Violent Battles of the Old Testament and Their Relevance Today

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The sun dipped low over the ancient hills of Canaan, casting shadows over a battlefield strewn with the remnants of another brutal conquest. Israel, God’s chosen people, stood weary yet resolute, wiping the blood and sweat from their brows. The cries of victory mingled with the silence of loss. They had fought not just for their survival but to purge the land of the idols that poisoned it—images of Baal, Asherah poles, and the high places where unholy sacrifices were made. To leave these untouched was to invite corruption, to risk their hearts being drawn away from the living God.

It was a harsh reality—bloody, unyielding, and often agonizing. Entire nations had to be wiped out, not merely for territorial conquest but to destroy the evil they represented. For Israel, it was clear: there could be no compromise. Evil tolerated was evil embraced, and the consequences were grave. Yet, the Israelites were not perfect. Time and again, they faltered, lured by the very idols they had once toppled. Their history became a cycle of conquest, failure, repentance, and renewal.

Centuries later, the battlefield has shifted. The wars are no longer waged with swords and shields but within the hearts and souls of men and women. Christians today are called to a battle just as real, though spiritual rather than physical. The idols are no longer carved from stone or wood; they are fashioned in the priorities and passions of the modern world. Money, power, fame, sex, and career loom as towering strongholds, demanding allegiance and promising satisfaction. They whisper lies, just as the idols of Canaan once did, offering fleeting pleasures that lead to eternal ruin.

To follow Christ is to engage in a daily war against these idols. It is to resist the seductive pull of wealth when it tempts one to trust in riches rather than God’s provision. It is to shun the pursuit of power when it demands the compromise of integrity. It is to reject the worship of self, choosing humility over the fleeting applause of fame. This spiritual war often comes with its own wounds—loss of friendships, the pain of denying one’s desires, and the loneliness of standing apart from a world rushing toward destruction.

Yet, just as the battles of Israel foreshadowed, there is hope in this struggle. For the Christian, the ultimate victory has already been won through Christ. His death and resurrection conquered the greatest enemy—sin—and his Spirit empowers believers to fight. The idols of the heart can be shattered, not through human strength but through the grace and truth found in Jesus.

This spiritual war demands vigilance. The Christian must daily take up their cross, armed with the Word of God, prayer, and the fellowship of believers. Like Israel, there can be no compromise. The battle is fierce, but the prize is eternal—a life lived in the fullness of God’s presence, free from the chains of idolatry.

And so, the narrative of the Old Testament becomes a living allegory. Israel’s fight against pagan nations mirrors the Christian’s fight against sin and the idols of this age. The stakes are just as high, the cost just as great, but the reward is infinitely worth it. To overcome is to inherit the promise—to dwell with the only true God, forever free from the idols that once enslaved the soul.

(God and me and AI)

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

The Third (tertius) Volitional Argument for the Existence of God

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

The Third (tertius) Volitional Argument for the Existence of God

Link to YouTube

How can the fact that we have a will—that is, our volition which is more like the act to exercise our will—point to the existence of God? And what does volition reveal about the basis and existence for both material and immaterial realities? That’s what we’ll explore in this talk, and the final conclusion might surprise you.

So, let’s explore The Volitional Argument for the Existence of God.

How does the concept of volition (or will) support the existence of God? We will explore the Role of Volition in both the existence of material and immaterial realities.

Volition is central to the argument. What then is the definition? Volition (or will) involves intention and commitment to action.

This is the thesis statement and foundation for the Third Volitional Argument: Volition is essential for bringing both material and immaterial entities into existence.

Every immaterial concept originates from nothing and becomes a reality through a thought process shaped in a mind. This thought must be followed by the will (volition) to actualize it. Stories, music, art, and business plans, creative thoughts are all creations of the mind. That is, immaterial creations from nothing – ex nihilo. These concepts exist, and therefore, minds exist. And without minds these would not exist.

Can we then infer that for material objects to come into existence from nothing, a thought or concept is required, followed by the will, or volition, to actualize it, that is, to create matter from nothing? Thoughts and volition exist only within minds. I think it is plausible that for  something to come from nothing you need a mind. Humans cannot create material objects from nothing; nothing in the material world can. The Kalam Cosmological Argument points to God as the only plausible cause for the beginning of the universe, when the material world was created from nothing.

Matter exists; therefore, God exists.

But let us not jump to conclusions as yet.

The Third Volitional Argument suggests that volition is essential for bringing both material and immaterial entities into existence. This process begins with an inspired moment of a creative concept, which is then shaped by thoughts within the mind. For this concept or thought to be realized, it must be followed by the will (volition) to bring it into actuality.

Let us pull this apart Volition, or will, is the cognitive, or thinking process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. It would include affect (that feeling or emotion) and motivation (that is goals or expectations). Applying the concept of volition to the arguments for the existence of God there are at least two existing versions that we need to consider and have a quick look at before we can present the current or third argument, these two are: 1. The (First) Volitional Argument for God and 2. The Neo-Volitional Argument for God. These are both philosophical arguments that have been developed to argue the existence of God based on volition or will.

  1. The original version of The Volitional Argument for God – from 1896. – also known as the ‘Will to Believe’ Argument. This argument suggests that belief in God is not solely based on evidence or rational argumentation, but also on personal choice and inclination. Inspired by William James, this argument emphasizes that humans naturally desire to believe in a higher power, and this inclination can be sufficient grounds for accepting God’s existence. Proponents argue that belief in God offers meaning, purpose, and moral guidance, making it rational to choose belief even without conclusive evidence. Critics, however, question the validity of basing belief on desire alone, citing potential biases and subjectivity. William James’ influential essay “The Will to Believe” introduced this argument, asserting that belief in God can be justified based on personal experience and needs, rather than strict evidence or logic, sparking ongoing debate in the philosophy of religion. However, I believe a quote from CS Lewis underscores this belief. In his book Mere Christianity, he discusses how human desires suggest the existence of what they long for. “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” Lewis uses this argument to suggest that our longing for something beyond what we find in this life implies the existence of a transcendent reality, which he argues is God and Heaven.
  1. A more recent version is The Neo-Volitional Argument for the existence of God stems from the early 21st century. This Alternate Version is credited to philosopher Edward Feser, and also focuses on volition as a key aspect of reality to demonstrate the existence of God. It begins by acknowledging the presence of volitional agents like humans, who exhibit will and intention. These agents prompt inquiries into the reasons behind their actions, leading to the concept of an ultimate volitional agent—identified as God—whose will is the source of all purposeful actions. The argument posits that every volitional agent requires a cause, leading to the necessity of a first cause, which is considered to be God, the uncaused, self-existent initiator of all intentional behavior in the universe.

Now for a somewhat different angle to this argument. What I propose as a volitional argument for the existence of God is based on two realities. The reality of material entities and immaterial entities. Material entities like chairs, trees, the universe. And immaterial entities like stories and music.

Developing the Third Volitional Argument for the Existence of God we will look at:

A. Material Entities. We consider two principles, two observable facts:

1.  Nothing material comes into existence without a cause. In philosophy and physics, the idea that something can come into existence without a core cause is often discussed in the context of quantum mechanics and certain cosmological models. However, whether these examples truly represent uncaused events is a matter of debate. In the realm of classical physics, and our experience of day-to-day living, everything that comes into existence is thought to have a cause.

2. Nothing material comes into existence from nothing – ex nihilo. The concept of something coming into existence from nothing is highly speculative and largely theoretical. In physics, there are hypotheses such as quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that suggest particles can spontaneously appear and disappear, seemingly from nothing, due to the inherent uncertainty at the quantum level. However, these particles typically arise within a framework of pre-existing physical laws and fields, so it’s not a true creation from absolute nothingness. The concept of true creation ex nihilo—where something arises from a complete absence of any pre-existing material, energy, or governing laws—remains largely a philosophical question, with no concrete scientific evidence or examples to substantiate it. Our current knowledge urges us to accept that there is nothing material that can or has come into existence ex-nihilo apart from, as our current understanding of science points to, the universe at the moment of the initial singularity – the Big Bang.

Summary: For material entities to come into existence it 1. needs a cause and 2. cannot come into existence ex-nihilo – out of nothing. Except for the moment of the initial singularity that needs an explanation i.e., creation

B. Immaterial Entities.

What about immaterial entities, like art, music, stories, or business plans?

1. Can come into existence from nothing. Can these come into existence ex nihilo? Certainly. Think about this, before the person who was going to write the story or the music, the person existed or had that moment of inspiration, the story or music did not exist – there was nothing. So it can come into existence from nothing, but can it come into existence without a cause?

2. Cannot come into existence without a cause. Nothing immaterial can come into existence without a cause. Even in situations where an idea or piece of art seems to appear spontaneously, it is still processed by the mind of a creator influenced by various factors. Thus, while these immaterial entities might feel “spontaneous,” they are generally not seen as uncaused. The act of creation involves the initial mental conception (creative spark if you will) of a story or melody ex nihilo. The creator’s thoughts and imagination serve as the cause, shaping and forming this initial creative concept into a reality in the mind. Creative people can testify to this process.

The story or melody did not exist prior to the creative moment, yet the building blocks and mental faculties required to conceive and process them did exist as the cause. This process begins with an inspired moment of a creative concept, which is then shaped by thoughts within the mind. For this concept or thought to be realized, it must be followed by the will (volition) to bring it into actuality. Human minds are entities that can create immaterial forms.

Summary: For immaterial entities to come into existence it 1. needs a cause and 2. But it can come into existence ex-nihilo – out of nothing i.e., being created

Humans cannot create material objects; therefore, for material objects, is a non-human mind necessary to form the idea, and will it? If it is postulated that a mind is necessary to create material objects, but a human mind cannot, what kind of mind then? Given the arguments presented, God is the only plausible explanation for a mind capable of creating material objects. Furthermore, this argument posits that both humans and God possess minds that can create, as evidenced by the ability of minds to create immaterial entities. Humans, created in the image of God, share some attributes with God, such as intelligence, creativity, volition, and the ability to create immaterial entities. However, God, being transcendent and existing outside the material world—just as humans exist outside the immaterial worlds they create—one could infer that God possesses the ability to create material entities ex nihilo. God as the uncaused cause of the universe is argued in the Kalam Cosmological.

