You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Apologetics' tag.
Ken Samples asks the poignant question:
Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’?
I would think the answer is obvious and the supposed reasons for rejecting this conclusion are:
- Who created God?
- Which God supposedly did it?
Before I address these questions I think we must make clear that the probability of a universe popping into existence from nothing and by nothing is exactly 0. Not, some-small-number which over eons of time made the improbable probable but zero and at heart we all know this, as do all scientists. Things have causes, even if we can’t find them.
This means, however improbable we think He might be (usually based on the misguided assumption that God evolved or was created by something even more complex) God is infinitely more probable than the fat zero probability we have for a causeless universe.
The question “Who made God” is perhaps an honest one coming from a child but anyone who has bothered to consider what is meant by “God” will quickly realise that the question is nonsense – on par with “who made Tuesday” or “how many cabbages make a sunset?”. These questions exhibit a fundamental ignorance of what the concept of God is supposed to represent. Among other things, God is eternal. This means having no beginning or end and thus no prior cause. This does not prove that God exists but it does mean that the question “Who made the eternal” is nonsensical.
The question “is anything eternal” is universally answered “Yes” by atheists and theist thinkers for the simple reason that from nothing comes nothing. While atheists have always maintained the natural universe is this eternal recent cosmological discoveries have rendered this untenable – our universe is finite in age and began with the Big Bang which science can describe but not explain because of the breakdown of physical laws at the singularity.
It therefore appears reasonable and natural to conclude that the “something” which is eternal cannot be natural since nature cannot cause itself if it does not yet exist to do it.
We simply cannot avoid a transcendent reality in order to explain our universe. However this argument alone does not necessarily point to one God or another except to indicate that God must be outside of time and space, transcendent and eternal. Any creator God not matching this description must be rejected.
Related Posts:
The majority of wealthy modern people are practical atheists – living as though God did not exist – perhaps without actively considering why they do this. Here are some common reasons people give for being atheists or agnostics:
1. Because of science
Many people have some vague idea that Science has disproved and replaced God. Because we now understand the world we don’t need to invoke God to explain things. This assumes that God was in fact invented to explain the world and science has made Him redundant. History tells a different tale and the fall of religion with the progress of science has yet to materialise.
Christians believe that the universe is God’s creation in the same way a painting is the work of an artist. We marvel at the strokes and, with analysis, understand more about how it was done. However, even with a perfect understanding and lots of scratching around we won’t find the painter under the paint. We may learn something about the artist’s character and motive but He’s not part of the painting.
Science points to God in it’s most fundamental laws and it’s most complex processes – watch out for pseudo-science: the painting did not pop into existence for no reason and beautifully paint itself.
2. Because it appears intellectual and modern
We like to believe that new ideas are better ones and God belongs to old-school thinking. However new ideas are often published and broadcast because they are innovative not because they are good whilst old ideas survive because they’ve stood the test of time. New ideas come and go. The bright future promised by modern atheism’s Founding Fathers (e.g. Marx, Nietzche) has failed to materialise. People today are atheists not because of conviction but from indifference, distraction and confusion accelerated by mass media. Truth is not a democracy. Test the message.
3. Because everyone else is
Most practical atheists today are not bad folk and feel they are good enough to cover their bases in case God shows up. They assume God is congenial will accept at least 50% of his creatures into heaven and assure themselves (with sideways glances) that they’re doing OK – “At least I’m not like them!”. This whiter-than-thou thinking is sheep mentality which is comfortable but dangerous as they enjoy the social infrastructure laid down by believers oblivious to it’s erosion.
4. Because it’s liberating
It appears that atheism liberates in denying ultimate authority because that liberates humans to self rule. Is that a good thing? How are we doing at that? And who should rule – does might make right? Which ideas about society should be implemented (enforced) as policy? Atheism tends to breeds anarchy or despotism – twin evils in which some human or group of humans enslave the rest.
5. Because religion is …
Bad? Unnecessary? Boring? Incoherent? Violent? Oppresive? Repulsive? Well, so are many forms of atheism but this sort of argument is irrelevant because religion is not the issue. You can be a religious atheist or a child of God who shuns religion (like Jesus) – the issue is ultimately how you relate to your Creator by whom and for whom you were made because this relationship shapes your life here and your eternity.
