Tag Archive for: Cristianismo

A Quantum Christian

Un cristiano cuántico

By Terrell Clemmons

The man to whom science proved religion

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

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

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

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

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

A dangerous book

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

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

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

A violent man conquered by God

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

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

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

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

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

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

A violent man conquered by God

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

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

 

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

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Resurrection Frank

El cristianismo es verdadero, aunque algo de la Biblia no lo sea

By Frank Turek

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

Let me explain.

It is a common belief prevailing among some Christians today that what we know about Christianity is dependent on an infallible Bible. This is true, but we know that there are several non-Christian writers from the ancient world who make brief references to first-century events and the beliefs of early Christians, corroborating what we read in the New Testament. We also know that there are a growing number of archaeological finds that support characters and events in Christian history.

But some of us mistakenly 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 a verse or reference in the New Testament is found to be false.

While I think these are good reasons to believe in an inerrant Bible , inerrancy is an unnecessarily high standard by which the central event in Christianity is set: the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity is dependent on that historical event. If Christ rose from the dead, then the game is over—Christianity is true. On the other hand, if He did not rise from the dead, then, as a first-century eyewitness by the name of Paul admitted, Christianity is false.

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

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

The same is true of the documents that comprise the New Testament and the Resurrection. Even if one were to find an error or disagreement among the multiple accounts of the Resurrection story, the fact that there are multiple eyewitness testimonies shows that something dramatic really did happen in history, especially since the people who wrote it had everything to lose by proclaiming that 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, the people who thought they were “God’s chosen people” for two thousand years, make up 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 didn’t expect. They then proclaimed it, changed their lives because of it, and later wrote about it, despite the fact that doing any of that would kill them.

So Christianity is not true just because the Bible says it is true. Christianity is true because an event occurred. It is true that we would not know much about Christianity if the reports of the Resurrection had never been written, but the Resurrection preceded the reports of the Resurrection.

When my friend Andy Stanley asks, “Do you realize 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 did not create the Resurrection—the Resurrection created the New Testament writers. In other words, the New Testament documents did not give us the Resurrection. The Resurrection gave us the New Testament documents! There would be no New Testament unless the Resurrection had occurred. The Jewish witnesses would never have made that up.

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

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

Likewise, all the writers agree that the Resurrection occurred, but they differ on minor details (Who arrived at the tomb first? Did you see one or two angels? etc.). And these differences are not necessarily contradictions, but the natural result of viewing the same historical event from different points of view.

The historical documents we have collected, and put into a collection we call the New Testament, are simply what their name implies: they are testimonies or reports of what honorable people have witnessed, and they had no reason to make things up. In fact, given who they were and how they suffered, they had every reason to say it wasn’t true. And there are a number of other excellent reasons that show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

So, inerrant Bible or not, the Resurrection we celebrate on Sunday actually happened about 1,985 years ago. That means you can trust that one day you will be resurrected like Jesus if you trust in Him.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. 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.

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

Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

 

 

/by
Los argumentos a partir del Ajuste Fino del universo

Los argumentos a partir del Ajuste Fino del universo

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Writing an article on the fine-tuning of the universe that is too short and simple runs the risk of being the target of doubts and objections, and a lengthy and technical exposition runs the risk of being difficult for the reader to understand or even boring due to the complexity of the content. That is why I am grateful to Professor Robin Collins for not only allowing me to translate much of his work, but also for providing me with the slides that he uses in his lectures on the fine-tuning of the universe, which is the visual material that I will use in this article.

WHAT IS FINE TUNING?

Before we make an argument about fine-tuning, the first thing to do is to know what fine-tuning is and whether there is such a thing for the universe. Well, by fine-tuning we mean the fact that the universe is extremely fine-tuned for the existence of what Professor Collins calls “embodied conscious agents,” which require stable and reproducible complexity. An analogy for the universe would be a biosphere. The biosphere has to be perfectly structured and fine-tuned to be self-sustaining (the right environment, energy consumption, etc.) so that human beings can exist in it. The universe is like that, that is how it must be structured in an extraordinary way.

Three kinds of Fine Tuning for life

The evidence for fine-tuning of the universe is of three kinds:

  1. The fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
  2. Fine-tuning of physical constants.
  3. The fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.

The Fine Tuning of the Laws of Nature

When we talk about the fine-tuning of the laws of nature we mean that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order for highly complex life to exist.

Examples:

  • Existence of Gravity.
  • Existence of the Electromagnetic Force.
  • Existence of the Strong Nuclear Force.
  • Existence of the Quantification Principle.
  • Existence of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Let’s take the existence of gravity, without it you have no stars, you have no planets, and therefore you have no life! Or without the Electromagnetic Force you would have no atoms, so you would not get life either, then you have no chemical bond, and of course, you have no life either.

We can mention other examples, but this is enough to understand that the appropriate laws are necessary for life of great complexity to exist. If any of these laws were missing, such a type of life would be impossible.

Fine-tuning of physical constants

By physical constants, we mean the fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics, many of which must be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree for life to occur.

For example, take the Gravitational Constant—designated by G—which determines the strength of gravity through Newton’s Law of Gravity:

fine tuning jairo 2

Where F is the force between two masses, m 1 and m 2 , that are a distance r apart. If you increase or decrease G then the force of gravity will correspondingly increase or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10 -11 Nm 2 / kg 2 .)

Now, to get an idea of ​​how finely tuned the force of gravity indicated by G is we must first look at the range of fundamental forces in nature:

fine tuning jairo 1

Note that the Strong Nuclear Force is 10,000 sextillion [1] times the Force of Gravity. Too complicated? Well, let’s make this more digestible. Imagine you have a ruler big enough to stretch across the entire universe, now we’ll place the points where the Force of Gravity and the Strong Nuclear Force would be located. We’d get something like this:

fine tuning jairo 3

Now, Professor Collins calculates that if you increase the Force of Gravity by one part in 1034 of the range of the fundamental forces (i.e. a billion-fold increase in strength), then even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets smaller than about 31 metres in diameter could support life with our brain size. Such planets, of course, would not be able to support an ecosystem to sustain life for our level of intelligence.

We could continue giving examples of what would happen if you kept playing with the value of the Gravity Force, but I think this one is more than enough to understand what we are talking about.

So we can see that for life to occur, the Force of Gravity must fall within a very, very narrow range of values ​​compared to the total range of the fundamental forces.

Let’s look at one more analogy. Imagine a radio dial large enough to span the entire universe. The station WKLF (K-Life) allows life. So:

fine tuning jairo 5

Only by tuning into the right frequency (the first thousandth of an inch) of all those on the radio dial (more than 15 billion light years away) can you get a universe with life.

fine tuning jairo 4And so the same thing would happen if you were to play around with the values ​​of the other constants, if they had slightly different values ​​then complex material systems would not arise, so if you want life to exist then the constants of physics must fall within a very narrow range of values. This is widely acknowledged, the famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, says:

The remarkable fact is that the values ​​of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely tuned to make the development of life possible. [2]

Former director of Cambridge University Observatories, Dr Dennis Sciama, also states:

If you change the laws of nature a little bit, or you change the constants of nature a little bit… it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. [3]

Fine-tuning the Initial Mass-Energy Distribution

fine tuning jairo 6

What does the fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution mean? Well, according to standard cosmology, the universe started with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. All the matter was condensed into a region smaller than the size of a golf ball, then it exploded and expanded. And in order for that matter to get galaxies, and to get life, it had to have a very precise arrangement. Professor Collins gives us an analogy of this: If you look at a zygote with a powerful microscope, you would see that it is intricately structured. It wouldn’t look that way from the outside, you would just see it as a blob of protoplasm, but under the microscope, you would have an intricate structure of DNA and all the other kinds of organelles in cells to make up a human being. So, in the same way, the universe has to be in an extremely precise state, and those are the initial conditions, the fine-tuning of mass-energy to get galaxies, stars, and ultimately to get like us.

Now comes the important question, how precise must the initial mass-energy distribution be for life to exist? Well, Roger Penrose, one of the UK’s leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists answers this question in his book The Emperor’s New Mind :

fine tuning jairo 7

(Phase space is a space of possibilities, with a standard probability measure that tells us how likely it is to be in that part of that possibility space.)

A figure so incredibly large that Penrose says:

We couldn’t even write the whole number in ordinary decimal notation: it would be a “1” followed by 10 123 “0”s. Even if we wrote a “0” for every proton and every neutron in the entire Universe—and added all the other particles as well—we would still be way short [4] .

Here is an analogy for the formidable precision of the Big Bang explosion according to Penrose’s calculations, which must be much greater than that needed to blow up a pile of rubble into a fully formed building filled with desks, tables, chairs and computers!

fine tuning jairo 8

So we can conclude that the initial mass-energy distribution must fall within an excessively narrow range for complex life to occur.

Summary

We have seen that for complex life to exist in the universe, it has to be well structured as a biosphere, and that we have not just one piece of evidence for this, but many pieces of evidence that point to such fine-tuning, and these are the cases of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, of the physical constants and of the initial distribution of mass and energy.

FORMULATING THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

There are different ways to formulate an argument from fine-tuning, in this post I will focus only on the versions of William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, and Peter S. Williams.

William Lane Craig’s Fine-Tuning Argument

What is the reason for this fine-tuning? Well, there are three options that have been offered as the best explanation and with which we can formulate our first premise of the argument:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

Physical need

Let’s first consider the physical necessity alternative. This alternative tells us that the universe must be one that permits life – in other words, that the values ​​and constants cannot be any other way. In this alternative, the existence of a universe that prohibits life is impossible . Of course, that is a mistake, since such a universe is not only possible , but much more probable than a universe that permits life! And the reason for this is because the constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature – they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary.

One could appeal to string theory, but this does not settle the matter at all. Stephen Hawking says:

Even if we understand the ultimate theory, it is not going to tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the symmetry group or Gauge group, or other parameters of the effective low-energy theory… It is not going to determine how this energy is partitioned between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence… So to return to the question… Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows for a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically allowed location [5] .

And that vast landscape of possible universes that string theory allows for is about 100,500 different  universes, all of them governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to deliver the observed values ​​of the constants and physical quantities in a necessary way.