Therefore, the argument will conclude that since both humans and God possess minds with the necessary attributes to bring something into existence from nothing, in other words, to create, and since the material world exists, and human minds cannot create material from nothing, it follows that God exists as the necessary cause for the existence of the material world.

In summary, the Third Volitional Argument for God asserts that the existence of God can be inferred from the human capacity of volition, coupled with the necessity of a volitional agent to bring about the existence of both immaterial and material entities from nothing. Since the human mind cannot create material entities ex nihilo and the material world exists, God exists.

Human Creative Thoughts

Before we look at the formal structure of the argument, we have to consider the concept of ‘human creative thoughts’ as it is central to the argument. Original creative thoughts often seem to emerge spontaneously, appearing as sudden flashes of inspiration or insight that feel distinct from ordinary thinking. These initial sparks arise seemingly from “nowhere,” arriving as a whole, surprising concepts rather than pieced-together ideas. Neuroscience links this phenomenon to the brain’s default mode network (DMN), which activates when we’re relaxed or not focused on a specific task. The DMN fosters free association across brain regions, allowing unusual connections to form—especially when the mind is at rest, like during a walk or just before sleep. This spontaneous creativity differs from the analytical thinking that follows. The brain’s executive control network, responsible for deliberate thought, becomes engaged once the initial spark occurs, helping us to explore, refine, and understand the new idea. The transition from the DMN’s unrestrained association to focused processing allows us to build upon the original spark and develop it fully. While the initial creative spark is marked by spontaneity and feels unique, it is often just the beginning. It serves as a guiding light that the conscious mind then shapes into a more coherent, developed form, blending inspiration with structured thought.

The sudden appearance of a fully formed symphony, story, or complex concept is a rare but intriguing phenomenon often described by highly creative individuals. Unlike smaller flashes of inspiration, these “complete” creative sparks seem to arrive all at once, as if a whole, intricate idea that manifests instantly. This phenomenon, sometimes called a “flash of inspiration,” suggests something beyond what the default mode network (DMN) alone can explain. It feels more profound than a fleeting thought and appears to bypass typical conscious planning. Although neuroscientific explanations remain speculative, it is recognized that these creative moments differ fundamentally from the analytical processes that follow. Ultimately, while we lack a full understanding of where these initial sparks arise, it’s evident that they represent a unique and powerful aspect of creativity, distinct from the thought processes used to develop them. I believe all human creative activity is inspired by the Creator.

The formal structure of the argument:

The Third Volitional Argument for the Existence of God

 A. Argument on the Existence of Immaterial Concepts and Minds:

  1. Every immaterial concept originates from nothing, ex-nihilo, and becomes a reality by a thought process in a mind with the steps: creative concept/thought process/reality
  2. But for an immaterial concept to be actualized, to become a reality, it must be followed by a will (volition). Thus, the steps actually are: creative concept/thought process/volition/reality

Stories, music, art, and business plans are all examples of immaterial concepts created by the mind. Without minds, these concepts would not exist.

  1. The mind must be outside the created immaterial concept – someone in the story cannot create the story as the story is immaterial and the person in the story is not real.
  2. Thus, these immaterial concepts exist because minds exist.

Conclusion 1: The creative idea or creative concept (creative spark) becomes a thought process and by will/volition becomes an actuality. Therefore, immaterial concepts exist because creative volitional minds exist.

The second part of the argument is

 B. The Argument on the Existence of Material Objects and God:

5.  For material objects to come into existence from nothing, ex-nihilo, a creative concept and thought are needed – this is a logical inference from A. The steps are: creative concept/thought process/reality

6. This thought or concept must be followed by a will (volition) to actualize it into material form. Or in full, the steps are: creative concept/thought process/volition/reality

7. Creative concepts, thoughts and volition exist only within minds.

8. Humans cannot create material objects from nothing.

9. Nothing within the material world can create itself from nothing. (the same as that someone in the story cannot create the story as the story is immaterial and the person in the story is not real)

Conclusion 2: Therefore, an external mind (a mind outside the material world similar to the human mind outside the immaterial world) with the capacity for creative concepts, thoughts and volition, must exist to account for the material world. The Kalam Cosmological Argument argues that the universe needed an external cause and supports this conclusion.

Final Conclusion:

  1. Human minds can create immaterial entities ex nihilo. The material world’s existence, coupled with the inability of human minds to create material ex nihilo, suggests therefore an external divine mind, as the volitional creator.
  2. Matter (the universe) exists; therefore, God exists as a plausible necessary external mind that brought the material world into existence by His will, His volition.

Implications for Belief:

The Third Volitional Argument presents a reasoned basis for the existence of God

There is no other plausible explanation for why there is something rather than nothing

This Third Volitional Argument adds to the body of arguments supporting the evidence for God’s existence.

One less reason not to believe.

One more reason to examine your heart.

 

  Wiliam Lane Graig argues three reasons that the cause of the universe is personal

He gives three reasons for stating that the first cause reached by the Kalam Cosmological Argument is personal. 1. It is the only way to explain an effect with a beginning in time from a permanent, timeless cause. If that cause has existed permanently and is truly sufficient for its effect, then the effect should exist permanently as well. The only way to have a cause that is timeless and permanent and yet for the effect to begin to exist just a few billion years ago is if that cause is a personal agent endowed with freedom of the will, who can therefore make a choice or execute an action without any prior determining condition, something that is altogether spontaneous and new. 2. The cause of the origin of the universe must be an immaterial object that transcends time and space. Now, the only things that we know of that could possibly fill that bill would be either an abstract object, like a number of mathematical objects, that are immaterial and typically transcend time and space, or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. But here’s the rub, abstract objects are causally a feat by definition. What makes them abstract is that they have no causal effects, and therefore the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object. That makes it very plausible. 3. The causal explanations are of two types. One would be a scientific explanation in terms of initial conditions and natural laws, the other would be a personal explanation in terms of an agent and his volitions. Now, when you think about it, an absolutely first physical state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, because there are no prior initial conditions from which one could extrapolate the first physical state by the laws of nature. And therefore, it follows that the only category of causal explanation that would apply would be a personal explanation. There is a personal agent who, by His free will, brings the universe into being. All three of these arguments coalesce beautifully to make it very probable that the cause of the universe is a personal creator endowed with freedom of the will.

To summarize: William Lane Craig argues that the cause of the universe isn’t just any mind, it’s a personal mind, capable of making choices.

  1. A Timeless Cause That Chose to Act: If the cause of the universe is outside of time and has always existed, why did the universe begin only a few billion years ago? Only a personal being with free will could make that choice—to decide when the universe should start. So, this cause must be a personal mind, not just a force.
  2. An Immaterial Cause, Not Just an Idea: The cause of the universe has to be something beyond physical matter, outside of time and space. There are only two things like this: abstract objects, like numbers, and a mind or consciousness. But abstract things, like numbers, don’t cause anything—they just exist. So, the only option left is a mind that can actually do something, meaning a mind that can choose to create.
  3. Only a Personal Explanation Fits: There are two types of explanations for causes: scientific and personal. Scientific explanations use natural laws and existing conditions, which didn’t exist before the universe. So, only a personal explanation—a decision made by a free agent—could explain the universe’s beginning.

This suggests that the cause of the universe must be a personal being with the will to choose, not a random or impersonal force. This leads to the idea that the universe was created by a personal God.

Wiliam Lane Graig: Is the Cause of the Universe Personal? @RFupdates 22 August 2024. Reasonable Faith Link

 

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

Alice Cooper. The Father of Shock Rock

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Alice Cooper (Vincent Damon Furnier), American rock singer with a career span over five decades. His shows featured numerous props and stage illusions, including pyrotechnics, guillotines, electric chairs, fake blood, reptiles, baby dolls, and dueling swords.  Cooper is considered by many music journalists and peers to be “The Godfather of Shock Rock”.

He was recently asked by Greg Laurie of The Jesus Revolution, ‘Who is Jesus Christ to you?’ https://youtube.com/watch?v=x-O3qyM-7JI&feature=share

Well, you know, He’s everything. We would not be here without Him. I know many people have no idea who Jesus Christ is, they think it is a swear word. He is not preached enough. Jesus is the most written about character of all time in history and yet people go out of their way to not believe in Him.Why do you think that is?’ I think it’s because they don’t want to give up their godship. They want to believe, ‘I’m a good enough’ They believe the Hollywood version, if I do more good than bad, then I’m ok. And he, Satan, has got you right where he wants you, to believe that.

Alice Cooper continues  ‘I (Jesus Christ) am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by Me’ (John 14:6). Those are the truest words ever spoken. How can you deny that? So as far as I’m concerned, I mean, my life is based on that now. He allows me to rock and roll, but ‘follow Me’. So, it’s my lifestyle, my wife and I both, it’s our lifestyle with our kids. It’s a Christian lifestyle. There’s a lot of Christian rockers out there. I just happen to be the most vocal one.

Alice Cooper has been outspoken about his religious awakening. In a 2018 interview with New York Daily News, he said: “My wife and I are both Christian. I grew up in the church, went as far away as I could from it — almost died — and then came back to the church.”

A life changed by the reality of God, the truth of Jesus Christ.

Alice Cooper admitted that he contemplated changing his name after he came to faith in Christ, but his pastor advised him not to.

“I went to my pastor, and I said, ‘I think I’ve gotta quit being Alice Cooper now.’ He says, ‘Look where he put you. What if you’re Alice Cooper, but what if you’re now following Christ? And you’re a rock star, but you don’t live the rock-star life. Your lifestyle is now your testimony.'”