6. Because it’s the default position
It’s debatable whether people are by nature atheists or theists. The fact that all societies recognise a god seems to point to the latter. Nevertheless, we need not remain atheists if we were born that way just as we grow from ignorance to understanding and progress from milk to solids. Our modern lifestyle feeds, distracts and desensitises us to our basic need for purpose and relation to our heavenly Father yet we must break these chains.
7. Because God is…
Bad? A bully? Unjust? Improbable? The God you don’t believe in you haven’t met yet. God is the perfect loving being knows you and who wants to spend eternity with you – He would and did die to catch your attention and give you a chance at accepting His offer. Forget the cliches and the presentations you have seen – seek Him alone and personally!
Miracles and Proof of God’s Existence
According to pop-Christianity, believing in God is the key to salvation and God wants all to be saved. You might ask, why doesn’t He show up and prove his existence? A couple of minor miracles captured on CNN would be all it takes and the whole televised world could be saved!
Essentially we have:
- If we could see, we’d believe
- If we believed, we’d be saved
This logic is fascinating because it’s basic and, in a sense, true but terribly misleading. Why?
- Because the kind of belief which saves does not come by seeing
- Because seeing is not always believing
Seeing is not Believing
In any experience which permits doubt, people will believe what they want to believe and not what they see. Any minor miracles would always be doubted and put down to trickery especially if they were only seen on TV. Each of us would personally need to see something amazing, like a dead relative rising up from the grave in order to be truly convinced that something supernatural has happened. However, even then, some of us would later consider the experience a kind of delusion and question our sanity or assumptions (was uncle Fred really dead?).
When Jesus healed a blind man (John 9) the man and his parents were interrogated by the religious authorities and various conspiracy theories were put forward. “The man was not truly blind”, they said. “It’s not the same man!”, “He’s a liar”. The consensus was that Jesus was a sinner and a charlatan and the authorities expelled the man and ultimately lynched Jesus. Seeing is not believing but even if one believes (in this sense) it’s simply not the key to salvation.
Pop-Gospel and Blind Belief
The pop-Gospel is “believe and you are saved” and is interpreted as: blindly believe these (crazy) things and you go to heaven instead of hell. Sounds ludicrous, as if God somehow prizes intellectual dishonesty above all other virtues. Surely God prizes people who question things (skeptics) and try to live a good life (moralists) above this cheap nonsense?
True Gospel and Personal Trust
True Gospel Christianity is radically different from other religions and worldviews. Christians are neither naive nor moralists and don’t only have belief in a set of propositions but uniquely and critically trust in a person. The oft quoted John 3:16 says “For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”. The preposition “in” (Greek eis) is not accidental and the word “belief” (Greek pisteuo) goes way beyond a mere nod of a head.
To believe in someone is to be convinced that they are something good and true and worthy of our faith. When a daughter says to her father “I believe in you” she is saying “I trust you, I know you are capable, faithful and reliable”. When we are called to believe in Jesus we are called to place our trust in Him – believing his words is part of that trust but this kind of personal trust goes beyond intellectual assent of his teachings. Thus Ghandi, who thought the Sermon on the Mount beautiful and true even if Jesus never lives, was emotionally and intellectually engaged by Jesus’ teaching and nature but not personally receptive to Jesus as a person.
Jesus makes it particularly clear in Matthew 7 when he speaks of judgement day and people being separated into heaven and hell based not on their belief but on whether He, Jesus, knew them personally (“I never knew you. Depart from me,”). He radically explains that,
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven
What has this all got to do with God’s hiding? We’ve said that God wants all people saved and that trust in His Son is the key. We’ve seen that miracles are not necessarily the best way to gain this trust. At best God could win our intellectual assent “Yes, you are powerful”, He could win our minds forcefully by proving his power and existence once and for all but is that the key to our salvation?
Salvation and do we want it?