Chance/brute fact hypothesis

Now let’s move on to our second alternative: Chance or brute fact.

fine tuning jairo 10

One Universe Theory

fine tuning jairo 9

This hypothesis comes in two forms, the first is with respect to the one universe theory, i.e. our universe is the only one in existence. Those who hold this alternative tell us that the fact that a life-supporting universe exists is just a chance occurrence that has and requires no explanation. In simpler words, our existence is just an “extraordinarily lucky accident.” Of course, this hypothesis is not accepted among most people because of its improbability. As Robin Collins exemplifies, it would be as improbable as believing that a painting of Abraham Lincoln’s face is the result of an extraordinarily lucky ink spill, because it is not only extraordinarily improbable, but it is highly significant, these two characteristics go together.

Professor Peter S. Williams puts it this way, we do not infer intelligent design just from high improbability, but from the combination of a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. He says:

A long string of random letters is complex (unlikely) but unspecified (does not fit any independently determined pattern). A short string of letters might be specified – such as the word “so” – but it would not be sufficiently complex to overcome chance’s ability to explain the event. Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity requires us to infer design. However, if you saw a Shakespeare play written on a Scrabble board, you would infer design. A play is both specific and sufficiently complex to merit an inference of design on the grounds that “in all cases where we know the causal origin of… specific complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design plays a causal role” [6] . So too with cosmic fine-tuning [7] .

Professor Williams gives us another analogy: Imagine you see someone enter a sequence of numbers into an ATM and then get their money back. What would you infer from this situation? Was the subject lucky or did they get their money by design? It is when a complex, contingent event matches a specific, independent pattern that we infer design.

Multiverse Theory

But maybe if you spilled ink enough times you would get Lincoln’s face, or if you put too many monkeys with too many typewriters, one of them might write a paragraph of Shakespeare’s play. This is what is known as the so-called “multiverse hypothesis,” according to which there are a huge number of universes with not only different initial conditions, but also with different values ​​of the constants of physics, and even laws of nature. Therefore, simply by chance, some universe will have the “winning combination” for life and thus have an explanation for why a universe exists that allows life. The most common analogy proposed by the proponents of this hypothesis is that of the lottery, in the same way that you can draw many tickets with different combinations of numbers, only one of them has the “winning combination” and the person who gets that ticket will simply be the winner by luck, a mere matter of probability. This hypothesis is widely accepted and has quite prominent proponents, such as Professor Max Tegmark, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cosmologist, Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer to the Royal Family of Great Britain, Stephen Hawking, among many others.

Purely Metaphysical Version

The multiverse theory has two versions, the first of which is the Purely Metaphysical version , which tells us that all possible universes exist, all possible realities exist, so there is one reality where the Marvel universe really exists, another reality where the Lord of the Rings books are true, all those universes exist as a brute fact without any further explanation. This version, for obvious reasons, is not widely defended today.

Universe Generator Version

This hypothesis tells us that universes are generated by some physical process that Professor Collins calls a “Universe Generator.” Unlike the metaphysical version, the Universe Generator version is defended by many leaders in cosmology such as Andrei Linde of Stanford University and Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.

fine tuning jairo 11

So you pick the ocean of your choice, then pour a lot of soap on it, so thousands of bubbles are formed, and these are the universes, of course, the ocean keeps expanding at a great rate so the bubbles never collide with each other.

We now turn to the answer that Robin Collins focuses on to rule out the Universe Generator hypothesis, which is this: The Universe Generator itself would have to be “well designed” to produce a single universe that would support life.

fine tuning jairo 12

Professor Collins gives us the following analogy of the Universe Generator:

fine tuning jairo 13

Much like the bread machine, it seems that the Universe Generator must have the right laws and have the right ingredients (initial conditions) to produce universes that support life.

Professor Collins tells us that if we examine the super-string inflationary multiverse carefully, it requires at least five special mechanisms/laws in order to produce at least one life-supporting universe. So he simply sends the design issue up one level. Collins concludes that at best, the Universe Generator hypothesis eliminates the quantitative case for design based on fine-tuning of constants, but it still requires precise laws and the right initial conditions in order to work. So after all, we can still ask the valid question: “Who or what ‘designed’ the Universe Generator?”

Design Hypothesis

Since we have ruled out physical necessity and chance from our basket of alternatives, we can now state the second premise of our argument:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due neither to physical necessity nor to chance.

But if that is the case, then it inevitably follows that

  1. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

One would think that the “design” alternative is just an option offered by theists on a whim or because they simply “need to fill the gap” left by science, so it must necessarily be included in the list of explanations and not as a common sense interpretation. But that is not so, that fine-tuning is due to design is not only a claim made by theistic cosmologists, but by non-theists as well! Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies states: “The impression of design is overwhelming” [8] and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, once stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has tinkered with physics… and that there are no blind forces of nature . ”

Robin Collins’ Fine-Tuning Argument

The main feature of this argument is that it does not say that the evidence for fine-tuning proves that the universe was designed, or even that the universe is likely to have been designed. Rather, the argument simply concludes that fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis.

Our first premise of the argument can be stated as follows:

  1. The existence of fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

As we have seen throughout the article, justifying this premise is easy and not at all controversial: since God is a good being and it is good that intelligent and conscious beings exist, it is neither surprising nor unlikely that God would create a world that can sustain intelligent life.

The following premise may be as follows:

  1. The existence of fine-tuning is highly unlikely under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

This premise encompasses the options presented in an atheistic worldview: chance/brute fact and physical necessity. The objections are the same as those we used above for Craig’s argument.

And the conclusion of the argument would be:

  1. From premises (1) and (2) and by inference from the overriding confirmation principle, it follows that the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence in favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

This is the way Collins presents his argument. The evidence for fine-tuning is a lot like fingerprints found on a gun: although they may provide strong evidence that the defendant committed the murder, one cannot, from the evidence, conclude that the defendant is guilty; one would also have to look at the counter-evidence offered. For example, ten reliable witnesses claimed to have seen the defendant in the park at the time of the shooting. In this case, the fingerprints would still count as significant evidence of guilt, but this evidence would be counterbalanced by the testimony of the witnesses. Similarly, the evidence for fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis, although it does not by itself show that everything that is considered theism is the most plausible explanation of the world. Nevertheless, as we have seen so far, the evidence for fine-tuning provides a much stronger and more objective argument for theism than the strongest atheistic argument against theism.

Peter Williams’ Fine-Tuning Argument

The first premise of Williams’ argument [9] is as follows: 

  1. If something exhibits specified complexity, then it is probably the product of design.

This premise appeals to our common sense of inferring design when we see a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. This is not a religious claim or a bias coming from the theist; as we have seen above, the design inference for cosmic fine-tuning arises naturally even among atheist physicists.

Our second premise is as follows:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe exhibits specified complexity.

It is obvious that nothing more needs to be said to justify this premise than what has been presented for the previous arguments. It can therefore be concluded that:

  1. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is probably the product of design.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

So at the end of the day we have a very strong case for the fine-tuning of the universe, and in turn at least three ways to make an argument for the existence of God.

I would like to end this article with a few words from King David:

The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day by day he tells the world, night by night he makes it known. (Psalm 19:2)

Grades

[1] Translating the huge quantities from English to Spanish is complicated because it is also necessary to convert from the English system of measurement to the international one. For the conversion of the measurements my friend Chris A. Du-Pond helped me with this.

[2] Hawking, 1988, A Brief History of Time , p. 125.

[3] From the BBC special, “The Anthropic Principle.”

[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind , p. 310

[5] SW Hawking, “Cosmology from the Top Down” a paper presented at the Cosmic Inflation Conference at Davis, University of California, Davis, May 29, 2003.

[6] Stephen C. Meyer, ‘Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn’t Make’,  www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teleologicalevolution.htm

[7] Peter S. Williams, “Five Arguments For Theism,” http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/#_edn8

[8] Paul Davies, The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203

[9] http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/ (Last visited October 17, 2018).

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

/by
Apologists, Please Don't Forget The Gospel

Apologistas, por favor no se olviden del evangelio

By Michael Sherrard

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. — ROMANS 1:16

As an apologist, let me encourage you to trust in the power of the gospel. Do not be ashamed to speak freely about the goodness of God’s mercy and kindness. I have said before that most people reject God because of emotional and volitional problems. The intellect simply hides these problems. Even as we talk about evidence, logic, and arguments, apologists must remember that the reason many people will not give themselves to God is because of their hearts. But the love and kindness of God’s grace can soften a hard heart and will draw many to Him.

All people recognize two things: there is a God, and they have broken a standard of morality by which they should be judged (Rom. 1:18–2:16). All people struggle with guilt, and guilt is a powerful force that causes many people to run from God instead of to Him. Guilt often manifests itself in pride and the attempt to rationalize or atone for sin. Sometimes guilt results in depression, feelings of inadequacy, and the belief that no one should love them. Whatever you look at it, guilt is a hindrance to repentance.

But God is greater than our sin. His love is more powerful than our guilt. And His kindness will draw many to repentance. Don’t put your hope in logic, history, science, and argument. Trust in the beauty of the gospel and the mercy of God. Don’t be ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that works for salvation (Rom 1:16). Share it as much as you can.

The thing most overlooked in apologetics is the Gospel. Apologists tend to never go that far in conversations with unbelievers. Sometimes we think other people won’t believe the nonsense of the Cross. So we resort to talking only about what seems reasonable. But don’t shy away from preaching what in this world is considered nonsense. Remember that apologetics is a servant of the Gospel, and sometimes the servant has to get out of the way of the master.

Apologists, share the gospel with others and tell them how God’s mercy has transformed you. You can offer the hope of a changed life. Tell your story. Explain what it feels like to be forgiven. Speak of your hope for heaven. And speak with joy of the peace of God that now fills your life.

Invite skeptics to know God and enjoy all that comes from life in Christ. Feel free to tell them that you know Him, that you have experienced Him, and that they can too. There is value in your experience and in your personal knowledge of God. Talk to them about that. Some people say you can’t argue with a changed life, but you can; I argue with good, changed Mormons all the time. But there is value in your conversion, in the reality in which God can be known and experienced. So tell them your story and invite them to enter into one for themselves.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, author of Relational Apologetics, and director of Ratio Christi College Prep. RCCP is an organization that seeks to equip the church for effective evangelism by teaching high school students apologetics, fundamental Christian doctrine, and biblical evangelism.

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

Translated by Italo Espinoza Gomez

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Is the Bible from God

¿Proviene la Biblia de Dios?