Interview with Alice Cooper: https://youtu.be/WbuQfvJhuA0

 

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

Evidence Based Faith

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Scientific knowledge is based on evidence and if not, we have to regard what we do in science and find good evidence, good reasons for what we do. God is the God of the universe, the creator of heaven and earth. He is the Creator of science, of mathematics, and the author of the Bible. We as human beings have to figure out this oneness. The question can be asked that if God is the God who created science (God created the Universe) and evidence is the basis for scientific knowledge, would He ever expect us to believe in Him blindly, to believe the Bible blindly, to believe that Christ died and was resurrected, blindly, or would He give us evidence for what we believe. What does it mean to believe God, to have faith in God.

What is the meaning of the word faith? In Hebrews 11:1 we read that ‘faith is the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen’. Does that imply that our faith has to be blind, we just have to blindly believe?

I think it’s important for us to know that the Christian faith is the only religion in this world that is not based on blind faith. In Hebrews 11 God gives us the evidence for this faith that we cannot see, but the hope, knowing it will happen. We read about all the people of the Old Testament that believed Him and in the end, saw what God promised. Abraham, who believed God and was called the friend of God saw Isaac – the impossible promise fulfilled. God does not expect us to just believe blindly, but He gives us evidence to believe. If we meet someone new, we can’t just say to that person, “I believe in you, I trust you”. We need some time to spend and know that person to see if he’s worthy of our trust, and that is what God is doing to us. The more we know Him, the more we can trust Him. He gives us more and more evidence. Evidence in history and evidence in our lives as we trust Him.

What does the Oxford Dictionary say about the word faith? It is not just trust, but it is an absolute trust in something or someone.

Pistis, the word used for faith in the New Testament Greek (the original language the New Testament was written in) means ‘trust and trust alone in God and His promises’ Pistis in earlier Greek was the personification of good faith, of trust and reliability.

Fidesfaith in Latin, into which the  New Testament was translated from the original Greek, means belief, confidence, loyalty, word of honor, trust, authenticity.

Faith thus means an absolute trust in the person of God and His character.

And throughout the Bible, God gives us good reason to believe Him.  We read in the Old Testament that God often referred to what He did with Israel in Egypt and how, through miracles, He brought them out of Egypt. And therefore, they could trust Him for the future. He promised the Messiah hundreds of years earlier (e.g., Isaiah 53 written 600 B.C.) and these promises were fulfilled.  Jesus did not say, ‘I’m the Messiah. Believe in Me’ but through His miracles, Jesus showed that He was of God, the Messiah. He had authority over the wind and the sea (Mark4:35-41) and even over death (John 11:38 – 44) to prove that He was who He claimed to be. When John the Baptist asked Him from prison if He was the Messiah, or should they expect someone else? What did He say? He gave evidence: the blind are seeing, the cripple walking. Good News is preached to the poor (John 11:1-6). He predicted His death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21-28). It all happened.

Christ’s resurrection is one of the best-attested events of ancient history. There are very few events, if any, as well attested as the facts of the resurrection of Christ as a historical event. If you reject the resurrection of Christ as factual, you have to reject all ancient historical events as factual: Alexander the Great, Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, The Roman Empire, Nero, in fact, all ancient history. None as well attested as the resurrection. (Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ)

John said Christ will baptized with the Holy Spirit (Baptism with the Holy Spirit)   and we saw what happened in Acts 2, how the church exploded to the ends of the earth when people were filled with the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 28:19, He said that He will always be with us.  I, the writer, would not be here unless I see Christ in my life and experience Him every day. So, the evidence is also changed lives. (A Life Touched and Changed)

So, whenever we see the word faith, we can replace it with the words ‘absolute trust in the person of God’ because of the evidence He gave us and is giving us. We can trust Him, we can have full confidence in the character of God. The God we can know. The God that is alive, a living reality who will always do what He promises. Even so eternal life. John 17:3 ‘This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

The Hiddenness of God as Evidence for God

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms of who He is. Why is that? The answer lies in free will and love.

The materialist often asked us for evidence for the existence of God. The request, and arguments rooted in a materialistic worldview. Thus, a request for scientific evidence. In materialism, it is often stated that scientific knowledge is the only true and reliable knowledge. The request would imply the evidence to be of a material and/or demonstrative nature e.g., verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence. However, this is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. In this talk, I will address this form of evidence specifically though there are numerous other kinds of reliable evidence.

I will argue and demonstrate that free will and love are immaterial properties. And that free will and the freedom to choose to love imply that God exists, that is if the Judeo-Christian God does indeed exist. If He would reveal Himself fully as He is portrayed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Bible, and it is true, one will be totally overwhelmed by who He is. So much so that we will not have the freedom to choose to love Him, and believe in Him. A contradiction in terms of who He is. God has to be hidden to allow the freedom to choose to love Him. Yet, He reveals enough of Himself to those who seek Him to be convinced of His existence, but He hides enough of Himself to those who do not want to be convinced, those who do not want God to exist. In the following talk, I will give my reasons and arguments as to why I say this.

What is love? Can it ever be forced? No, love per definition is free. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. If you are not free to choose to love, it can never be love. Right?

For the strict materialist free will is only an illusion (Sam Harris – ‘free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.’)1 and rightly so, because if we are but material, i.e., molecules in motion, electrochemical processes in and between cells – if nothing transcendent exists, and we are nothing more than material particles reacting to the laws of nature, free will is impossible. And love can only be an illusion. If everything that exists, can be examined and empirically proven given enough time and the necessary knowledge and nothing immaterial exists, free will and love can be not real. Physical objects behave by natural laws and inputs, and free will and love can only be an illusion.

Yet, we experience love as real. Love for a spouse, for a child, for parents? Can all of this be a mere illusion, an illusion so strong that we believe it, yet do not have it? Are we, and everyone ever born into this world, at all times, been deceived in believing that love is real? Can it be possible that we are being deceived by the material world that we live in and are part of?  Think carefully, do we not experience free will as real, and love as real? Or is our world a dishonest joke? The alternative is that there is more than the material world and love and free will is a reality and not a mere delusional product of the material brain.

Sam Harris writes1 that if he were to trade places with a particular individual, a criminal, atom for atom, he would be that criminal. There would be no extra part of him that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimise other people. ‘I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath’ if he was truly in the shoes of that criminal, that is, if he had the genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state, as that criminal, he (and by implication ‘each of us’) would act exactly the same. I totally agree with Sam Harris if there is only a material world and nothing more.

But I put it to you that we have free will and can choose to love – more than our family and people important to us. We can also choose to love those who hate us, our enemies that might threaten our survival, and love them, with zero benefits to us, or to our own people. It is a choice, that we can take freely. There is nothing in this notion beneficial for the survival of the species, not to our particular people group, not even our personal selves. In fact, it might cost us dearly. But, we do have a choice, we are free to choose.

In the world of the strict materialist, there is no free will. The love of the mother for a child is not a free choice but a necessity for the survival of the species, even so amongst people. Free love does not exist as a reality, it is not a choice in the world of the materialist.

So, is the materialist trapped in the world of materialism? Yes, if there is no transcendent being, no God, he/she is trapped. And with this, all moral responsibility falls flat. One would lock up a criminal, not because he has done anything wrong – he had no choice, no free will after all – but to protect society against him. If there is no God, then morality and law lose their foundation and there is no objective good and evil. This was acknowledged by Nietzsche, Stirner, Ruse, Satre, Camus, Dostoyevsky and others.

This is not the reality that we experience in life nor what humans live out. It is not coherent with life, and we know it. We encounter free choices throughout our lives daily and, very importantly, we are responsible for our decisions. We experience love – free to even love our enemies, a decision that has nothing to do with the survival of the species but with profound transcendental significance.

Caught in this ‘box’ of materialism, caught in the ‘box’ where no transcendence exists, where no God exists, free will and love cannot exist or have any true meaning.

Free choices require that man is more than just a body, that there is more to reality than just the physical world. If more than the material world does exist, if transcendence, if God, does exist, free will and true love can exist. This would add one more argument to the collective evidence for God’s existence, in the larger palette of reasons to believe and one less reason not to believe.

So, we experience free will and true love as real. Materialism is incoherent and not in line with reality – lest you are willing to accept free will and love as deceitful illusions. Certainty is knowing that a truth aligns with reality.

We might ask then that if God exists, why is it not obvious to everyone? Afterall, the Judeo-Christian concept of God is that He is love. That He is the very essence of what love is. Love is not described as an attribute of God, but that love is what He is, the sole source of love. Why can’t we experience and see Him, why not definitive evidence for His existence, and we can know that He is a reality? Why His hiddenness?

Why do some people see God in everything and other do not see Him in anything? Blaise Pascal wrote “What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp.”

I’d like to put yo you two reasons for God’s hiddenness:

I. ‘If God had wished to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself to them plainly that they could not doubt the truth of His essence, … This is not the way He wished to appear when He came in mildness because so many men had shown themselves unworthy of His clemency, that He wished to deprive them of the good they did not desire. It was therefore not right that He should appear in a manner divine and absolutely capable of convincing all men, but neither was it right that His coming should be so hidden that He could not be recognised by those who sincerely sought Him. He wished to make Himself perfectly recognisable to them. Thus, wishing to appear only to those who seek Him with all of their hearts and hidden from those who shun Him with all of their hearts, He has qualified our knowledge of Him by giving signs which can be seen by those who seek Him and not by those who do not. There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition’ Pascal – Pensées

But Nietzsche (in Daybreak, 1881) finds the notion of a hidden God inconsistent with a God who holds us accountable for our unbelief. ‘A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intentions – could that be a god of goodness?’  But ‘Nietzsche’s objection labour under a false assumption: for God to be good and omnipotent, He must reveal Himself so clearly as to leave no doubt for all humans irrespective of their moral condition or attentiveness. But Pascal argues that God is available to those who seek Him and God has left enough clues to make the search warranted.’ – Douglas Groothuis2. He continues, ‘Pascal wants to kindle …. a passion to seek out God, for “it is well worth it”. But conditional epistemic access is involved in acquiring knowledge. Each kind of truth claim, or discipline requires appropriate skill for knowing. Certain qualities, (virtues), best suit a person for gaining knowledge are patience, tenacity, humility, studiousness, and honest truth seeking’.