Salvation is the point in a person’s life where they are rescued from the natural fate of death and brought into a new life which is from, in and for God with the promise of an eternity with Him. Imagine the person who has just seen proof of God’s existence: he’s seen the power but he’s also thought about the consequences of Christianity being true. God exists, He created me, He’s personal and just. Now, “How does God see me? I’m not such a bad person. Wait, God knows all I’ve done? He expects better of me? He demands my obedience? I must hand over my freedom to this sort of tyrant? Give me liberty or give me death!” It has been said that those who reject God would find heaven hell and not enter willingly.
Winning our Hearts
The point is that God may win our minds with miracles, perhaps even our approval with blessings but our hearts are trickier and require special treatment. His true aim is to win our hearts and as any lover knows, you can’t buy or force love because it is not love unless it’s given freely. No show of power will win our hearts as much as God patiently, progressively and lovingly revealing Himself to those who seek him whilst hiding his glory and power from those who do not seek him. God knows his face is terror to the proud and that people must first be humbled before they can look at Him. He knows that pride cannot break pride and that true humility humbles. He also knows that no love is greater than that which will die for a loved one.
The First Fruits
Thus the stage is set for God to descend to earth as a baby, to a poor family, in a backwards part of the world. A Nazarene man teaches, heals, serves, suffers and dies and the world goes on. The grave is empty and, for 40 days he is sighted. Many see, some believe. For the believers the world changes and life is never the same again. Their hearts are won. They are the first fruits. How can we moderns hear this and fail to be captivated and be left cold? Surely we are blinded! This picture of boundless love and self-sacrifice has the power to transform yet we pass on by.
Conclusion
God hides from those who are unwilling and unable to see him. He wants to woo us and win our affection. If we respond to the light we have, he progressively reveals Himself in a process only limited by our desire to know Him more. Our loving but shy God hides from those who do not wish to see Him. One day every eye will see and every knee will bow but not every heart will rejoice.
The idea of a “multiverse” was proposed in order to explain why our universe is so intricately balanced and tuned for life. In answer to the Teleological Argument, naturalists said: “Well, our universe is just one of a multitude of universes and because there are so many, one of them at least had this great setup required to produced life by chance”.
The problem with this sort of argument is that it makes anything possible. Imagine you’re playing poker and your opponent wins 20 times in a row with 4 aces. You accuse him of cheating but he says “Hey, we just happen to live in a universe in which I got 4 aces 20 times in a row”. According to the multiverse theory, this is a reasonable response because with lots of universes the improbable becomes probable in one of those universes.
This however would put an end to all scientific enquiry as Jeff Zweerink argues. Whenever something did not make sense or when something needed explaining, a multiverse proponent could say: that’s just the way things are in our universe. Anything and everything becomes “possible”, even a universe exploding from nothing and producing human life by chance.
There are 3 factors which could explain our universe chance, law and design. Atheists cannot accept design and are reduced to claiming the laws arose by chance. John Piper once said he does not want to be in the room when an atheist explains this to God because: “He’s gonna laugh so hard it’s gonna hurt your ears!”.
Is the Bible God’s Word and what does this mean? Questions like these are often overlooked by Christians. The Bible is called the “Holy Bible” and “God’s Word” so often that it has become a phrase on it’s own, jargon which nobody questions. “Have you got the Word?” has come to mean “Have you got a Bible on you?”!
What does “Word” mean?
The word “Word” needs some explanation because it does not carry the everyday meaning of “word” which, we all know, describes a linguistic construct comprised of letters. Rather, it signifies a message, a statement, a description, some revelation. Some remnant may be found in modern English when we say: “He had the final word on the subject” meaning that his decision and statement was conclusive. Similarly Christians say “God’s Word says ‘love thy neighbour’” and mean, that is what is written in the Bible. When they say however “God’s word is living or has power” it may not be so clear how a book can fit this bill.
The Holy Bible?
Consider the question: “Is the Bible God?” Christians would say obviously not! If we however ask “Is the Bible Holy?” most would say enthusiastically “yes”. But the Bible says that only God is holy (although it often says we should/shall be holy). We thus have a logical problem: If only God is holy, and the Bible is holy, then the Bible must be God. This brings me to my core point: the Bible does not say that it IS holy. The Bible also does not say that it (scripture) is holy. This is a theological assertion resulting from a misguided attempt to elevate a text to a higher position that is claimed or warranted.