By Mikel Del Rosario

Does the Bible really come from God? I recently conducted a workshop on this topic for fifth and sixth graders at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, CA. I wanted to help the Christian kids talk about this topic with their friends. But I knew it had to be something simple to understand and easy to remember. We ended up having a lot of fun with games, activities, stories, and illustrations that helped them stick with these ideas.

After each session, parents told me how much they appreciated the lesson. Another reminder that adults value “simple” things, too.

In this post, I’ll show you a quick way to answer the question, “Is the Bible really from God?” and give you a little reminder so you can remember 3 reasons skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. But first, you should know that when it comes to the Bible, there are only two ways to look at it.

Only 2 options

The Bible says it is God’s message to us (2 Tim 3:16-17). That’s either true or false. So is there any reason to think the Bible is more than a book written by men? What kind of book is the Bible? We have only two answers:

  1. It’s just a bunch of stories and ideas about God written by people.
  2. It is truly the Word of God given to the people.

Here’s how I started the kids segment:

  • Mikel: “How many of you have read a book that you really enjoyed this summer? Tell me the name of an author you like.”
  • Students: (Different answers, including Agatha Christie, JK Rowling, CS Lewis, etc…)
  • Mikel: Now, do you think that all these authors would have the same opinion about the things that adults say we shouldn’t talk about at parties: politics and religion? Do you think they would agree?
  • Students:
  • Mikel: Of course not. No big surprise, right? No, the big surprise is when you consider the Bible…

3 Reasons Skeptics Should Pay Attention to the Bible

Imagine a UPS truck delivering Bibles, because the letters U, P, and S can help you remember 3 reasons why skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. These are 3 simple discussion points you can share with a friend or even your own children.

Think of it in terms of cause and effect. The Bible is an effect. What is the cause? If the Bible were just a book written by men, it would be pretty hard to explain the following:

  1. Your unit

The “U” can help you remember the word for  unity . The Bible is surprisingly united. When you hold a Bible in your hands, you are holding a collection of 66 ancient documents. They were originally written in 3 languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We’re talking about 40 different authors, writing over a period of over 1,500 years! Imagine these guys writing in different times, places, languages, and cultures.

And yet the authors agree with each other on highly controversial ethical and religious issues. And most importantly, they all arrived at a single message about God.

  1. His prophecy

The “P” can help you remember the word prophecy. The Bible records exact predictions about the future that came true. A couple of examples are specific prophecies about Jesus and Israel.

Predictions about Jesus

The Old Testament prophets said that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), from the lineage of King David (2 Sam. 7:12-13), and that he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). 700 years before Jesus was born, the Jewish prophet Isaiah foretold very specific things about the Messiah (ch. 53). For example:

  • That would be whipped
  • That I would die with evil people
  • That he would be buried as a rich person

More than 1,000 years before Jesus was born, King David predicted that the Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced, but not one of his bones would be broken (Psalm 22). All of these things about Jesus, the Messiah, came to pass.

Predictions about Israel

Isaiah also predicted that the Jewish people would return to their lands for a second time (11:11-16). The first time they returned was in the 6th century with Ezra and Nehemiah. But Israel was expelled in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Their second return was when Israel became a nation in 1948. I told the children:

This is something that really happened and maybe some of your grandparents saw it! And if not, your parents must have seen it on the news.

  1. Follow here!

The “S” can help you remember that the Bible is still here !  And why is this so important? Because people have tried to wipe the Bible off the face of the earth and they won’t succeed. Not only that, it’s still the number one best-seller.

This is just the beginning. If you really take the time to look more closely, you will see that we have good reason to believe that the Bible is not just people’s ideas about God written down. The Bible is God’s Word given to people.

Lesson 4

Fact or fiction:

Can I Trust My Bible? This workshop was based on lesson 4  of my Accessible Apologetics curriculumfor youth and adults. It includes games, illustrations, PowerPoint, and more. Download a free lesson from the series. 

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a PhD student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel is a professor of Christian apologetics and world religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an MA in Christian apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and an MA in divinity from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and host on “the Table Podcast.” Visit his website at ApologeticsGuy.com.

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Did Jesus Exist

¿Existió Jesús?

By Evan Minton

I don’t know why, but 99% of the atheists I talk to on the Internet hold the ridiculous position that Jesus never existed. But then, they’re atheists. I don’t expect them to believe in the divinity of Jesus. How could they? If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists. They would be Christians. No. I’m not talking about believing in the divinity of Jesus here, but about believing in Jesus as a historical figure. That’s what I find so ridiculous. Those who deny the Christ myth are clinging to a historical hypothesis that would make them the laughing stock of every university in the world. Almost every scholar of ancient history holds this view, and those who are in a minority, a minority, a minority are rightly seen as charlatans. By the way, those who believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure are not Christians. Atheist and agnostic scholars also believe that Jesus was a historical figure. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and one of the most outspoken critics of Christianity, believes that Jesus was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person. He writes: “I think the evidence that Jesus existed is so overwhelming that it is foolish to claim otherwise. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is trained in the historical method, or anyone who is a biblical scholar and who works that way, who gives any credence to any of that.” 

Why is this the case? Why do almost all scholars of ancient history believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood figure in history? Is the evidence for Jesus’ historicity as overwhelming as agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman claims? Let’s see.

*The existence of Jesus is more than amply attested in secular sources, non-Christian extra-biblical sources, and in the New Testament documents.

Jesus is mentioned in so many sources in the first century and early second century that it is absurd to claim that He never existed. What are those sources? Well, we have the gospels and the epistles of the New Testament. But everyone already knows them, so I am not going to cite them. Instead, I am going to cite merely the non-Christian, extra-biblical sources.

1: Flavius ​​Josephus

Josephus mentions Jesus (and other New Testament figures) in his writings. In Flavius ​​Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (written in 90 AD), Josephus writes:

“About that time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he was a wonder-worker, a teacher of men who welcomed the truth. Many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles were attracted to him. They called him the Christ, and when Pilate, acting on the suggestion of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the beginning did not forsake him; he appeared to them resurrected on the third day, just as the divine prophets had foretold, and they said ten thousand other astonishing things about him. The existence of Christians, the name they took from him from that time on, continues to this day.”

“Antiquities of the Jews”, 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what might be called a brief reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother James at the hands of the high priest Ananus.

“But as we said, the young man Ananus who received the high priesthood was of a courageous temper and exceptionally bold; he was a partisan of the Sadducees, who were severe in passing judgment on all the Jews, as we have already shown. Since Ananus was of such a temper, he thought he had now a great opportunity since Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way; so he formed a council of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, together with others; and having accused them of being offenders, he handed them over to be stoned.”

Here we have an early secular source that mentions Jesus and a handful of followers who clearly believed He was the promised Messiah (or Christ) of their Jewish religion. It also mentions Pontius Pilate and says that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is pretty good non-Christian and non-Biblical evidence that affirms the existence of Jesus, the existence of Pontius Pilate, that Jesus had a handful of followers who considered Him to be the Christ, and that the Sanhedrin brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate and that he condemned Him to die on a cross. Josephus also claims that Jesus had a brother named James who was murdered by the Sanhedrin.

“BUT!” The one who believes that Christ is a myth may protest . This passage has obviously been interpolated by a Christian. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. And yet he says things like “He was the Christ”  and “He appeared to them resurrected on the third day .”  Therefore, we cannot include this passage from Josephus because it was not a genuine passage that he wrote. It was more likely written by a Christian scribe who included this passage in order to subliminally evangelize people. But are the skeptics right? Is this passage really not historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? There are a few things to consider.

First, very few scholars believe that the entire passage was invented by a Christian. Certainly, it is indisputable that there have been interpolations in this passage, but that does not mean that the whole thing was invented. Most scholars believe that there was an original passage about Jesus included in the Flavian testimony, but that it was subtly modified by a Christian scribe.

There are very good reasons why scholars have adopted the theory of “partial authenticity.”

1: A good portion of the text is written in Josephus’s dramatic style and vocabulary. That is, the fragments believed to be original to Josephus reflect his typical writing style.

Christopher Price wrote: “Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the partial authenticity position is that a substantial part of the TF reflects the language and style of Josephus . Moreover, when the obvious Christian references—which are rich in New Testament vocabulary and non-core language—are removed or restored to the original, the remainder of the core passage is coherent and flows appropriately. We can be confident that there was minimal reference to Jesus… for once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the remainder makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are connected parenthetically to the narrative; therefore, they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections, moreover, are broken up, and when they are removed, the flow of thought is improved and more harmonious.”

Graham Stanton claims that “once the obvious Christian additions are removed , the remaining comments are consistent with the vocabulary and style of Josephus”  (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, p. 143). The most recent and comprehensive study of the Flavian testimony was undertaken by John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew, Volume 1. According to Meier,  “many key words and phrases in the testimony are either absent from the NT or are used in it in entirely different ways; instead, nearly all of the core words of the testimony are found elsewhere in Josephus’ work—indeed, much of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus”  (Meier, op. cit., p. 63).

  1. The reference to James, the brother of Jesus, suggests an earlier reference to Jesus.

The validity of Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James increases the likelihood that the TF is also valid. In Josephus’ reference to James, he names Jesus as “the so-called Christ” without further explanation . That’s all he says. When he refers to James, he says he is the brother of “ Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Josephus gives no further explanation of who Jesus was , what he did, no reference to his death or resurrection from the dead, no mention of any miracles, or anything like that. All he says is that James is the brother of Jesus. The way the passage about James reads makes it seem as if Josephus was assuming that his readers already knew who he was talking about. This would make sense if the Flavian Testimony were a legitimate passage. Because in that passage, Josephus has already briefly explained who this Jesus was and what he did, so that by the time his readers got to the passage about James, no further explanation would be necessary. However, Josephus’ lack of elaboration as to who Jesus was in the passage about James would make no sense if there were no earlier explanation of who he was, such as in the Flavian Testimony. Incidentally, no one doubts that Josephus’ reference to James is authentic.

For these two reasons and several more, most scholars believe that Josephus’ Flavian testimony is a genuine passage, even though it is obvious that some Christian scribe changed a few lines here and there. For more information on why Josephus’ passage was partially interpolated rather than completely invented, please click on the URL below.