Blaise Pascal, ‘He has willed to make Himself . . . appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not’.3

This allows for free will, the choice to seek, to love, to believe. God will not coerce us into loving Him.

II. Furthermore, if God would give us all the evidence, undeniable evidence for His existence, we will be left with no choice but to love Him. And it will not be love, as we will have no choice. Contrary as to what love is. God created us to love Him – but also gave us a free will to choose to love Him. That is what He wants, that is what love is.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and would fully reveal Himself, as expressed in the Bible, mortal man will have no choice but to love Him.

God reveals enough of Himself in the Word of Scripture (Bible), and the Word of Nature (science), and on a personal level, to know that He exists and that we can live in a relationship with Him based on trust. And we can experience more evidence of His existense by seeing His action in our lives and developing a deeper trust daily.  Yet, He hides enough of Himself for us not to be overwhelmed by the fullness of His being. He leaves us with the choice daily to love Him and trust Him, or not. To seek Him or flee from Him.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and what is written about Him is true, then,

  1. We would be so overwhelmed by His goodness, overwhelmed by His love and presence, more than we can ever imagine, or ever encounter in our experiences in human relationships, we would experience peace beyond imagination, and contentment that only a fool would walk away from it. The majority of Christians that live in a relationship with God experience this but not all of it all the time.
  2. We would realize and understand the purpose of the universe, the purpose of our existence. And not to choose Him would make no sense.
  3. We will believe the Scriptures, the Bible, and know that it is true. That we are sinful, that God is holy and righteous, the perfect righteous Judge that will punish every sin we ever committed lest in His love our sin is covered by Christ on the Cross, and we will be taken up into His presence. And if not, if we choose not to love Him, He will respect our free choice, and we will experience what our guilt earned,  now and with eternal torment (i.e., guilt, regret, experiencing nothing of the goodness of God; no beauty, friendship, love, light, warmth, or anything that is good). Only a fool would choose the latter – nobody in their right mind.

To grasp and realize this to its full extent, without a shred of the slightest doubt, and to experience the abundance of who God is in His grandeur, will leave us with no choice and love will be not free and thereby cannot be love.

‘I see as a trait of God that He always gives us plausible deniability. Every time He makes Himself known, He also says, ‘If you don’t want to believe in Me, you don’t have to. It’s your choice. If you don’t want to think this is the handout I’m showing you, you don’t have to. But if you’re willing to accept that it’s Me, we’re going to have a great time together.’ Guy J. Consolmagno, SJ – an American research astronomer, physicist, and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Without undeniable conclusive evidence for His existence, He leaves it open to us to believe Him or not believe Him – He would not bully us, coerce us nor force us. He desires true love, a completely free choice.

The ‘hiddenness’ of God and the lack of ‘final evidence’ for His existence are enveloped in the reality of the existence of the transcendent, of the reality of love and free will, and these cannot be separated. It makes sense that He will not give us final and definitive evidence for His existence. He wants us to freely choose Him. A passion to seek and find Him. If we are merely physical, material stuff, then there is no god, no free will, no love, no objective morality, and very little sense in this world. Love and free will just an illusion.

People will forever argue for and against God’s existence depending on what their hearts’ desire is. The final conclusion will forever escape the minds of the materialist because of free will and love.

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms. He is love and created us for love. Love is free and definitive undeniable evidence for His existence would remove our free will to choose to love Him. Not being able to choose to love Him contradicts who He is.

My own experience when I was seeking God and found Him in February 2000, whilst praying for an atheist friend:

Typically, Christians report, and I experienced this, though reading this many years after the experience:

  1. A new moral awareness concerning good and evil in themselves and others – Hebrews 5: 11-14
  2. A sense of guidance and calling received primarily from the wisdom of the Bible – II Timothy 3: 15-17 as well as through Christian fellowship Psalm 133
  3. Personal moral progress (adhering to moral principles and developing personal virtues through the agency of the Holy Spirit)
  4. A deep sense of belonging to God through the work of Jesus Christ – Romans 8: 14 – 16

The atheist wants the god to be material-like, like the ancient Israelites and other ancient civilizations that made physical idols, gods. This had been natural to the human race throughout the ages and still is. Our idols are now mostly one of three material entities, if not all three; money, power (over fellow humans), and sex.

Scientists cannot even try to prove or disprove God’s existence because they know there is not an experiment that can ever detect God. You cannot use material means to prove the immaterial. How do you prove the existence of mathematics which is also a nonphysical entity, something that you cannot hold in your hand, or demonstrate under a microscope? You can claim the existence of mathematics, invent mathematical language to describe it to make it useful, and present evidence to prove that mathematics is true and exists. The essence of mathematics has always existed since the Big Bang. The cosmos is based on mathematics! We as humans can only discover it, invent a language to make it useful,  and find ways to describe it – with a rational brain. You can neither demonstrate mathematics physically nor see the reality of mathematics, or the rationality of the brain in a laboratory – only the effects of it. It is a serious category mistake to try and prove the immaterial by material means.

The atheist always asks for evidence. Physical, verifiable testable, repeatable, evidence for the existence of God.  This is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. God is immaterial. And to cling to demand for this type of evidence is just an excuse not to face reality and to avoid the truth.

I find that atheists very often focus on the next possible objection in the arguments for the existence of God and they do not seriously think about and consider the arguments that have been put to them and miss so much of the strong evidence, the collective arguments, for the existence of God.

If the knowledge of God is available to everyone (Romans 1:18-21) and if the case for Christianity is strong for those who want to investigate, then everyone is accountable for what they know and could know about God. Much of atheism is understood as misotheism: the hatred of God that they know is there, often from previous painful experiences. Atheists, like Freud, assume there is no God and then wreck their brains to explain why so many believe this egregious, glaring, falsehood.2

The atheist or sceptic, having been exposed to general revelation sufficient to know there is a God, develops a false belief that God does not exist, since if God existed, one would need to humble oneself, be thankful, and worship God. Pride forbids this, and pride (or autonomy) is the essence of all sin4 As Pascal wrote, ‘Men despise religion and hope that it is not true’. In one sense, Christianity is the easiest of all religions. You believe the gospel and are redeemed. It is all of grace. In another sense, it is the hardest of all religions because you must repent of any self-righteousness and humble yourself before the cross.5

If God is there, one should be humbled, and worship Him. But resisting this requires self-deception. Suppressing of the truth is intentional by not considering the cumulative truth of the existence of God seriously, yet seriously pursuing every possible counterargument to find reasons not to believe, which God will allow as you turn your back on Him. It is a free choice.

Often it is we that are hiding from God and not God hiding from us

 

Summary

Free will is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will is a necessity for the existence of love – love is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will and love are consistent with reality. And consistent with immaterial transcendence. Consistent with the existence of God – not proof of God but consistent with His existence.

If God is love and exists, why does God not show Himself clearly?

  1. God gives enough evidence of His existence for those who seek Him but does not reveal enough of Himself to those who do not want to know Him. Only one version of each of the cosmological, design, moral, religious experience, and ontological arguments need to be sound as a convincing item of knowledge that theism is true. On the side of historical argument, the reliability of the new testament manuscripts and the resurrection of Jesus, by itself, is good reason to believe that there is a God and that Jesus is who the New Testament claims He is. The atheist will constantly attempt to poke holes into each of these arguments but none can be finally overturned nor act as final evidence for God. But there is enough evidence for His existence and enough counter arguments to doubt. And that is exactly where God leaves up to the individual to freely choose.
  2. Should He reveal Himself fully, one would be so overwhelmed by who He is that one will have no choice but to love Him. But love equals free choice. Thus, God puts us in a position to choose freely, and truly love Him and not for man to be overwhelmed and leave us with no choice. If we would have no choice, there can be no love and no loving God.

God leaves us with enough doubt and enough confirmation to freely choose to love Him.

It would be a contradiction if God is love and gives us so much evidence not to question in any sense His existence and thereby no choice but to love Him.

Therefore, any final and definitive evidence for God by whatever means would be a contradiction in terms of who God is. Furthermore, to ‘demand’ physical evidence to prove God’s existence is a category mistake as pointed out and a mere excuse for the materialist to hide behind and be under the illusion to think he has got God in check mate.

The Hiddenness of God points to the Evidence for God.

God can be found by everyone who sincerely wants to find Him.

 

  1. Free Will. Sam Harris. Free Press 2012
  2. Christian Apologetics Douglas Groothuis InterVarsity Press
  3. Blaise Pascal Pensee 430
  4. James Spiegel The Making of an Atheist. Moody Press 2010
  5. Francis Schaeffer The God Who is There. InterVarsity Press 2020
Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

A Dream A Vision

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

04-01-23 Keurboomsrivier

I dreamed last night. I was on my way and arriving on the ship. Saw another ship about 200 meters away. They were throwing sheep into the water. They sort of had to swim toward the ship I was on. Some were struggling to keep their noses about the water, just to stay alive. When getting close to the ship they were picked up to be slaughtered. ‘This is exactly why I do not eat meat!’ I cried out. I was so upset and, filled with emotion and wanted to cry. No one cares about the life, pain, suffering, and death of the sheep. Just want to consume them for their own pleasure. And I woke up.

In my quiet time later this morning praying for all the many different people God has put on my heart, I  was suddenly filled with the same emotion. People were being pushed into the rough seas of this life by forces that want to destroy them. They struggle not to drown, just to be picked up for destruction and nobody cares. Just care about their own pleasures.

