view first deduces what God’s nature is like and then looks at how to answer such questions as to how does he relate to creation? Such a method is less ad hoc (that is, one doesn’t just make God up as he goes in an effort to solve problems), but rather tries to gain an understanding of what God is like before even asking secondary or tertiary questions. God’s nature thus becomes primary and such questions become secondary.

In keeping with the first method (of solving problems before first seeing what God is like), many contemporary thinkers on this issue believe that God must be temporal. Several arguments are marshaled for this conclusion. One common one is God’s knowledge. It is generally conceded that God knows what is going on in the world. But things in the world are changing. If what God knows changes, then God’s knowledge changes. But if God’s knowledge changes then God changes. And if God changes then he is temporal. It is argued that if his knowledge does not change, then he can’t have knowledge of the changing world. However, if he doesn’t have knowledge of the changing world, then his knowledge is limited. His knowledge is not limited. Therefore, he knows the changing world and is thus temporal.

This type of argument suffers from blurring the Creator/creature distinction. It unduly anthropomorphizes God. A Thomistic (following Thomas Aquinas) response to this argument is to point out that God is not a human and does not know the way humans know. We know through our senses. God does not have senses, so he can’t know that way. This is not a limitation on his part, for he knows his creation in a more perfect way. Rather than having to “look outside” of himself in the way we do, since God is the creator and sustainer of creation, he knows the universe by simply knowing himself since he is the perfect and complete cause of it. He is an eternal cause of a temporal effect. He has complete and perfect knowledge of his creation simultaneously. He is not reactive; he is pure act. He does not have to wait and see what is going on. Thus, his knowledge is timeless.

Defenders of divine temporality may retort that since the future isn’t a thing to be known as it does not exist and only existing things can be known. However, this unnecessarily reifies time (makes it into a thing). It further begs the question by saying God necessarily knows by some temporal means. If he does not, God does not need to “wait” for the future to happen, as he doesn’t learn in that way anyway. This reply also seems unbiblical as it is clear God has “foreknown” or ordained things “prior” to his creating the universe (Eph. 1:4). He does not need to wait and see what happens.

An example of a systematic approach is that of Thomas Aquinas. He first argues that God is pure act (existence), and is thus simple. Divine simplicity means that he has no parts (physical or metaphysical). (If you want to know more about divine simplicity read this article. This article deals with objections to the theory.) If he has no parts, then he cannot change, since change requires at least two parts: a state of existence and a state of possible existence that becomes actual. If God has no such metaphysical parts, then he can’t change. Further, if time is the measurement of change, then God is not measured by time. He is thus not temporal, but atemporal or eternal. Such states are philosophically different from ‘everlasting’ as the latter means always existing with no end. A temporal being like humans are everlasting, but this state of existence is different from an atemporal being that has no succession of moments or change.

Problems With Thinking God Is Temporal

Many problems arise if we say God is temporal. Ultimately we will again be blurring the Creator/creature distinction. If God is temporal, then he is changing, reactive (not active), and passive. If he changes, then he is composed of act and potency (existence with the possibility to change, which are different metaphysical parts). If he is composed, then he needs a composer, and he is not God. Further, if his knowledge changes, then he is not infinite since his knowledge would be increasing (an actual infinite cannot increase or be added to as it would not be infinite, to begin with, if more can be added to it). He also would not be perfect. What would he be changing from imperfection to perfection, perfection to perfection (this is not possible), or perfection to imperfection? The first option would seem to be the case since he would be learning something he did not know to begin with.

The difference with such a picture of God is that it rejects the classical picture of God as taught in the creeds, by the church fathers, and what Scripture and reason dictate. It replaces classical theism with process theology. Process theology teaches that God is in a process of becoming (becoming actual). He in a way learns, grows, and becomes. This picture of God is very passive, and often makes God part of his creation. Mainline Christians reject such a notion of God explicitly, but many implicitly endorse such a notion when they say God is temporal. For, if he really is temporal, then he is changing. And to be in a state of change is to be in a process. Thus, process theology rears its ugly head, even if in a nicer outfit. We are also left with this “God” being finite for the above reason that his being is added to in terms of knowledge and possibly other areas.

But What About the Bible?

The Bible describes God as being active in the world, changing in certain ways, and seemingly not knowing things, such as what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah: “I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” (Gen. 18:21). The Bible also describes God in various metaphorical ways, such as having physical body parts. Such descriptions are figures of speech. When trying to discover what God is like we need to describe him in literal ways. We know him through creation, as Paul says in Rom. 1:18-21. This means that we don’t make metaphors literal, metaphysical expressions of the divine nature. If God is spirit (John 4:4), then he can’t have body parts. The Bible is not contradicting itself; it is sometimes using metaphorical language and sometimes using metaphysical (literal) language. There are truths in metaphorical expressions, however. For example, when the Bible says that God is a rock, it means that like a rock he is strong and provides protection. Further, the Bible is not a systematic theology book. It does contain theology, but it is primarily a series of books and letters written to convey God’s relationship with Israel in the Old Testament, and the gospel and how it relates to believers and unbelievers in the New Testament. But it is not a systematic theology or philosophy book. Again, as Paul says, God’s “divine nature and eternal power” are known through creation. We know what God is like in a more literal way by studying him through his creation.

Conclusion

Questions like the one we have been considering are not just for professional philosophers. The way we answer this question will determine what we think about God and his relation to time and about his nature and his relation to creation in general. The answer to such questions should not arise out of simply trying to solve problems one by one; but rather discovering what God is like from his creation and then answering questions after we have a systematic view of God’s nature and attributes. This is an incredibly important issue that requires much consideration. It is part of being an intellectual and informed Christian. It is also one way we can worship God with our minds.

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

August 28, 2018/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Creator

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Creator Revealed

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

Introduction

Chapter 1: An Important Question

Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character

Chapter 2: The Big Bang

Chapter 3: How Do You Know?

Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator

Chapter 5: Design in the Universe

Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans

Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden

Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator

Part 2: A Biblical Beginning

Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past

Chapter 10: Rules of the Game

Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis

Chapter 12: As God Sees It

Chapter 13: The Order of Creation

Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future

Part 3: Truth Changes Lives

Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free

Chapter 16: With All Your Mind

Chapter 17: No God or Know God

Reviewer’s Thoughts

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