“Did Josephus Refer To Jesus?” by Christopher Price —  http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The Mona Lisa

This topic arose from a talk given by Dr. Timothy McGrew. The talk was about extra-biblical evidence indicating the historical reliability of the New Testament. By the way, you can listen to this talk on YouTube. Anyway, Tim McGrew posted a picture of the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa had a mustache, and he compared it to Josephus’ interpolations of the passage about Jesus with the Mona Lisa having a mustache. He said:

“This is not a Leonardo da Vinci painting, and if the lights weren’t so bright, you can see why. It looks a little bit like the Mona Lisa… but… it has a moustache and a bit of a beard. Should we conclude, then, that there was no original painting? Or should we conclude that there was and that there is something that has been added… by someone else’s hand? What should we make of a moustache on the Mona Lisa? Well, fortunately in 1971, Shlomo Pines published some work he had been doing on an Arabic manuscript that contained this passage.”

And it is in this Arabic text that we find the passage without the confusing fragments that seem to be Christian interpolations.

“whose conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and from other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death, and those who were his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him.  THEY  REPORTED that he appeared to them 3 days after his crucifixion. Consequently , they believed that he was the Messiah just as the prophets had said ”  (emphasis mine)

Tim McGrew then asked the audience, “Do you see the difference? My guess is (and this is the opinion of most scholars) is that the passage was originally written by Josephus as we have it in this Arabic text… and then some Christian scribe couldn’t resist the urge to put a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He didn’t realize that what he was doing would raise doubts as to the authenticity of the report of this genuine passage and that of Josephus himself. As with the Mona Lisa, our inference is that there was indeed an original and it was not invented by the person who added the mustache and beard. Our best guess regarding the testimony is that Josephus actually wrote it and that it was interpolated. And fortunately, we have discovered a text that shows us why most scholars think more or less that is how it happened.”

2: Tacitus

Another secular document is the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus. In Annals 15.44, Tacitus recounts the burning of Rome to its foundations and says that everyone blamed Nero for burning the city. Nero tried to shift the blame to the Christians, and so he began to persecute them. Tacitus’ Annals date from 115 AD.

“But all the help that could come from man, all the rewards that the prince could grant, all the expiations that could be presented to the gods, were of no avail to free Nero from the infamy of supposing that he had ordered the conflagration, the burning of Rome. Therefore, to silence the rumours, he falsely accused and then punished the Christians, who were abhorred for their enormities. Christ, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition which had been for a time suppressed, broke out again, not only throughout Judea where the mischief originated, but also throughout the city of Rome, where everything disgusting and disgraceful that springs from all parts of the world finds its centre and becomes popular. Therefore, first of all those who were found guilty were arrested; Then, after his declaration, an immense crowd was accused, not so much of the crime of burning the city, but of their hatred of humanity.”

Again, Jesus and Pontius Pilate are mentioned in secular documents. Tacitus claims that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. He then states that the movement that arose after Jesus died out for a time, then flared up again originating in Judea, and then spread to Rome. The New Testament claims the same thing; Jesus existed, was crucified by Pilate, his followers kept quiet for the next 50 days, and then at Pentecost, began to spread the gospel throughout the ancient world. And unlike the Josephus passage , no one debates this Tacitus passage. Everyone acknowledges that this passage from Tacitus’ Annals is authentic.

3: Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113 AD) was the governor of Bithynia. His correspondence with the Emperor Trajan in 106 AD included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extensive note to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to “curse Christ, which a true Christian cannot be induced to do.” He also described their actions and practices:

“They affirmed, however, that their whole fault, or their whole error, was that they were in the habit of meeting together on a certain appointed day before daybreak, when they would sing in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as if to a god, and bind themselves by a solemn oath never to do any infamous action, except never to commit fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, never to deny the faith if called upon to testify.”

Kyle Butt, author of many articles at Apologetics Press, had this to say regarding the Pliny passage I just quoted. Here is what Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press wrote.

“Pliny used the word ‘Christian’ or ‘Christians’ seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted word that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny, moreover, used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the initiator of the “sect.” This is the undeniable case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied to such an extent that it attracted the attention of the emperor and his magistrates in the days when Pliny wrote the letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as a real, historical person.”  – Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press, from the article titled: “The Historical Christ–Fact or Fiction? ”

4: Celsus

Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century, produced a vehement attack on Christianity entitled “The True Discourse” (in AD 178). Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. When this Jesus grew up, he began running around Palestine making extravagant claims of divinity. Celsus tells us that because of Jesus’ wild claims about himself, he displeased the Jewish authorities so intensely that they killed him. Although Celsus harshly ridiculed the Christian faith, he never went so far as to suggest that Jesus did not exist.

5: Mara bar-Serapion

Mara bar-Serapion was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus Christ sometime in AD 73. He left a manuscript as an inheritance to his son Serapion.

“What did the Athenians gain by killing Socrates? Famine and plagues came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What did the men of Samos gain by burning Pythagoras? In a moment, their land was covered by sand. What did the Jews gain by executing their wise king? It was after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and expelled from their land, live in utter dispersion. But Socrates did not die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for doing good; he lived on in the statue of the goddess Hera. Nor did the wise king die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings he had imparted.”

This reference reveals several key points:

1) Jesus was considered a wise king.

2) Jesus was killed.

3) Jesus’ teachings endured.

Several of those who maintain that “Christ is a myth” have tried to argue that the “wise king” to whom Mara is referring is Jesus, but this is really a pathetic argument. For the sake of brevity, I will not address in depth the objections to the Mara bar-Serapion passage, but James Patrick Holding addresses these arguments at the following URL.

http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.php

In conclusion

For the sake of brevity, I could not go into all the secular sources that mention Jesus. But here is a list of all the historical sources that mention him.

Secular sources: Josephus , Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Phlegon, Celsus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius and Thallus

New Testament sources:    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

Non-biblical Christian sources: Clement of Rome, Clement 2, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Ariston of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, The Gospel of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter and Epistula Apostolorum.

Heretical writings: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphal Book of John and The Treatise on the Resurrection.

We have an abundance of historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the amount of historical evidence is staggering considering how unclear his person was. He had, at most, a three-year public ministry. Yet, He is mentioned in more sources than the Roman Emperor! If you count all the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, He is mentioned in one more source than the Roman Emperor Caesar Tiberius! If you count the Christian sources (including the New Testament documents), Jesus beats Caesar 42 to 10! If you consider Jesus a mythological person in light of this historical evidence, you might believe the same about Caesar Tiberius, since we have more evidence confirming the existence of Jesus than Caesar Tiberius. To claim that Jesus is a myth and that Caesar Tiberius was a real person is to be inconsistent.

Now, why is this important? Because when historians examine history, they use certain tests for authenticity. If a passage in a history book passes one of these “tests,” then the historian concludes that the recorded event is more likely to be true than false. There are many such tests, but the one I am using in this post is known as “The Principle of Multiple Witnesses.” The Principle of Multiple Witnesses says that if an event is mentioned in more than one source, and if the sources do not support each other, then it is much more likely that that event actually happened. The more often a recorded event is mentioned, the more certain there is that the event recorded in that document is true. Why? Because the more independent the sources that something is found in, the much less likely it is that ALL of those people involved made up that exact same story.

Here I am applying the principle of multiple witnesses to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is mentioned in so many early independent sources that it is irrational to claim that ALL of these people made up this same fictional character… and then go on to talk about it as if he were real.

On top of that, several of these sources are hostile sources , as they are not only neutral to the claims of the Christian faith, but they even ridicule Jesus, in fact. These would be sources such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. These sources make their accounts historically true due to the principle of enemy testimony.

Objection: But these are not contemporary sources. These are late secondary sources! Show me contemporary sources or else I will not believe that Jesus existed!

Ah yes. The tired old argument of “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.” Actually, we do have contemporary accounts of Jesus – they are known as the Gospels. As I have mentioned in other posts, we have good reason to believe that the vast majority of New Testament documents were written before 60 AD. But even if it were true that there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus, what would that prove? Would that be proof that Jesus never existed? Hardly. We don’t really have any contemporary historical evidence for many of the characters in history, but we know they existed because historical scholarship can compensate with techniques such as “declarations of interest” and independent corroboration. We have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and yet we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that, while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that were not contemporary accounts, but are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on. And as for the gospels, which are contemporary accounts, they are rejected a priori because they were written by people who believed in Jesus and are allegedly partisan (although almost everyone who writes about history has some kind of partisanship). Furthermore, the kind of partisanship that the New Testament writers had was to say nothing about Jesus and all the things he did because that would get them thrown out of their synagogues, tortured, and killed.

For some reason, just because it is a non-contemporary account does not mean that it is not a reliable source. Secondary accounts, even if they are not highly regarded by a historian as first-hand or eyewitness accounts, are not considered worthless. Regarding some events and people in history, all we have are secondary accounts. So are we to conclude that they never happened? Of course not. Yet that is what those who hold that Christ is a myth do when it comes to the life and death of Jesus. They reject all secondary accounts (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) and they also reject the contemporary accounts that we do have (i.e., the gospels). Are they not aware of the fact that historians do not need contemporary accounts for recognized history? (If you think that is so, then you will have to rewrite most of what happened in history.) They accept both first-hand history and secondary accounts, among other factors.

Also, the thing about Josephus and Tacitus is that, although they were not alive when Jesus was on this earth, they were alive when there were still those who knew him and could tell them about him (Jesus, according to virtually all scholars, was crucified sometime between 30 AD or 33 AD and Josephus was born in 37 AD). I used an analogy of me talking about Richard Feynman, an American physicist well known for his work in quantum mechanics and who helped develop the atomic bomb. Although I was born after he died (Feynman died in 1988 and I was born in 1992), I am close enough to the events for them to be relevant. After all, I am growing up in an age when adults who did know Richard Feynman are still alive, and they can tell me about him (just pretend for a moment that I don’t have video recordings; Josephus didn’t have any either to go on). Are you saying that my testimony about Feynman should be invalidated because I was not a contemporary of his, even though I have parents, grandparents, and friends of my parents who were contemporaries of Feynman and from whom I was able to get all my information? Absurd. My point is that they are close enough to the events to be relevant sources, and almost all scholars in the field accept their testimony as valid evidence as to the historicity of Jesus, including non-Christian scholars (so we can be sure that they have no theological foundation to shred).

Objection: Why aren’t there more sources?

Some skeptics complain that there are not more historical sources that mention Jesus. They argue that if Jesus had been as influential an individual as the gospels claim, there would have to be many more historical documents that mention him. Of the secular sources, we only have 9 that mention Jesus. From there, they argue that He either did not exist or was not as influential as the Bible claims.