A Dream

A dream

a vision perhaps

from my heart

from God’s heart perhaps

A big white ship

moored in port

friends and people

flounder around in circles

 they find their place

 of peace

to serve

 

A ship

 not far away

sheep shoved

into the sea

rough winds and waves

raging white swirls

and struggles

despair

nostrils above wild waters

swim

fight

drift

our ship their destiny

 picked and pulled

from the sea

to be slaughtered

food for the crew

no one cares

 no one feels

 

Exactly –

my heart forbids

consumption

unceremoniously

the suffering and killing

to live off the misery

 of a sentient being

I cried out

nobody cares

tears dried on my cheek

I fell to the ground

 

God’s creation

In His image

He created us

pushed to the edge

we tumble and fall

rough seas

 – life –

the fight

 the struggle

overwhelmed

 water

air!

– a gasp

destiny

plucked from the sea

destruction awaits

the soul destined for death

nobody cares

 

Poor lost sheep

not a thought from my heart

nobody cares

my destiny secured

my neighbor can drown

helpless asleep

helpless sheep

not knowing

the slaughter awaits

What do I care?

I’m saved

Jesus spoke to them. ‘Go, and teach all nations’  the Good News that God saves and when we believe in Christ, in what He has done for us, He identifies us as His own. There is more joy in heaven over one lost (sheep) sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others.  From Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 1:13, Luke 15:7

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

What is Prayer?

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Prayer

Prayer should not merely be a way to get things from God but, much more importantly, be a way to get more of God Himself – as Paul, who wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament, saw it.

 Prayer is a personal two-way communication and fellowship with God.

Matthew 6:6 ‘But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Psalm 145:18 ‘The Lord is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on Him in truth.’

Jeremiah 29:12 ‘Then you will call on Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.’

Philippians 4:6 ‘Tell God what you need and thank Him for all He has done’

Psalm 32:8 – 9 ‘I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you.’

Jeremiah 33:3 ‘Ask Me and I will tell you remarkable secrets you do not know about things to come.’

 Prayer is opening ourselves to an allknowing God.

Psalm 139: 23 – 24. ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. Point out anything in me that offends You, and lead me along the path of everlasting life.’

 Prayer is a way to offer our praises, thanksgiving and worship to God.

Psalm 100:4 ‘Enter His gates with thanksgiving, go into His courts with praise. Give thanks to Him and praise His name.’

Psalm 103: 1-5 Let all that I am praise the LORD; with my whole heart, I will praise His holy name. Let all that I am praise the LORD; may I never forget the good things He does for me. He forgives all my sins and heals all my diseases. He redeems me from death and crowns me with love and tender mercies. He fills my life with good things. My youth is renewed like the eagle’s!’

 Prayer is a way we humble ourselves before God. It is our active way of repenting and, a humbling act before God.

Isaiah 66:2 ‘My hands have made both heaven and earth; they and everything in them are Mine. I the Lord have spoken! I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at My word.’

 Prayer is our hearts move to find God. It is a pilgrimage to be in the presence of God.

Psalm 40: 1-2. ‘I waited patiently for the Lord to help me, and He turned to me and heard my cry. He lifted me out of the pit of despair, out of the mud and the mire. He set my feet on solid ground and steadied me as I walked along.’

 Prayer is an act of faith in times of difficulty. It is our faith, our trust in God, that is put into practice.

Philippians 4:6 ‘Don’t worry about anything; instead pray about everything. Tell God what you need and thank Him for all He has done’

Luke 11:9 ‘So I tell you, keep on asking and you will receive what you ask for, keep on seeking and you will find, keep on knocking and the door will be open to you.’

1 John 5: 14 – 15 ‘This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And since we know He hears us when we make our requests, we also know that He will give us what we ask for’

I Thessalonians 5: 17- 18 ‘Never stop praying. Be thankful in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you who belong to Christ Jesus’

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

Christian Apologetics made Easy. Introduction and a Life without God.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Why is Christian Apologetics important and Why would a Life without God be Untenable?

Tertius Venter

 “You believe in God? Tell me, what evidence do you have that God even exists?”

“Oh, I can give you at least 5 good reasons, evidence for His existence! And more if you have the time!”

In 1 Peter 3:15 we read ‘Always be ready to give a logical defense’ (be ready to explain it). This is what Christian Apologetics is about.

In Greek this term apologia means well-reasoned and thought-out reply (response)

Christianity is the only ‘religion’ with a history based on verifiable facts

For whom is Christian Apologetics?

◦ All Christians – the Great Commission Matthew 28:19 ‘  ‘ and to strengthen our own faith

◦ Parents with children

◦ The skeptic and the atheist – to put a pebble of truth in his/her shoe

and pray that the Holy Spirit will change the pebble into a seed that will grow

 

What does the Scripture say about apologetics? A few important verses from the Bible.

 

  1. ‘Always be ready to give a logical defense (be ready to explain it) to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect’ 1 Peter 3:15 If we have the knowledge, we don’t have to be anxious about how to answer, we can calmly give a good answer and that will make people think more about what we’re saying and the responses. If we have the knowledge, there should not be any reason to feel apprehensive in any situation.
  2. ‘Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.  Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone’.  Colossians 4:5-6 Seasoned with salt, meaning real meaning and truth in your response that people will remember what say.  Do it with grace. We as Christians must offer graceful truthful answers even as we might experience opposition like – ‘You’re not talking sense’-. Ask ‘Why do you say that? Which of the facts I presented are non-sensible and why?’
  3. ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’. 2 Corinthians 10:55
  4. ‘See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ’ Colossians 2:8 It is always important to bring people back to the point and point it out if they are attacking you as a person. ‘Let’s talk about the argument instead of me’ By the same token, we’ve got to be careful not attacking them. If we talk to people about Christ, even if they come with really confronting and difficult arguments, we should carefully listen to them and hear what they say. It is important to defend what we believe and why but also challenge them in what they say. ‘Why do you say that?’ ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ ‘Or what are the sources of your knowledge for what you’re saying?’

 

We can be in a position to demolish every argument, every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God if we equip ourselves well. Christ, who created heavens and earth is the truth and we have the truth on our side. If we gain the necessary knowledge, no one can stand up against the truth of Christianity.

A large number of philosophers in the world are non-Christians, and some are outspoken atheists with very clever arguments. But if you carefully sit back and think about what they are saying, and listen to Christian philosophers’ arguments, one can always come to really good responses.

There 10 important questions one can ask the non-believer and help them to rethink their position. These questions form a strong basis for Christian apologetics and we as Christians should familiarize us with the answers.

  1. How do you get something from nothing? The beginning of the universe.
  2. How do you get life from non-life? What is life?
  3. How do you get a mind, consciousness, from matter?
  4. How do you get design without a designer? The fact that everything around us looks as if designed.
  5. How do you solve the problem of evil? No God, no evil, but evil is real.
  6. How can life be insignificant, have no value? If we are mere matter in a purposeless universe, what gives us value?
  7. How can life be meaningless – if there is objectively/ultimately no meaning, no goal with the existence of the universe?
  8. How can there be no free will if we are just a physical brain and nothing more?
  9. How can there be no human identity? Your physical body is always changing. Why do you stay the same person?

 

Let’s look at a few of these questions

1. How do you get something from nothing?

The Bible teaches that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Throughout history scientists for millennia, believed that the universe was eternal. There was no beginning which was in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches. Before God created there was nothing.

From the early 20th century Astro-physical evidence emerged that there was an actual beginning and in the mid-60s, this concept became the accepted model under the scientific population worldwide. It was accepted that there were a beginning and people could no longer deny it. The evidence is overwhelming, and we can ask the question, ‘if there was nothing and now there is something, what and how did that happen? If we don’t believe that there’s a God that created at some point in the past, there is just no answer. Theories like the multi-universe, or the oscillating universe, are mere theories. There is just like zero evidence for it. These are attempts, desperate efforts, to avoid the fact that the Bible can possibly be correct, a finite beginning from nothing.

2. How do you get life from non-life?

Early in the history of our planet, the earth, everything consisted of inorganic material. Rocks and dust, and all the elements of the earth. What happened that the inorganic material changed into organic material, and life emerged. How did life start? Scientists have no explanation; not even what life is. Science might possibly be able to explain this in the future but to exclude an intelligent Mind, one who guided, and designed the processes, would be difficult if not impossible to explain.

Nobody knows what life is. We can study life and many things about life but have no idea what it is. It is interesting that if you have a living cell, and a dead cell, and you put them side by side, e.g., two identical muscle cells, the one alive, the one dead (immediately after it died) and you study them under the microscope, and they will still look identically the same. One can see no difference though the one has life in it and the other not. When a cell dies, and life goes out of it, what happened, ‘where did the life go’? There is no answer to this question. We don’t know what life is.

3. How did we get a mind, consciousness, from matter and what is the mind, and what is consciousness?

There was nothing, then something, inorganic material turned into organic material and there was life. But even more astounding, organic material developed consciousness. And we do not know what consciousness is. Nobody knows what consciousness is. We can study and know a lot about inorganic material, about organic material, even so about life and consciousness yet we have no idea what life and consciousness are.

4. How do you get design without a Designer?

Observing the universe, the design, and the fact that it is so finely tuned, is totally amazing.