A Variant Word of God?
Most Christians today are aware that there are variants in the Bible. We have no originals but the reliable copies we have are not 100% consistent. True, the differences are mostly minor and insignificant but we simply do not have a pure text. If we had a pure text we might posit that it’s God Word but we do not and to say it’s God’s word is to say that God’s Word has variants and ambiguities.
Theological Definitions of the Bible’s Status
Most claims that the Bible claims to be the Word of God rest on good evidence misapplied or badly argued. Often the passage quoted (to support the doctrine “The Bible is God’s Word”) is referring to a particular message (God says…) or to some specific type of message (like prophecy in 2 Peter 1). It would be more accurate to say that the Bible is a reliable record of God’s words among other things (like his actions and the history of Israel).
The Sign is not the Destination
The real point is that Bible is a revelation, a sign pointing to God’s true and living Word: Jesus. We should not mistake the sign for that to which it points.
Jesus is the Word of God
The Bible does say clearly that Jesus IS the Word of God (John 1). The Word of God is a person, the Son of God, who is also Truth (John 14). See C.S. Lewis:
It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him. When it becomes really necessary (i.e. for our spiritual life, not for controversy or curiosity) to know whether a particular passage is rightly translated or is myth (but of course myth specially chosen by God from among countless myths to carry a spiritual truth) or history, we shall no doubt be guided to the right answer. But we must not use the Bible (our fathers too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and not read with attention to the whole nature and purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.
The real question is: Who is this Jesus?
There is a widely circulated myth that religion is the root of all, or most, evil which will not withstand any sort of scrutiny. No serious historian would consider this a valid thesis any more simply because the great horrors of the 20th century were perpetrated by non-religious regimes; indeed, regimes with anti-religious ideologies such as those of Stalin and Mao. The reality is that atheist regimes have already overtaken pre-modern ones in terms of body count. That does not stop atheist rhetoricians from using this handy misrepresentation of religion and perpeturating a myth into post-modern culture.
What is true however that pre-modern cultures were more “religious” than modern ones in that religion simply differed from culture to culture but was never absent. The 20th century was a great experiment which removed religion from large states and ironically proved that the common denominator was not religion but (worldy) power combined with man’s inherent (moral) weakness.
The question of religion’s worth is in reality an emotional issue. Most people have negative experiences with churches and authority and understandably want to avoid those again. What a joy it is to be a follower of Christ (himself anti-religion), unbound by human institutions and codes, free to live life to the full (John 10:10)!
Naturalism must be false because it leads to contradictions:
- The universe is all that exists (naturalist’s premise)
- The universe is just the sum of it’s parts
- The parts were all caused
- The universe is therefore caused (2 & 3)
- The cause cannot be one of it’s parts (illogical)
- But only it’s parts exist (1 & 2)
- The cause cannot exist (5 & 6)
But 7 contradicts 4!
Now, to resolve this problem you’d have to deny one of the premises but this leads to more contradictions and conflicts with science and knowledge of the universe. Try denying and you get:
- You are not a naturalist
- You are not a scientist
- Special pleading – some special part was uncaused
- Illogical, irrational
- Illogical, something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not yet exist in order to do so.
- Illogical, irrational
- Illogical, irrational
Typically atheists will either conclude:
- There is no cause!
This is special pleading, question begging and contrary to the axiom of science known as Causality. It also implies the universe is eternal which science tells us it is not. One would also have to be all-knowing in order to assert that something has no cause. - We don’t know the answer…yet
This is a common response with the implication that science will one day discover a way in which things can cause themselves, pop into existence or be eternal. It is therefore the assumption that one day science will triumph over logic without realising that this will topple science as it is the foundation on which science stands.
Because there is no way out and the statement “nature is all there is, was or ever will be” is manifestly false a rational being must conclude that something transcending nature exists. Either nature is all there is or there is something else with nothing in between.