For some reason, very few documents of ancient history have survived to this day. As Ryan Turner, who works as a writer for CARM (Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry), put it in an article on Carm.org:  “There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the work of the Roman historian Tacitus, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary Nicholas of Damascus wrote a universal history of Roman history, which consisted of nearly 144 books of which, none have survived. Based on the textual evidence, there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The point is that there may have been more secular documents that talked about Jesus than we know about. But they have most likely deteriorated, been destroyed, or have not yet been discovered by archaeologists. If the documents were not copied over and over and over again at a fast enough pace, they probably would not have survived for 2,000 years. Furthermore, the evidence we have for Jesus is still pretty strong. His existence has been very, very, very, very, very amply demonstrated in 9 secular sources, 9 biblical sources, 20 non-biblical Christian sources, and 4 heretical sources.

Now, historians consider themselves extraordinarily lucky when they find 2 independent sources that mention something, but when it comes to Jesus’ existence, we have 42!  Some of these are contemporary sources; others are secondary. We have to ask ourselves: is it really rational to believe that such an individual is a fictional character when so many historians wrote about him? Jesus’ existence and crucifixion are mentioned in numerous independent and early sources. It is possible that there are more than we already know about, but they are eroded by the fact that this happens with documents that last thousands of years.

Objection: Jesus is a copy of pagan myths

Another argument that those who argue that “Christ is a myth” make is that Jesus was merely a copy of pagan gods. They cite the “similarities” between the two and claim that Christianity is simply a religion plagiarized from early pagan myths. Theoretically, let’s assume that we believe that Jesus was merely a myth and not a real, historical, flesh-and-blood individual. I’ve already written two separate articles pointing out the absurdity of this argument, so I won’t go into it here. Instead, I suggest you read these blog posts, and you can check them out when you have the time to do so.

1:  Is Jesus A Copy Of Pagan Myths ?

2:  Cartoons and Comics That Plagiarized Christianity (Satire)

Bottom line:  “Christ is a myth” is absurd. Jesus obviously existed, as did other New Testament characters. You can believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man if you want, but to claim that He never even existed is just ridiculous. The debate among ancient history scholars is not, “Did Jesus exist?” No. The debate is,  “Was Jesus more than a man? Did he say what the gospels say he said? Did he rise from the dead?”  These questions are topics of debate among scholars. But Jesus’ historical existence is taken for granted. And why shouldn’t it be? You’ve already seen the evidence.

If you wish to study this topic in more detail than I have presented here, see James Patrick Holding’s book, Shattering The Christ Myth, as well as Bart Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?

 

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

Translated by Natalia Armando.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2DD2a5N

/by
Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

Naturaleza humana según Darwin – una respuesta cristiana

By Ken Mann

The following was delivered as a plenary session at a Biola on the Road conference in April 2017 at Faith Bible Church in Houston, Texas.

Introduction

Charles Darwin. Evolution. Perhaps no other man and no other idea has had a broader influence on Western culture. In On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, first published in 1859, the way we perceive our world and ourselves has been transformed. For those who have embraced Darwinism, humanity and every other living thing are the end products of a natural process. There is no Creator. There is no purpose. There is simply survival. Humanity is a cosmic accident.

Since 1888, scientists and academics have claimed that Darwinian evolution is as certain a fact as gravity. The momentum behind Darwin’s theory has been strengthened in the 20th century, to the point where almost every aspect of human behavior and culture has been subjected to a process of evolutionary explanation. Today, scientists who are merely skeptical of evolution risk losing their jobs if their views become known.

In the face of such an attack, what should a Christian think? In my own experience, I was always convinced that evolution was false. Not because I knew anything about it, rather, I was certain of the existence of God and the reliability of the New Testament. I believed I had adequate justification for believing in a literal Adam and Eve, in the Fall, and in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But for many years I was plagued by an internal conflict. Evolution aside, I have always loved science. Ever since I was a physics major in college, I have adhered to the adage that science is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Despite the myriad apparent conflicts between science and religion, I suspected that Psalm 19:1—“The heavens declare the glory of God”—meant that the study of creation was compatible with the Christian worldview.

Then, in 2010, I enrolled in the Science and Religion program at Biola. During my first year, I took a class that focused on Darwin. At the time, Darwin seemed like the Mount Everest of a “Science and Religion” program. Looking back on it now, this topic embodied everything that made the program so valuable. The tools I learned and the confidence I gained have transformed my faith.

I always rejected evolution, not because I understood the science, philosophy, or history surrounding it, but because I trusted God more. Today, I know the reasons why Darwinian evolution is not a fact, and I must emphasize that none of them are based on Christian doctrine.

That may alarm some of you, so let me explain. There are many myths and distortions about the relationship between science and Christianity. Perhaps the worst is that science and Christianity are in hopeless conflict, that the Christian Church has been an impediment to science since Galileo. In reality, the foundations of modern science, the assumptions that made science possible, come from the Christian worldview. The pioneers of modern science were all committed Christians, most of whom saw science, in Kepler’s words, as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

In other words, science and Scripture are simply two sources of revelation. There is the “book of nature” and the “book of Scripture.” These two “books” cannot contradict each other because they have the same author, God. When they seem to contradict each other, then something has gone wrong with our understanding of Scripture, nature, or both.

Since Galileo’s confrontation with the Catholic Church in the 17th century, there have been conflicts between the doctrines promoted by the Church and the conclusions of science. In Galileo’s time, almost everyone accepted an earth-centered view of the cosmos that originated with the Greeks and was later sanctified using certain passages from the Old Testament. Galileo questioned the conventional wisdom of his day and advocated an idea that would not be widely accepted for another century.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin also challenged widely accepted ideas about God’s role in the creation of the world. Christianity has since been challenged by a variety of conclusions based on his writings.

How should we deal with these challenges? The first and most important step is to understand them. We should not run away from something that attacks our Christian worldview. We should run toward it. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

As we engage with evolution today, I want to assure you that we are not going to wander into the tall grass of the biological sciences. We are not going to talk about the Prevalence of Functionally Significant Glutathione S-Transferase Genetic Polymorphisms in Dogs. (That is the topic of a research project my daughter, a biochemist, cell and molecular biology major, has been working on since last summer.) Not because the science is not important, but because it takes much longer than we have available today. Plus, there are much more obvious problems with Darwinian evolution.

Darwin’s theory is supposed to have been the triumph of science over the myths of religion. It is said that Darwin was not influenced by religion; he studied nature and “discovered” how it really worked. From his empirical observations, he proposed an idea that explained how life developed through natural processes without the direct intervention of a creator. In reality, Darwin had certain assumptions about God and how He would create that which were inconsistent with what he found in the natural world. In short, Darwin was convinced that his theory was true because his God would not have created the world as we find it.

My top priority this morning is to be understood, so I want to be clear about what I mean. I also want to inform, which means some of what I share may be challenging and new to some of you. I ask for your patience as we move forward. I’ll be here to answer questions and the content of this talk, along with a list of some relevant books that you can find on my website under “resources.”

I’m going to cover two things this morning. First, I’m going to discuss some terms that are central to this topic. Next, we’re going to consider theological ideas that were at work in the 19th century and that still influence public perception of the relationship between science and Christianity.

Terminology

Whether you’re interacting with someone with a different worldview or just trying to learn more about a topic, navigating terminology is a crucial task. You have to be aware of words you haven’t heard or seen before. Whether I’m reading or having a conversation, I’m always on the lookout for these words. If I’m reading, I’ll stop and look up the word. In a conversation, it’s difficult, but still important to interrupt and ask the other person what that word means. If they can explain the term to you, it will definitely improve the conversation greatly. If they can’t, you may or may not be able to continue. Regardless, it’s important to avoid either party in a conversation assuming what certain words mean.

Evolution

So what does the word evolution mean? That depends on the context and the author’s intent. On this topic alone, there are actually six different definitions that are routinely used. Only one definition is in plain view this morning, but if you read articles or blogs about evolution, you may encounter one or more of these definitions. You may even find authors who use the word in one sense, then switch to a different meaning later in the same article.

  • They change over time.  To quote Screwtape’s letters, “…to be in time means to change.” The study of nature frequently involves discerning what happened in the past from evidence we can examine today. Clearly, no one is going to disagree with this definition.
  • Change in the distribution of different physical traits within a population.  This refers to a field within biology known as population genetics. It studies the genetic makeup of biological populations and the changes in genetic makeup that result from the operation of various factors, including natural selection.
  • Limited common ancestry.  “The idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.” The best-known example of this is the finches found on the Galapagos Islands. Today there are many examples of different species that probably have a common ancestor.
  • The mechanism of limited common descent, natural selection acting on genetic mutations.  Darwin’s theory had three premises: organisms varied, variations could be inherited, and all organisms were under pressure to survive. Variations that improved survival were passed on to other generations. Again, in a limited sense, such variation is observed, and it is plausible that survival could select for certain traits over others.

None of the definitions so far are controversial. However, the next two are where most of the disagreements occur.

  • Universal common descent.  This definition of evolution states that every organism descends from a single original organism. As controversial as it may seem, it is not the final word on what most scientists believe evolution is all about.
  • Thesis “The Blind Watchmaker”

The term “blind watchmaker” was coined by Richard Dawkins in the title of his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Dawkins was ridiculing an argument made by William Paley published in 1802. Paley argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, whereas a rock merely implies the processes of geology over time.

This definition of evolution says that all organisms have ascended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material process. This process is entirely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Or more succinctly, “Molecules to men by means of chemistry and physics.”

This final definition is what really drives the worldview conflict between materialism and Christianity. It has a couple of other names: “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism.” (The term below is a more technical and specific one in that it refers to the integration of Darwinism and the science of population genetics in the mid-20th century.)

While you should always push for definitions, when you hear Darwin or evolution invoked in a discussion of human origins or the development of life, you can be sure that the idea of ​​”molecules for men” is what is meant.

Science

The term science does not need a definition with so many warning labels. Since it is in the title of my specialization, I will not be surprised if I have developed some opinions on the subject. I will limit myself to two ideas.

First, science cannot be limited by a specific detailed definition. There is no definitive list of criteria that says, “that’s science, but this other field isn’t!” In other words, specific examples of science (e.g., physics, biology, and paleoanthropology) seem obvious, however, coming up with a list of criteria that separates astrology from astronomy, for example, is harder to do. Almost everyone will agree that simply studying the motion of stars and planets does not make astrology a science.