Stephen Meyer. What are the arguments for intelligent design? 1. The foundation of life and the DNA molecule. There is a four-character digital code that is responsible for producing the proteins and protein machines that cells need to stay alive. DNA encoding uses 4 bases (cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine). This appears very digital. DNA is a code carrier, just like the ROM (read only memory), RAM (random access memory) and the attached hardware stores (hard disks, flash drives memory sticks optic discs etc) are code carriers. The sequence of cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine in the DNA forms the genetic code the information (instructions) for producing proteins. It is comparable to the digital code of zeros and ones in computer ‘language’. The computer processor use this two-symbol system of 0’s and 1’s for instructions (information), We know from our experience, from uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, that information comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about the information in a computer program or information in a paragraph in a book or assembly instructions, or information embedded in a radio signal. Whenever we see information, we always come to a mind, that information always comes from a mind, not from a material process. So, the discovery of information at the foundation of life is decisive evidence for a designing mind in the origin of life. 2. The argument from Fine Tuning. Physicists have been discovering since the 1950s that the basic laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe were set up just right to allow for the possibility of life within very fine tolerances. For example, the strength of the gravitational attraction, or the expansion rate of the universe. If any of these factors were off by a slightest of a fraction either way, life would not be possible in our universe. One great astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and not a Christian. ‘A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’ 3. Intelligence, a Transcendent Form of Intelligence in that the universe had a definite beginning. And this is something that’s come into our awareness through astrophysics and astronomy over the last 100 years. As scientists formulated what was first called The Big Bang Theory. And this is simply stunning that the material universe, if you go back far enough, reaches a singularity of point where matter space, time and energy themselves come into existence. And as a consequence, there’s really no material explanation that can be posited, because it’s matter itself that comes into existence at a finite time ago, even time and space apparently began. The first words of the Bible, ‘in the beginning’, and the modern astrophysics has discovered that there was in fact such a beginning.

So, we have evidence of design, but also evidence of design from the very beginning of the universe, of the fine-tuning and evidence of a beginning in this, these discoveries are from astronomy and astrophysics but point very clearly to a Designer.

It takes at least 26 fundamental constants to give life in our universe.

A major component of the cosmological evidence for the existence of God is the value of constants that govern the universe. Over the centuries scientists have determined the value of these constants, and all of our knowledge of the cosmos is based on these values. You either have to believe that these precise numerical values are a product of chance, or that they have been consciously designed by a Creator. It’s the precise values of these constants that allow the cosmos to exist and to remain stable.

A. Cosmic Constants

  1. Gravitational force constant
  2. Electromagnetic force constant
  3. Strong nuclear force constant
  4. Weak nuclear force constant
  5. Cosmological constant

It’s important to distinguish cosmic fine-tuning from local “fine-tuning” – for life.

B. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and some of the 109 listed below as examples.

  1. Nuclear force constant
  2. Gravitational force constant
  3. Electromagnetic force constant
  4. Ratio of proton to electron mass
  5. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
  6. Ratio of proton to electron charge
  7. Expansion rate of the universe
  8. Entropy level of the universe
  9. Velocity of light
  10. Age of the universe
  11. Uniformity of radiation
  12. Average distance between galaxies
  13. Average distance between galaxy clusters
  14. Average distance between stars
  15. Decay rate of protons

C. “Local” Planetary Conditions

But even in a universe fineBut even in a universe fineBut even in a universe finet even in a universe fine-tuned at the cosmic level, local conditions can still vary dramatically. As it happens, even in this fine-tuned universe, the vast majority of locations in the universe are unsuited for life. Twelve broad, widely recognized fine-tuning factors required to build a single, habitable planet. All 12 factors can be found together in the Earth.

  1. Steady plate tectonics with the right kind of geological interior
  2. The right amount of water in the crust
  3. Large moon with the right planetary rotation period
  4. Proper concentration of sulfur (which is necessary for important biological processes).
  5. Right planetary mass (which allows a planet to retain the right type and right thickness of atmosphere).
  6. Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone (which allows a planet to maintain the right amount of liquid water on the surface).
  7. Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances (which allows a planet to maintain a safe orbit over a long period of time).
  8. A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits (which protects the habitable zone from too many comet bombardments).
  9. Outside spiral arm of the galaxy (which allows a planet to stay safely away from supernovae).
  10. Near co-rotation circle of the galaxy, in a circular orbit around a galactic center (which enables a planet to avoid traversing dangerous parts of the galaxy).
  11. Within the galactic habitable zone (which allows a planet to have access to heavy elements while being safely away from the dangerous galactic center).
  12. During the cosmic habitable age (when heavy elements and active stars exist without too high a concentration of dangerous radiation events).

Francis Crick (1916-2004) was one of Britain’s great scientists. He is best known for his work with James Watson which led to the identification of the structure of DNA in 1953. Not a Christian.

‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’

5. How do you solve the problem of evil?

What is evil if God does not exist? No God, no evil, but evil is real. How do we solve the problem of evil? If you are an atheist, then it’s just bad luck – just the way the dice falls. But in Christianity suffering has deep meaning and implications.

6. How can life be insignificant, and humans have no value? If we are but a highly developed animal? What gives human life value?

7. How can life be meaningless – objectively/ultimately have no meaning? Where does meaning come from in a universe that will ultimately burn up into nothing? What ultimate significance and meaning can one’s life possibly have if you evaporate into total nothingness at death. If that who is you, becomes less than a vapor. And your consciousness not even a memory.

8. How can there be no freedom? No free will?

If we are the ‘end’ product of a highly evolved animals and our brain development functions purely through neuro chemical reactions, how could one explain rationality and, free will? The materialist and atheists have to accept that we have no free will. Sam Harris, is one of the most famous ‘new atheists’ wrote that ‘free will is so convincing that we all believe we have it, but we don’t have it.’ And the same applies for rationality.

We as Christians believe that God is a rational God. He created a rational universe, and we are created in His image. We have a rational mind that can investigate the rational universe but for an atheist, there is no reason that the universe should be rational. There was a Big Bang, and now everything is rational, and it’s all based on rational immaterial mathematics. Mathematics is not something that you can hold in your hand. You can work with it. But it is an immaterial concept. And the whole basis of the universe is based on the principles of mathematics. So, you have to have a rational mind, separate from your materialistic physical brain, to understand it and work with it.

9. How can there be no human identity? Your physical body is always changing, and every molecule, atom in your body constantly replaced. Why do you stay the same person?

10. Where does rationality come from – discussed under free will.

In Christian Apologetics, all these subjects are well addressed and explained.

Why Would Life without God be Untenable, If Not Absurd?

Three things that are important.

  1. Meaning and purpose in life. Without God why would human life have any ultimate value if everything is going to end up with the universe in a dark cold death without anyone to remember anything?
  2. Where does the value of humans come from, what gives it it’s value? Just the individuals’ or societies’ opinion that humans have value? What is the basis for human value? We as Christians know God created us in His image which puts us apart from all other life on this planet and gives us immense value and, and equal value of all races and all sexes.

The atheist might fight for these same values. He believes that, but he has no objective basis for what he believes but just his opinion.

  1. And the same with moral values. How do we know what is right and wrong? Is it because of a standard outside of us? A perfect transcended standard – objective morality? Or is it just the individual’s opinion – subjective morality? Subjective morality can only be an opinion, the community’s opinion or individual opinion, or cultures’ opinion, but which one is it? Which opinion are you going to accept? Or is there objective morality outside of us? Perfection that we measure everything against?

Man is the only creature in the whole of the universe who asked ‘why’ questions. Why am I here? Why have I been created? The logical conclusion of the materialism/atheist is that we are no more than a byproduct of the universe, the result of matter, time, and chance. That through billions of years the right kind of matter came together at the right time and here we are. A byproduct by chance, with life and consciousness and rational thinking. And that there is no reason for our existence. If that is the case, the ‘why’ question, why do we exist becomes a dark and terrible answer. The philosopher Lawrence Ansley said, ‘If God is left out of the equation, the only prospect is that all will end up, the whole universe will end up in a purposeless death’ Science tells us that the universe will eventually run out of useful energy. And so does the Bible tell us that there will be an end to the present order of the world and universe.

Modern man thought that he got rid of God, especially over the last 200 years. In the western world more and more people believe there is no God, want to believe there is no God. But the problem is in killing God, humans have orphaned themselves. Suddenly they had no hand to hold to guide them, to give value in life, neither meaning in life. Suddenly, there was nothing to hold on to. “God is dead” remains one of the most famous quotes from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Christopher Hamilton wrote that Nietzsche was haunted by God and talk of his murdering God. Talk of his attempt to exorcize God from his soul by thinking through in a way that perhaps no Christian thinker has ever done what it would be really to believe in God, and really not to believe in Him.

Humans need to have something to hold on to. The problem is, if you don’t worship God, hold on to Him, you will worship other things in life, put your hope in other things, which are all temporary and when these collapse, your life collapses, or you have to find the next thing to hold on to, to worship. But you are in reality an orphan in this world, if you reject God.

Without God, man, and the universe, are doomed to nothing more than a cold, dark, purposeless death. Science tells us the universe is running out of usable energy, and eventually everything in the entire universe will end up in death. We know that the world was created a specific total amount of energy. And usable energy is slowly getting less and less. Entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. And eventually the whole universe will run out of usable energy and collapse into a dark, cold, lifeless, nothingness. In the words of Sartre, a French philosopher, ‘the universe is marching irretrievably to its grave.’ There is no hope, no escape for humanity. And the Bible confirms that the heaven and earth will come to an end. For the Christian we have the hope of the ‘New heaven and earth’ that will be created. But in the atheist worldview each individual will pass out of existence when he dies, and what ultimate meaning could there be? Does it matter if you lived or not lived at all?

If you believe there is no God, and you were on the earth for a brief period and then disappear out of existence and become like before your birth, with no conscious mind and non-existence of any memory or recall, and zero significance exists for you as a person, what was the point of your life? Whether you were good or bad, and eventually nobody would remember you or that you even existed, who you were and what you did in a 100 years from now, 200 years from now?

Ultimate meaning is what it is about. One’s life might have meaning today, meaning you might create, but ultimately, at the end of it all, there will no meaning and because everybody and everything will die, disappear out of existence. Nobody will remember anything. So, does it matter how I live? I can actually live as I like to, as ultimately it is of no significance neither personal consequences once death had its last laugh. But we cannot live like this. The world will turn into utter chaos. But if God exists, what we do and how we live become greatly important today and with eternal consequences.