The argument from morality says:
- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
- Objective moral values do exist
- Therefore, God exists
(As point 1 is generally conceeded by atheists I will focus on point 2.)
As humans we live as though Right and Wrong are objective absolute concepts. It is rare that we would condone acts of gratuitous violence, abuse or injustice even in other cultures as though these things might be acceptable at times or in certain places (Moral Relativism). We also don’t excuse criminals from such crimes because of ignorance – we hold such a morality to be objective and common to all men. Civilised society is always morally absolute and yet we should analyse why we believe that Morality is absolute?
If we are merely intelligent primates, a higher order of animal, we have no basis for morality. Rape, incest, murder, theft and infanticide are common in nature and we have no reason to believe the animals are being immoral or acting contrary to some norms. Yet, in humans we condemn certain behavious while praising others.
Some have argued that morality is dependent on utility or that which benefits society. Unfortunately this leaves plenty of room for genocide (when one group of people is seen as detrimental to society at large) or mass rape (which may hurt one individual but gives many others pleasure) or abuse of the sick, old or disabled who are less productive to society. As grotesque as this sounds, it is the logical outcome of utilitarian based morality.
A popular, modern form of morality is “live and let live” which holds that one can do what one wishes, provided it does not detrimentally influence others. Of course it is questionable whether any action has no effect on others – “private” actions such as perversion, hate or envy can be allowed free reign without eventually having external repercussions. It also leaves open for debate what exactly “detrimental” means – which only an absolute morality can define.
Regardless of which morality is currently popular, it is ultimately man-made and subjective (and thus culturally relative) unless it is grounded in an external and objective standard. Tribe A may hold that it is morally good to murder tribe B and without an objective standard, might makes right.
Ultimately, people who assume there is no moral absolute, no ultimate and justice are free to see what they can get away with in this world and know there is not eternal repercussion. Only, if there is a God who provides a good and just standard can we legitimately base our inherent absolute moral values on something other than personal or cultural preference.
Related Posts
Are there good reasons to think that the Christian God exists and what good reasons are there to think that He does not? There are four main lines of evidence offered in favour of the Christian God proceed from basic thought about the origin of the universe through to a personal God revealed in the historical person of Jesus:
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Objective Morality
- The Resurrection of Jesus
In short: 1) from nothing comes nothing, the universe is finite, not eternal, and must have a cause outside of itself. This cause is personal and intelligent because of 2) the finely balanced order we see and 3) the objective moral values humans share. Specifically, Jesus is the Son of God whose life and death reconcile people to God by grace through faith. His teaching and the accounts we have of him are historically reliable and his miraculous resurrection 4) confirms his integrity and claims.
To the best of my knowledge there are no positive arguments for atheism and only weak refutations of these four points which generally take the following forms:
- In response to the origin of the universe (cosmological):
a) The universe is eternal (contrary to science).
b) The universe popped into being from nothing and by nothing (contrary to science). - In response to the intelligent design and fine tuning (teleological):
a) The order is a result of chance and natural law (assumption)
b) The design is illusory (improbable naked assertion) - In response to the argument from objective moral values
a) No objective moral values exist (contrary to the way lives are led)
b) Moral values exist but are a product of evolution (strong eats weak) - In response to the resurrection accounts:
a) Numerous unfounded and contradictory conspiracy theories (disciples stole the body and then mass hallucinated)
b) Philosophical assumptions about the supernatural (miracle’s can’t happen)
Basically Christians affirm an eternal God, outside of space and time, who caused the universe to come into being and selected the finely balanced tuning required in order to produce a life-sustaining universe. He also planted in us a non-negotiable sense of right and wrong and sent his Son to die for our sins. He then raised him from the dead as a final vindication of Jesus’ claims and person.
Atheists, must affirm that the universe is eternal or else that it popped into being by and from nothing and by chance happened to have laws and forces so finely balanced and proportional that the universe could produce life and humans. They must argue that morality is a survival trait, the product of natural selection, and whatever works is right. Finally they must ignore primary historical evidence (eye-witness accounts) for the resurrection and instead believe improbable and contradictory theories with little or no historical credibility.