Second, beware of an exaggerated view of science as a source of knowledge. The view known as “scientism” claims that the only things that can be known come from the natural sciences. It is a tactic designed to give the man in a lab coat, as opposed to a theologian or philosopher, a privileged status that ends discussion. It is also a self-refuting concept because there is nothing we can learn from science. However you define science, that proves scientism.

Theology

Theology is the study of the nature of God. I believe that the Bible is the best source of theology. But we can also learn something about the nature of God from other disciplines, such as science and philosophy.

Human nature

Now that I have defined Darwinism, I should also touch on the term human nature. Obviously, this is a topic of vast human experience. An entire lecture could be devoted to addressing this topic. How you define human nature is determined by your worldview. One can approach this question from a scientific, philosophical, or theological perspective. For my purposes this morning, I simply want to address the crucial differences between human nature according to Darwinism and human nature according to Christian theism.

From the perspective of Darwinism, humans and all living things are simply the end result of a blind, unguided physical process. In other words, we are simply animals. The process of natural selection has been invoked to explain almost every aspect of human culture and behavior. Many of these explanations are simply unsubstantiated stories, but they have captured the imagination of many. From religion to sexual infidelity to altruism, there is an evolutionary story for everything related to human nature.

Darwinism denies the possibility of the soul; it leaves no room for the existence of the immaterial. As a consequence, one must confront the idea that everything we do, everything we think, everything we feel is not evidence of our soul, but is simply the result of a physical process.

According to Darwinism, the difference between human beings and any other animal is a matter of degree , not kind . Let me illustrate with an example what I mean by these two words.

Steph Curry and Russell Westbrook have reputations for being among the best point guards playing in the NBA right now. The difference between them is a matter of degree . However, if we were to compare Curry or Westbrook to a basketball, we would have to say that the ball is a different kind of thing.

Since we’re just animals, it shouldn’t be surprising that ethical decisions about humans and animals are a little different for Darwinists. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, popularized the term speciesism , which refers to privileging members of a particular species over others. In other words, it’s not always wrong to kill human beings under circumstances such as severe mental or physical disadvantages. Some environmentalists have seized on this idea to argue that the death of a logger or the economic destruction of a community is acceptable when weighed against the safety of one type of animal.

The Christian view of human nature is radically different. In addition to being grounded in Scripture, it is also consistent with our deepest experience and intuitions.

According to Christianity, human beings are unique in creation, a completely different kind of creature from any other animal. We are physical creatures. We are similar to other animals in many ways. However, we also have an immaterial nature, a soul if you will. I have always liked this passage from Screwtape’s letters:

Humans are amphibians, half spirit and half animal… As spirit, they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they dwell in time. This means that while their spirit can be directed toward an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are continually changing, because to be in time means to change. (p. 37)

I would object to Screwtape insofar as we are not “half spirit and half animal” but are embodied souls. Our soul completely occupies and animates our bodies. Our soul can also exist apart from our bodies, but a human body cannot continue without a soul.

The most essential aspect of human nature, what makes us unique, is found in the phrase “the image of God” first mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the livestock and all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To briefly unpack this sentence, if we consider the Hebrew words used here for “image” and “likeness” and the Greek word (eikōn), it would seem that God created us to be similar, but not identical to himself.

Consider just three ways we are similar to God.

  • We are spiritual. Part of our nature is an immaterial soul or spirit united with a physical body.
  • We are personal, that is, we are conscious and rational beings. We have a mind, will and emotions.
  • We have the power to choose. Sometimes called free agents, we have the ability to deliberate and make decisions.

Finally, no discussion of the Christian view of human nature would be complete without considering the Fall. As unique as we are, as much as we were created to be in communion with God and with each other, the most certain and painful fact is that something is terribly wrong.

Darwinism and the materialistic worldview it supports must deny our daily awareness of evil. In ourselves, in our culture, even to some extent in creation itself, we are constantly confronted with the results of human rebellion.

Christianity explains the existence of evil, our acceptance and repulsion of it, and offers a solution in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Theological foundations of Darwinism

In Matthew 16, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” This is the most important question any person will ever answer. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did is an essential step toward trusting Him as your personal Savior.

That question is so relevant that God the Father asked it. What you believe about God has a profound effect on every aspect of your life. Our perception of reality, how we choose to live, how we choose to solve our problems, everything about us is ultimately affected by our view of God.

This is no less true in science. As long as people have tried to understand nature, their beliefs about what or who created the world have impacted how they understand nature.

In the 19th century, there were several trends in theology that set the stage for Darwinism. Consider one example. It was argued that it would degrade God to believe that each animal species was a unique act of creation. Rather, God would be a wiser and more capable creator if the ability to create species by some natural process was built into creation. This view also downplayed or discounted other things that God did, such as miracles in the New Testament. This was sometimes referred to as “The Great Theology of God.” Ideas like this and others we will now consider motivated Darwin to reconcile what was observed in nature with the theology of his time.

Natural Theology and the “Theory of Creation”

The idea that God created is not really controversial in Christianity. It’s right there in the first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now a tremendous amount of words have been written about this verse and all that it means, yet no one doubts that central phrase: “God created.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the view of creation was that from the movement of the heavens to the myriad animals and plants occupying the earth, all of creation was a perfect, harmonious system that reflected God’s wisdom and benevolence. Beginning in the 17th century, a variety of theologians and scientists promoted the idea that evidence for God could be found in the study of nature. Known as “natural theology,” this field reached its peak in the works of William Paley in the early 19th century. Natural theology argued, some would say brilliantly, that evidence for design could be found in nature.

However, there was a significant flaw in Paley’s view. Paley believed that God’s purpose in creation was the happiness of his creatures. Creation was idealized in such a way that God’s Benevolence and Wisdom were seen everywhere. Let me read a quote from Paley’s book, Natural Theology:

“Es un mundo feliz después de todo. El aire, la tierra, el agua, rebosan de una existencia encantada. En un mediodía de primavera o una tarde de verano, en cualquier lado que gire mis ojos, multitudes de seres felices se amontonan ante mi vista. Los insectos jóvenes están volando. Enjambres de moscas recién nacidas están probando sus alas en el aire. Sus movimientos deportivos, sus laberintos, su actividad gratuita, su continuo cambio de lugar sin uso ni propósito, dan testimonio de su alegría y de la exaltación que sienten en sus facultades recientemente descubiertas. Una abeja entre las flores en primavera es uno de los objetos más alegres que se pueden contemplar. Su vida parece ser todo un placer, tan ocupada y tan feliz: sin embargo, es solo un ejemplar de vida de insecto”.

En resumen, los teólogos naturales afirmaron que la naturaleza demostró la sabiduría y la bondad de Dios, pero ignoraron su providencia, juicio o uso del mal.

El problema del mal natural

El problema del mal es algo que ha acosado la creencia cristiana durante mucho tiempo. Si no has escuchado esa frase antes, se refiere a la tensión que existe entre las instancias obvias del mal que encontramos en el mundo y las características típicamente atribuidas a Dios. A veces se plantea como una pregunta: “¿Cómo puede Dios ser benevolente y omnipotente, y permitir el mal que experimentamos en el mundo?”

La mayoría de las discusiones sobre este tema hacen una distinción entre el mal moral y el mal natural. El mal moral es simplemente lo que las personas han estado haciendo desde que Adán y Eva se rebelaron en el Jardín. El mal natural, en términos generales, es cualquier cosa en la naturaleza que causa la muerte o el sufrimiento. Esto podría incluir desde terremotos, enfermedades y todas las cosas horribles que los animales le hacen a los demás.

Darwin, como otros naturalistas, no vio felicidad y alegría en la creación. Vio la muerte, el sufrimiento y el desperdicio que no podía conciliar con la creación “feliz” de Paley. Estaba particularmente molesto por el sufrimiento y la muerte que se encuentran en el reino animal. Un ejemplo particular fue un tipo de avispa que deposita sus huevos en el cuerpo de una oruga. Después de la eclosión, la larva comienza a consumir el huésped mientras aún está vivo.

La solución de Darwin, consistente con la gran teología de Dios, era que Dios no creó la avispa parásita ni ninguno de los otros males naturales en el mundo. Más bien, Dios creó un sistema de leyes naturales que resultó en el mundo que estudió. En una carta a Asa Gray (un botánico estadounidense) Darwin resumió su punto de vista de esta manera. “Me inclino a considerar todo como resultado de leyes diseñadas, con los detalles, ya sean buenos o malos, dejados a la resolución de lo que podemos llamar azar”.

Para decirlo de otra manera, Dios, directamente actuando en la creación, fue rechazado con el fin de hacer que la existencia del mal natural sea comprensible para los seres humanos. Si Dios no creó directamente cada especie individual, sino que simplemente creó el sistema natural que resultó en la especie que tenemos hoy, entonces Dios no es directamente responsable del mal natural.

“La naturaleza no es perfecta”

Un segundo aspecto de la teología natural al que objetó Darwin, es que toda la creación reflejaba la perfección de Dios. Por supuesto, lo que se entiende por perfección aparentemente estaba abierto a una gran variedad de interpretaciones. Para Darwin y muchos otros, ésto ha sido la afirmación de que muchas cosas que se encuentran en la naturaleza están mal diseñadas.

Tal vez el ejemplo más popular de mal diseño en la naturaleza es el órgano vestigial. Cuando un órgano o estructuras ya no se necesitan, es un “vestigio” del proceso evolutivo. Fue necesario en una especie ancestral, pero la evolución todavía tiene que eliminarlo. En 1895, un anatomista alemán publicó una lista de 86 órganos vestigiales en el cuerpo humano. No estoy al tanto de un solo ejemplo creíble hoy. Los órganos vestigiales no son evidencia de evolución. Son una combinación de asumir que la evolución es verdadera e ignorar la función de un órgano en particular.

Un ejemplo más moderno de un reclamo de mal diseño se conoce como “ADN basura”. Este término fue originalmente acuñado en 1972. Cuando comenzó la investigación sobre cómo funcionaba el ADN, lo primero que se descubrió fue la correlación entre ciertas secuencias de bases de ADN (“peldaños” en la escala de ADN) y la producción de ciertos aminoácidos (20 moléculas orgánicas diferentes que componen las proteínas). La función de vastas regiones de ADN fuera de esta “codificación de proteínas”, más del 98% del genoma humano fue descartada como “basura”, hasta hace unos cinco años. El proyecto Enciclopedia de elementos de ADN (ENCODE) comenzó a publicar resultados que demuestran que se están utilizando vastas regiones del “ADN basura” en el genoma humano.