Science and the Bible tell us there was a beginning and tell us there’s going to be an end. Each of us will die and the human race will stop to exist. The universe is heading towards a cold lifeless, lightless chaotic conglomeration of stars swallowed up by black holes and nobody will remember anything that happened and it will be of no significance – this is the horror of modern man. Because he ends in nothing, he is ultimately nothing. He is doomed to purposelessness in a forgotten vacuum of nothing. Lest there is a God that will do what He promised, the creation of a new earth and a new heaven. William Lane Graig.

So even though living a life believing there is no God and therefore that there is no ultimate meaning, man cannot live like that. It’s in the fiber of our being to find meaning in life and live like it has. People live as if their lives have meaning. ‘We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it’s forever’ Karl Sagan. But ‘How do you know what your life will be like tomorrow? Your life is like the morning fog—it’s here a little while, then it’s gone’ James 4:14. To create your own meaning in the face of ultimate purposelessness all seem pointless, is in realty living a life of self-delusion.

Morality. What does morality even mean without God? If there is no God, there is no perfect standard to compare to. C.S. Lewis said that unless we know what a straight line is, we cannot know what a crooked line is. God is our perfect standard. We measure our lives and values, and judge, against this perfection. It guides our morality and is the source of knowledge to know right from wrong. This is objective morality. This notion means that morality is natural, and already in our nature, and should be universal, and is not up for interpretation. Objective morality conforms to the nature of God and is ‘written on our hearts’

If not, it becomes a mere matter of opinion. How can you criticize anyone for his personal opinion? What can the basis be for questioning someone? If we are just the product of unguided matter, time and chance, where do moral values come from? How did it show up in the universe?

Subjective morality, in contrast to objective morality, is just an expression of taste, whether individual or collective, a subjective feeling of relative judgments. The implications are that we cannot judge war because we can’t say someone is in the wrong. We may know what is wrong but cannot justify why it is wrong. It is just an opinion against some else’s opinion, and one cannot judge or criticizes the one who differs from you. And for the strict materialist/atheist the opinion is the mere product of neurochemical reactions in the brain and there is no standard outside of the brain to measure against. Just a neurochemical ‘opinion’ against the neurochemical ‘opinion’ of another brain and there’s no basis for telling someone that he/her is right or wrong.

If our final outcome in life is to disappear from existence, it means our existence is no more than from nothing to nothing. Humans seek meaning and purpose in our hearts, just as the Bible says ‘eternity is in our hearts’. Deep inside we know this is not the end. It is very hard, even for the atheist, to accept that there is nothing beyond life. We all either wish or hope that there will be something more than the final day.

If we are honest to ourselves, and we say there is no God, then we cannot be but in a in a situation of despair. If God is dead man is dead, man has orphaned himself. And there is no future hope. But what is the truth? What we believe is not of the essence but what is true.

Nietzsche stated that the implication of no God is nihilism. That it is impossible to know anything at all and all values are based on nothing, especially moral values as there are no basis for it. If one is a convinced atheist, this would be the necessary conclusion.

Without God there is no goal or purpose in the universe. Man is merely a bio-electrochemical machine controlled by altering genes, which implicates no freewill and no rational thoughts. Frank Turek often states that in the materialist/atheist’s view, we are just moist robots. That is all what we are. Material particles put together by an unguided process and purely by chance over millions of years. And therefore, no free will outside of us. However, the Bible tells us we have a soul, a spirit, a mind – which is all basically the same thing though with different capacities or dimensions. This is the immaterial facet of our being. And this is where freewill is realized and our rational thought originates. In the image of the immaterial God, we are created.

Consciousness and our minds are not the same as our bodies. The body is different, and the Bible talks about the carnal man, the flesh, that we have to fight against. Our material body, and our mind, the soul is in constant conflict, in a moral fight all the time and that is what puts us apart from animals. We were given a free will to fight the basic instincts, the carnal desires of the body – to choose between right and wrong. The less we fight these basic instincts, and the more one gives in to your fleshly body, the more animal like we become. We see in the actions of criminals, but also everyday people caring for themselves without regards to fellow humans, hard businesspeople walking over others for own gain. Acting animal-like to advance themselves, self-care their first priority.  But if one becomes focus on one’s spiritual being, one moves closer to God, towards what God created us to be and we will care more and more for our fellow man. But if you don’t believe in God, it’s very hard to travel on this road. God gives us, through the Holy Spirit, the strength, ability and the wisdom and the power to fight the carnal man within ourselves and become more Christ- like.

Three philosophers, not believing in the existence of God concluded:   Friedrich Nietzsche said there are ‘two possibilities: face the absurdity of life or live valiantly with courage and determination’. Atheist Bertrand Russell ‘build your life on unyielding despair’. Albert Camus’ solution was, ‘come to terms with the absurdity of life, then learn to live in love with one another’.  But if you talk about love, you’re actually stealing from God.  God is love is the only source of love in this world. Without God, we’re in desperate situation and have to try to make the best of reality.

Francis Schaeffer is an American Christian philosopher, describes a two-story universe that we live in. On the lower level is the finite world without God. In other words, the life where there is no ultimate meaning of purpose in life. And if you are a materialist that is where you live, you believe that everything came from nothing with no goal or purpose and will end in nothing. Even if I try to create purpose, eventually, it will also come to nothing. But the upper level is a life with meaning, purpose and value because of our belief in God, that He created the universe with a purpose. To live happily and consistently without God in the lower level is impossible because you live in despair. If you are honest and consistent with your beliefs. So, what people do is to jump up to the upper level, even though not believing in God. ‘I believe in love’ they would claim. And ‘I believe I have to care for other people (but where do one get the idea that people have value), and want to live a moral life’ (but if there is no objective morality, it is but a mere opinion which is totally unpredictable and can change from moment to moment), and these statements and views are jumps to the upper level. You have to be consistent and live on the lower level without God and be unhappy or be inconsistent, dishonest and jump to the second level in order to be happy. Modern man lives in the lower level because he believes no there is no God, and he cannot live here consistently and be happy. So, he takes leaps of faith into the upper level where there is meaning, value and purpose. But he has no right to do that. He would be inconsistent and dishonest with himself and a position of despair. People cannot live like this; nobody lives like this.

People often argue that one has to create one’s own meaning, but this is only possible from a free will, to freely choose, and a jump to the second level. one does not have free choice on the first level. If we are just material, we are moist robots, reacting to the chemical reactions in our brains and there is no free choice.

So, people are really trapped on this low level. And to create meaning is a leap of faith to the upper level.

Let us consider ethical values. Where does that come from? British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russel said ‘I don’t know where it comes from. I just don’t understand it’. Obviously, he can’t because he believes we are matter only and how does matter produce ethical values? Dostoevsky wrote, ‘All things are permitted but man cannot live this way. Everything in him cries out to what is wrong but does not know why.’ Thus, the same as what Bertrand Russell said, we know things are right and wrong, but we can’t explain it.

Sartre admitted that the Holocaust was wrong and could not live consistent with his denial of absolute ethical values. He admitted that the Holocaust was wrong but could not understand why he felt it was wrong. We know that it is wrong to kill other people. But if it’s just your opinion against someone else’s opinion, why is it wrong? What makes it wrong? What is the thing that actually makes it wrong if God is left out of the equation?

Atheist might fight for woman’s rights which is obviously the right thing to do. But if God does not exist, then women have no equal value. In nature male is dominant. But nobody can live with such a dehumanizing view. But if God doesn’t exist, then woman doesn’t have equal value if we are just highly evolved animals. In 90% of the animal world, the male is dominant. So, what makes us different? Why should we treat women as our equals if we are just high highly evolved animals? But we are all created with image of God, and He has made us all equal. All races, all sexes are equal.

Francis Crick, the scientist who with Watson, first described the DNA molecule, also an atheist, said in observing and describing DNA that ‘man is no better than a laboratory specimen.’ – that’s what we are, just laboratory specimens. And Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher and atheist agrees and said that Down Syndrome babies, babies with spina bifida should just be killed.  They have less value than some animals. There’s no reason for them to live. By implication just laboratory specimen gone wrong.

The atheist who is true to himself, honest to his worldview, would come to this conclusion. But saying ‘No, all humans have equal value’ is dishonest to his belief system. The is no basis for believing that all humans have equal value in a materialistic worldview. In the animal kingdom, it’s survival of the fittest. So, if Putin wants to wipe out Ukraine to take it all for himself, why can’t he do that? If he’s just a highly evolved animal with his opinion against the opinion of another highly evolved animals? Animals wipe out other animals to gain territory for themselves.

 

To create purpose is a self-delusion as I have alluded to earlier. Ernest Bloch, German Marxist philosopher, said ‘the only way modern man lives in the face of death is by subconsciously borrowing the belief in immortality that his forefathers held to, even though he himself has lost and has no basis for believing it since he does not believe in God.’ He believes that life ends in nothing, and this is hardly sufficient to keep the head high, to work as if there is no end. Carl Sagan said ‘We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever’ Bloch makes the leap of faith to ‘live as if immortal’ which is inconsistent to his belief system jumping to the second level to borrow from Christianity. No one can live without having any prospect of a future. One has to believe that although knowing it’s not true. Subconsciously you borrow from the second story to be able to find to find meaning in life.

The dilemma is that the postmodern man denies God’s existence with the consequence of absurdity of purpose, meaning, and objective moral values. Without God life is ultimately without meaning or purpose. If you are consistent in believing and living this, you will be profoundly unhappy. To live happily demands a lie. Man desperately try to escape this. L D Rue an American philosopher, offered the ‘Noble Lie Option.’ We deceive ourselves by means of some noble lie thinking that we exist in the universe that has meaning. You’ve got to believe the lie otherwise you will be consistently unhappy, and that’s what most people will do. They would believe that there is meaning in life and that there is purpose in life and that people has value but they have no basis to support what they believe.

Our quest for personal wholeness and self-fulfillment becomes only relative to the individual. In order to live, modern man must live in self-deception. But once you see this lie, it doesn’t work anymore like a placebo, not knowing it is a placebo, it might work. But the moment you know you are taking a placebo it will not work anymore. And so atheism fails.