Similar a los órganos vestigiales, la ignorancia combinada con una aceptación de la evolución, resultó en la conclusión de que la investigación posterior ha demostrado ser incorrecta. En resumen, la existencia del “ADN basura”, algo que una vez fue dogma, ahora se está convirtiendo en otra predicción fallida del darwinismo.

Naturalismo teológico

Una tercera idea teológica que motivó Darwin y muchos otros en el siglo XIX tiene que ver con: cómo Dios actúa en la creación. Para aclarar esto, debo hacer una distinción entre causas primarias y causas secundarias. Un evento que es causado por Dios e imposible por cualquier otro medio, un milagro, es un ejemplo de causalidad primaria. Algo que ocurre de acuerdo con la ley natural es un ejemplo de causalidad secundaria. Por ejemplo, la separación del Mar Rojo cuando los judíos huyeron de Egipto fue la causa principal, la muerte del ejército egipcio capturado cuando se liberó el agua era una causalidad secundaria.

Para muchos teólogos y científicos, desde antes de Darwin hasta nuestros días, la ciencia no es posible si Dios actúa en el mundo. Si la causalidad primaria es posible, entonces es imposible saber la diferencia entre un evento causado por la ley natural y un evento causado por Dios. Para estudiar la naturaleza, para entender la estructura de las “leyes” que la rigen, debemos suponer que Dios nunca actuó en la creación.

El efecto neto de esta visión no niega que Dios fue el creador del universo, simplemente significa que no hay evidencia de que lo haya hecho. Por supuesto, eso no es lo peor. Si Dios no ha hecho nada desde el momento de la creación, la encarnación y la resurrección de Jesús no podrían haber sucedido.

Tal vez la forma más sencilla de resumir este punto de vista es que no se puede confiar en Dios. Si Él es capaz de actuar en la creación, Él es capaz de engañarnos. La ciencia se convertiría en el “estudio” de los caprichos y el comportamiento impredecible de un ser omnipotente.

El naturalismo afirma que todo surge de las propiedades y causas naturales; las explicaciones sobrenaturales o espirituales están excluidas o descontadas. Para los teólogos en el siglo XIX, esto significaba que Dios actuó en la creación a través de las leyes que Él creó. Argumentaban que Dios era más grande, que se glorificaba más si no intervenía en la creación. El Dr. Cornelius Hunter se refiere a esto como   naturalismo teológico porque el razonamiento teológico lo motivó.

Hoy la posición predeterminada de la ciencia es una vista conocida como naturalismo metodológico. Esta es la idea de que cuando estás haciendo ciencia, solo puedes considerar las causas naturales. Las acciones de un agente inteligente no pueden ser consideradas.  Dios no actúa en la creación. A partir de ahí, es un viaje corto al ateísmo, donde Dios no existe.

Pero permítanme enfatizar este punto: los orígenes del naturalismo que motivaron a Darwin y que se han convertido en dogmas dentro de la ciencia hoy en día fueron filosóficos. El naturalismo no fue una conclusión de la ciencia; fue un punto de partida.

Conclusión

La naturaleza humana según Darwin, ¿cómo debería responder el cristiano? Primero y, ante todo, cuando te enfrentas a una cosmovisión opuesta, debes entender lo que cree y por qué. Al explorar algunos términos y fundamentos teológicos, les ofrezco una introducción a la cosmovisión del darwinismo.

Proporcioné un resumen de algunas de las ideas sobre Dios y su papel en la creación que motivaron a Darwin. Ya que en el origen de las especies fue publicado hasta el día de hoy, el darwinismo se ha basado en una percepción de Dios que no se puede encontrar en las Escrituras. O Dios está ausente de la creación y no puede intervenir, o es incompetente porque la naturaleza está llena de “mal diseño”. La evolución se acepta como verdadera porque una visión distorsionada de Dios y la creación parece ser falsa.

Esto no es solo acerca de la ciencia. No se trata solo de religión. Es un ejemplo de cómo las suposiciones sobre Dios y la religión dirigen el proceso de la ciencia. El darwinismo no es una realidad. El darwinismo es menos que una ciencia, es menos que un punto de vista teológico que reclama el apoyo empírico de la ciencia.

La naturaleza humana según el darwinismo, incluida su negación del alma y la negación de la singularidad humana, no se aprende de diversas disciplinas científicas. Es implícito por la ciencia y, por lo tanto, es aceptado porque el darwinismo es aceptado. Sin embargo, si el darwinismo es falso, entonces todo lo que dice sobre la naturaleza humana también es falso.

El tiempo no permitió abordar la evidencia utilizada para apoyar y criticar el darwinismo. Lo que puedo decir en términos de un resumen es que la evidencia del darwinismo solo es convincente si ya estás convencido de que es verdad. En la página de recursos en mi sitio web, la charla de hoy está disponible junto con una lista de varios libros que cubren el material de hoy en más profundidad. También te animo a que revises los libros que se centran en las críticas científicas del darwinismo.

Me gustaría dejarte algunas preguntas para hacerle a alguien que cree que en “de moléculas a hombres por medio de la física y la química” es la mejor explicación para la gran diversidad de vida que encontramos.

  1. ¿Cuál es la evidencia de la evolución?
  2. ¿Cuál es la visión cristiana de la creación?
  3. ¿Cómo se originó la vida?

Cada una de estas preguntas, dependiendo de las respuestas que recibas, podría seguirse con dos preguntas. (1) ¿Qué quieres decir con eso? (2) ¿Cómo llegaste a esa conclusión? Estas dos preguntas de la técnica de Columbo de Greg Koukl buscan aclaración y evidencia que lo ayudarán a comprender mejor la perspectiva de la otra persona.

It has been my prayer, as I prepared for today, that the summary I would offer here would encourage believers. It is also my prayer that you will leave today motivated to learn more about this topic and others that will be discussed today. As Christians, we are heirs to a tremendous heritage of thought that I fear has been abandoned. We worship a Being who created all things, sustains all things, and knows all things. Our trust in God must not be limited to our salvation. God is sovereign over everything. He is sovereign over every domain of human knowledge. He is sovereign over every lie that can deceive.

Don’t run away from a challenge. Commit, learn, and trust that God is Sovereign.

 

Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2QaZJJ5

/by
La omnibenevolencia y el odio de Dios

La omnibenevolencia y el odio de Dios

Some time ago Tim Stratton wrote a blog that dealt with the Omnibenevolence of God . Tim said regarding Allah, that He is not an all-loving God, “and whatever Allah does is simply called ‘good’ even if it is abhorrent.” Of course, the reactions from the atheist camp were not long in coming and in response he received the following objection:

This sounds like the Christian view, too. If God is the standard of “good” then everything God does is by definition good. By that argument, hatred would be, by definition, “good.” What makes benevolence inherently “good” if you’re getting the standard of “good” from God? By that argument, if God is benevolent then benevolence is good, but if God happens to be a hateful being then one has to call it “hate” rather than benevolence. Unless you’re saying that benevolence is inherently good, apart from God, and therefore benevolence is a necessary trait of an “all-good” God. But that would mean that God has these traits because he’s good, and his goodness is distinguished from his possession of them—they would be good independently of God’s existence.

Tim Stratton called this objection a version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and offered an answer that evades the dilemma; however, it seems to me that while his answer clears up a lot of doubts, it does not fully resolve the problem; so I decided to address the objection directly with my friend Anton Schauble and see if we could refute the argument at its root.

Jairo: Anton, what do you think about this objection to the attribute of Omnibenevolence?

Anton: That argument is complete nonsense. What we are saying is that God (or the Good) is the standard for good and evil, not only because He is a criterion by which we measure good and evil, but because He is the ultimate source and paradigm of good, which is the same as unity and being.

Benevolence is good because it is positively real; whatever is positively real is both like and derived from God. In the same way, God cannot be anything else, He is the paradigm of good; benevolence is good, and malevolence is evil; for benevolence is a likeness to Good and malevolence a deviation from it. There is no way that Good could be anything else, so that it would be more like malevolence than like benevolence.

Take being, for example. God is the paradigm of being as it is of good. He is the best, and also the most real. Light is positive and darkness is negative, because light is as it is to be (it is something) and darkness is different from being (it is not something), but to imagine being being different, so that it is more like darkness than light? That is just nonsense. Being is what it is, necessarily. It cannot change, nor can it even be imagined to be different. This objector is thinking of God as a substance susceptible of different attributes—benevolence or malevolence—such that it could have one or the other.

Jairus: He also seems to point out that there is some contradiction in God’s attributes of being all-loving and of hating when he says, “If God is the standard of ‘good’ then everything God does is by definition good. By that argument, hatred would be by definition ‘good’.” He is completely lost, because the Scriptures teach that God does indeed hate, but He hates sin! And that is certainly a good thing. God being a Holy, Omnibenevolent Being, it follows that He cannot love sin, for to do so would be contradictory to His being. Hatred in God arises as a reaction to evil, to sin; it does not arise in God indiscriminately or for no reason or for petty reasons as in human beings, where such hatred that arises in us is certainly evil and is condemned by God. So hating sin, contrary to what the objector thinks, is perfectly consistent with God’s Omnibenevolence.

Anton: Correct. The objection would make sense if God were a substance rather than an essence. For example, it is like taking “love” univocally, but “love” does not mean the same thing in the statements “God loves” and “John loves” because John is a substance modified by the accident of love, whereas God is an essence identical to essential Love. Therefore, Scripture says not only that “God loves,” but that “God is love.”

Let us put it this way: if we abstract love from John, what remains is the substance, the man John, who exists but does not love. But if we abstract love from God, what remains is nothing; there is no God who does not love; in fact, the idea of ​​a God without love is an absolute absurdity.

Jairo: Yes, that is right. In my opinion, God’s love is an essential property of Him, so there is no possible world where God is not love.

In conclusion, we can say that the objection is a total failure for the following reasons:

  1. God cannot be anything other than what He is, it is absurd that benevolence can be malevolence.
  2. The hatred that arises in God is not a hatred towards anything; rather, His hatred is directed towards sin because He is Holy, a God who would tolerate sin in His being would not be worthy of worship.

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernández is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as a Community Manager for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

Anton Schauble is a philosophy major at DeSales University, currently living in Congers, NY, United States.

/by
La paradoja de la omnipresencia

La paradoja de la omnipresencia

One of the objections to the existence of God is to try to prove that his concept is incoherent, and one way to do this is through the paradoxes of his attributes. In this blog we are going to discuss the paradoxes about Omnipresence.

There are many ways to pose this paradox, but I will use three that I found on Ad Baculum ‘s blog, into which all the others could be reduced:

  1. Taking as a premise that God exists, we can make a set with all those things and beings that exist and that have the characteristic of being omnipresent. This set would only contain God. On the other hand, we can make a set of all the things that are not omnipresent, in which would be me, my computer and so on until we have gathered everything that exists except God. However, omnipresence implies being everywhere, including in non-omnipresent things. In this way, God would be in the set of omnipresent things and in the set of non-omnipresent things, which is a paradox that implies the impossibility of being omnipresent.
  2. If it is true that “when we say that God is everywhere, it is not that one part of God is in one place and another in another: God is all of Himself everywhere,” it implies that God is everything, therefore He is both good and evil. Let me explain. If God is all of Himself everywhere, that means that God is contained in an electron. If all of God is occupying all of the matter in the electron, this would imply that God is the electron. I do not think that theists would disagree. If we continue, the same would occur with each subatomic particle. Therefore, if all of the smallest parts into which matter can be divided, if each of those parts is God, I suppose that the sum of any number of those parts would equal God, then I would be God, you would be God and Hitler would be God. The paradox is that God would be the whole and each of the parts. And it turns out that many of those parts generate suffering and injustice, therefore God could not be omnibenevolent. Or if He is omnibenevolent, He could not be omnipresent.
  3. If God is omnipresent, he cannot be absent from a place, therefore there is already something that he cannot do and he would not be omnipotent. [1]

So how does the theist refute this objection? Well, it all depends on how you think God exists in space. William Lane Craig says (and I agree with him):

I think God exists in time, but I don’t think he exists in space. So God is not in any particular place in the universe like in a church or a temple. Likewise, God is not “spread out” in space like some kind of invisible gas.

Therefore if God does not exist in space, then He is related to the world in a similar way as the soul is to the human body, connected in some way that can produce immediate effects.

My inclination is that God does not exist in space in a literal way, but is omnipresent in the sense that He is causally active and knowing at every point in space. So His omnipresence is a function of His causal activity, and with His omniscience He knows what is happening at every place in space; God transcends space, He is not in space.

This is not difficult to conceive, imagine a two-dimensional plane, and think that you do not exist in this two-dimensional plane, you transcend these two dimensions! Now extrapolate that to God, he does not exist in this three-dimensional plane, he transcends these three dimensions – not implying that he can exist in a four-dimensional plane, but that God does not exist within this three-dimensional plane and yet he exists. That it cannot be imagined does not mean that it is not conceivable; a million-sided figure is unimaginable, I cannot sketch a mental picture of such a figure, but of course it is conceivable that such a polygon exists. Similarly even though one cannot imagine God existing outside of space, I see no difficulty in that being conceivable. [2]

Now let’s analyze the paradox (1). First—granting that God is in space—the detractor seems to speak of sets and their function as something ontological; when he says phrases like “This set would only contain God” and “until we gather together everything that exists except God,” he seems to believe that he can actually place God in one or another set in a real way instead of just using sets as a heuristic device. When we speak of “there is/exists” a set, we are not using ontologically loaded language; that is, we do not mean that such sets exist concretely, much less physically as if we were saying “there is/exists” a monitor in front of me. Second, assuming that the detractor is a Platonist and believes that sets really do exist in reality, and if WLC’s position is correct (and I believe it is, or at least perfectly coherent), then God is not in any set because God does not exist in space.

Regarding (2), God is not found in evil (if by evil you mean evil entities such as demons or criminals) nor are subatomic particles found in it, since we saw that God transcends space.

As for (3), it’s not so much a paradox of omniscience as a paradox of omnipotence; it objects that if God is not in space, then there is something God cannot do. Two simple answers to this. First, let’s say that it is impossible for God to be in space; this does not present any problems for God nor does it degrade him in any way because clearly there are things he cannot do given his nature (he cannot be fooled, he cannot make mistakes, he cannot lie, etc.). Second, just because God is not spatially in the universe does not mean that he cannot physically manifest himself in it in some way; in fact, God did exactly that in the Old Testament accounts.

Finally, one might be tempted to say that such a definition of God’s omnipresence has no biblical support. I’m not so sure, notice how in Psalm 139 the author begins by praising God’s omniscience, and then goes on to praise God’s omnipresence. I dare say that the author acknowledges that because God knows everything, He can know every corner of the universe:

O LORD, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you understand my thoughts from afar. You have examined my going and my lying down, and all my ways are known to you. Even though there is no word on my tongue, behold, you, O LORD, know it altogether. You have compassed me behind and before, and laid your hand upon me. Knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high for me to comprehend. Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the farthest parts of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will cover me,” even the night will shine around me. Even the darkness does not hide me from you, and the night shines like the day. the darkness and the light are the same to you.

Grades

[1] http://adbaculum.blogspot.mx/2007/04/tres-paradojas-sobre-la-omnipresencia.html (last visited in November 2009.

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-the-singularity-omnipresence-and-morality

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

/by
El Dragón del Garaje vs Dios

El Dragón del Garaje vs Dios

In the recent debate between Frank Turek and Michael Shermer, the latter tried to invalidate Frank’s God hypothesis as an explanation for some facts about reality by using the famous “dragon in the garage” analogy, first used by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World .

This is the original analogy:

“There is a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.” Suppose I were to make a statement like that to you. Perhaps you would like to test it out, see for yourself. There have been countless stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

—Show me —you say.

I take you to my garage. You look in and see a ladder, empty paint cans, and an old tricycle, but the dragon is gone.

—Where is the dragon? —he asks me.

“Oh, it’s here,” I reply, waving my hand vaguely. “I forgot to mention that it’s an invisible dragon.”

He suggests that I cover the garage floor with flour so that the dragon’s footprints remain.

“Good idea,” I reply, “but this dragon is floating in the air.”

He then proposes using an infrared sensor to detect invisible fire.

—Good idea, but invisible fire doesn’t give off heat either.

Suggests spray painting the dragon to make it visible.

—Good idea, except it’s a disembodied dragon and the paint wouldn’t stick to it.

And so on. I counter any physical proof you propose to me with a special explanation of why it won’t work. Now, what is the difference between an invisible, disembodied, floating dragon that breathes fire that doesn’t burn and a nonexistent dragon? If there is no way to disprove my claim, if there is no conceivable valid experiment against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all equivalent to proving it true. Claims that cannot be proven, assertions that are immune to refutation, are truly worthless, no matter how much value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder. What I have asked you to do is to end up accepting, in the absence of proof, what I say.

Shermer’s version has a few variations to ridicule Frank’s position of the existence of God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, objective moral values ​​and duties, and the fine-tuning of the universe. Shermer’s main aim is to show that the existence of God is impossible to disprove in the same way that you cannot disprove the existence of the dragon in the garage. But is this a good argument? Not really. Let me explain why.

The first thing Shermer would have us believe by using Sagan’s analogy is that the attributes of God that theists attribute to him are mere gratuitous assertions without any evidence. Here Shermer has in mind revealed theology, those attributes that we know God possesses through his revealed word to us, the Bible. But in the debate with Frank—and in non-presuppositional apologetics in general—one does not assert God’s attributes as in the case of the garage dragon. And although it is not necessary, let me compare the garage dragon and God with respect to their respective attributes.

Garage Dragon

Invisibility. This attribute is granted without any evidence.

Levitation. It is also not inferred based on any evidence.

Cold Fire. Like the previous ones, there is no argument to attribute this property to the dragon, moreover, the property is self-contradictory.

Immateriality. Zero arguments, and like cold fire, this is a contradictory property with a dragon. In order for a dragon to be a dragon, it must have a body with certain essential characteristics of a dragon, it cannot be incorporeal.

God

Creator, metaphysically necessary, self-existent. These attributes are inferred by means of the argument from contingent beings and by the ontological argument.

Transcendent cause, personal, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spatially boundless, immaterial, personal, supremely powerful. These attributes are required by the nature of a cause transcending the universe and are inferred by the kalam cosmological argument.

Designer and highly intelligent. These attributes are inferred by the fine-tuning argument of the universe.

Perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose commands constitute our moral duties. And this last attribute is concluded by means of the moral argument.

As we can see, the garage dragon is completely deficient compared to God.

Shermer also calls the God hypothesis a special pleading fallacy, but we have seen from this comparison that this is not the case. No serious apologist in a debate sets out to counter objections to arguments for existence by claiming that the atheist does not have the capacity to understand the properties of God as the best explanation for some facts of reality.

Another important point is that Shermer also uses the garage dragon as a parody of God as an explanation for the following facts about reality: the absolute origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and the foundation for objective moral values ​​and duties. But his parody fails miserably for two reasons: the first is, as we have already seen, that some of the attributes that the garage dragon possesses are self-contradictory, which is more than enough reason to determine that such a dragon is impossible to exist. Then, for the sake of argument, I am going to be very kind in modifying the dragon by removing all of its contradictory properties and adding the property of omnipotence. Can the dragon be the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe when it has enough power to bring the universe into existence? No way! An essential property of the dragon is that it has to be material, corporeal, without that property it would cease to be a dragon. But if our version of the omnipotent dragon is corporeal, if it is a physical being, then it cannot be the cause of the origin of the universe, because one of the characteristics that a transcendent cause must have is to be immaterial; it cannot be material because matter comes into existence with the origin of the universe. The same goes for being the foundation of objective moral values ​​and duties; our dragon cannot be eternal; it had to come into existence together with the universe, therefore, it is contingent, and no contingent being can be the foundation for objective morality.

Conclusion

We have seen that the garage dragon analogy as presented by Michael Shermer as an argument against the God hypothesis is flawed for four reasons:

  1. Due to the contradictory attributes that the garage dragon possesses, we can affirm that its existence is impossible.
  2. God’s attributes are inferred by deductive arguments, which is not the case with the dragon in the garage.
  3. Defending the attributes of the garage dragon is indeed committing the fallacy of special pleading, but not in the case of God.
  4. The garage dragon as a parody of God to be the transcendent cause of the universe and the foundation for objective morality fails miserably because it is a contingent being (and that grants it a possible existence if we remove its contradictory properties).

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance, studies philosophy, and is a worship minister at the Christian Baptist church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

/by