Biblical Christianity offers meaning, value, and purpose. The existence of God makes sense of morality, the moral force behind the moral law, of shame and guilt, of equal rights, of human value. What is behind shame and guilt, why do shame and guilt exist if we mere highly evolved animals?

A life without the existence of God makes no sense and is simply incoherent with reality. God is the best explanation the meaning and purpose of the universe, for our existence. He is the best explanation for human value, for morality. We should not cling to our beliefs, right or wrong, but to what is true.

‘The unexamined life is not worth living’ – Aristotle

 

 

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

14. Time to Think. The Evidence for Miracles

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Are miracles even possible? And what are the implications if miracles are a reality?

We will look at miracles under five topics:

  1. What is a miracle, what is meant by the word ‘miracle’?
  2. In a strict materialistic world, miracles are impossible.
  3. But what if we are more than atoms, that there is more than the physical world, that God exists? And the evidence for a world more than the physical.
  4. What is the evidence for miracles?
  5. How do we approach miracles?

 

  1. What is meant by the term ‘miracles’ and do miracles indeed happen? Can miracles be proved if they indeed occur? When would a ‘miracle’ be truly a miracle?

The meaning of the word is often misunderstood and loosely used for anything that might be unlikely or even just surprising. The specific definition however is that ‘a miracle is an event that seems inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural cause.’

In general people, especially in religious settings, tend to distinguish between two main groups of miracles, one, the intervention by the supernatural, and two, the distinctive circumstantial occurrences related to a specific place, time, and setting of the moment – the timing coinciding with circumstances constitutes the miracle. In both groups, it is seen that the supernatural is involved. The controversy is really about  ‘intervention by the supernatural’ type of miracle and this will be the focus of this talk and fits the definition above for miracles. In the second group, it is not really possible to give satisfactory evidence that the supernatural was involved.

 

  1. Science often tries to disprove the possibility of miracles, i.e., intervention by the supernatural. Science provides explanations that make sense of our world. We gain predictive power of our physical environment by way of these scientific explanations. So-called miracles events can neither be explained nor predicted and are, therefore, not scientific. Are scientific ideals then at cross-purposes with religious belief, with belief in miracles? Here we have to raise the question, is there perhaps more than just the material world? Something beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience, a transcended reality perhaps, that makes miracles a possibility?

The skeptic materialist tends to use the term ‘miracles’ when one does not know how to explain something by science but hopes to explain it one day, and probably will. There is certainly a widespread anti-supernatural attitude in the materialistic world and miracles are usually written off without good reasons.

  1. To argue the credibility of miracles one would need real good reasons to believe that miracles have happened, and/or that God exists, that miracles are reasonable to believe, and one can even base other beliefs on the reality of the truth of miracles. But can miracles be proved?

In 1979 astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). But Sagan never defined the term “extraordinary.” Ambiguity and vagueness constituted this “extraordinary”

The meaning of the word “proof” depends on context. There are legal proofs, mathematical proofs, and logical proofs. The essence of these is that the concept of proof in various contexts is concerned with “evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything” (Oxford English Dictionary 2016).

The concept of proof in a legal context may require no more than a probability, a preponderance of the evidence. But when the word proof is invoked in a philosophical sense, it usually connotes absolute certainty. A “proof” in natural philosophy is what the ancient Greeks would have called a “demonstration,” a deductive conclusion derived by analogy from the technique employed in geometry (Deming 2010: 17). The word “proof” is usually not employed in a scientific context because there can be no certainty in an empirical system of knowledge. This was established by presocratic Greek philosophers as early as the fifth or sixth century BC.

For more than a thousand years in Christian Europe the reality of miracles was unquestioned. The miracles of Jesus Christ were taken as substantive proof of His divinity. Among other feats recorded in the Gospels, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2.1–2.11), walked on water (Mark 6.45–6.52), and raised the dead from the tomb (John 11.1–11.44).

The most influential of the Fathers of the Western Christian Church was St Augustine of Hippo (354–430). In ‘City of God’, St Augustine affirmed that miracles were not limited to the time of Jesus but were commonplace in his own time: “even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ” (Augustine 1899: 485). Prodigies recorded by Augustine included miraculous cures of blindness, breast cancer, gout, paralysis, and demonic possession (1899: 485–487). Augustine even listed multiple instances of the dead being restored to life (1899: 488–489).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099700/

Atheist philosopher David Hume explained that there must be “a contest of two opposite experiences” (Hume 1748: 179). Miracles required extraordinary proof or evidence because, by definition, a miracle was “a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and inalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined” (Hume 1748: 180).

Thus, Hume defined precisely what is meant by “extraordinary” evidence or proof. “Extraordinary” means numerous. “Extraordinary” evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence, it is an extraordinarily large number of observations. “Extraordinary” evidence is only required when it must be balanced against a very large number of contrary observations.

 

  1. Miracles are not “a violation of the laws of nature” as Hume saw it, but rather a unique event that God feeds into a specific situation, and most often a once-off event. A miracle is recognized as a miracle by the fact that we know the laws of nature, know what is normal and that the event of a miracle falls outside of the known, of what is expected. How do we prove a miracle? Through evidence. And evidence can be on many different levels, eyewitness evidence and circumstantial evidence. As mentioned, there are three types of proofs: legal proofs, mathematical proofs, and logical proofs. Miracle proofs are similar to legal proofs and as with legal proofs, the event cannot be repeated. Legal proof is the establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. Anything that can make a person believe that a fact or proposition is true or false. Circumstantial and witness evidence plays a major role in legal proof. Hard evidence could seal the case but is not essential e.g., in the absence of DNA or other hard physical evidence, circumstantial and witness evidence will in many cases suffice. Even so for the evidence of a miracle, circumstantial and witness evidence, and also at times, hard evidence can be put forward.

It is important to realize that God will not do miracles as a sign to unbelievers to prove Himself – never to please or to convince people who do not trust Him or sincerely seek Him.

Jesus responded to the people who asked Him for a sign:

Matthew 12:38-40 ‘38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign, an attesting miracle, from You proving that You are what You claim to be.” 39 But He replied and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation, that is morally unfaithful to God, craves and demands a miraculous sign; but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ The reality of the resurrection.

God will not do miracles at our demand for our purposes. You have to believe that He exists, and He will reveal Himself in His own time and purpose. Trust Him and you will get to know Him. (as in any relationship, the more you trust someone, the closer you will get to him/her and the more you will get to know the person)

Hebrews 11:6 ‘And it is impossible to please God without faith – trusting Him. Anyone who wants to come to Him must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who sincerely seek Him.’

We focus on miracles that have occurred, and not the ones that might or will happen. The focus is on events that have happened but are not explainable by natural means/laws.

For the strict materialist, miracles are impossible as the likelihood of a transcendent agent is not a possibility. Nevertheless, if miracles can be proved it should provoke the materialist to some serious thinking.

 

  1. There are two approaches in support of the reality of miracles:                                                                                                                                                                        1. The argument from the occurrence of miracles to God’s existence. By providing evidence that miracles have happened, of which the most important would be the resurrection of Christ, it would be strong evidence for God’s existence. If the resurrection is true, then God exists, and other miracles are possible. There is strong evidence for the resurrection and God’s purpose with it. Historically the resurrection is well attested. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are some of the best attested facts of ancient history, if not the best. Here’s why, see Facts about the Resurrection.

Are there religious beliefs that are supported by the evidence for miracles? The resurrection is directly associated with God’s alleged solution to the human predicament – the central narrative of the Bible, and the climax and fulfillment of the Gospel message.

If the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough, we have good reasons to believe in God’s existence since miracles are acts of God. The narrative of the resurrection of Christ is an incredibly strong anomaly. Anomaly: “nomos” means law in Greek, so a-nomos means “not law” In science, an anomaly is an event that does not conform to natural laws. Usually, in science, such events are treated as being provisionally anomalous (we lack understanding for now). Scientific theories might need revision. Science seeks to solve anomalies, so they welcome them as they expand scientific explanation. This indicates a strong anti-supernatural bias in modern science. Weak anomaly: reasonable to expect we can solve it by scientific explanation. Strong anomaly: so puzzling and recalcitrant to scientific explanation, we have serious doubts about ever having a scientific explanation. Most skeptics acknowledge that Jesus’ resurrection, if actual, would be a miracle (i.e., most would grant it would be a strong anomaly). In turn, most deny the strength of the historical evidence of His resurrection than try to explain it scientifically. Is the historical evidence strong enough to support the belief that it did happen? It would have to be very strong, and if used alone, it shoulders a lot of weight to argue for God’s existence. The evidence is so strong that people ought to believe, yet why rest so much of the case for God’s existence on historical evidence? Because Christianity stands or falls on the facts of the resurrection. As pointed out, the resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested facts of ancient history. If Christ was raised from the dead, Christianity is true, God exists, and other miracles are possible.

2. The argument is to demonstrate that God exists and therefore miracles are possible. In this approach, the argument starts with the independent reasons for God’s existence. What are the arguments for the existence of God? 1. Necessity of a First Cause (Cosmological Argument). Arguments for the Existence of God Designed Creation (Teleological Argument). 3. Objective Morality (Moral Argument). 4. Necessary Being (Ontological Argument). 5. Explanation for Data (Information Argument). 6. Science and Mathematics. See God and Mathematics 7. The historicity of Jesus’s Resurrection. Facts about the Resurrection. 8. Miracles and Spiritual Encounters. 9. Near-Death Experiences and Consciousness. 10. Purpose and Meaning. A Life without God.

Many of these arguments are very strong, some less. Yet overall, extremely strong for the existence of God.  And one can add Pain and Suffering, Personal Life-changing Experiences, and more.

So, when we encounter a strong anomaly, maybe God had something to do with it. If an event could be a miracle (since it seems it cannot be explained by natural law), it could have been caused by God. because if God exists, miracles are possible (which undercuts the prejudice against miracles). Thus, we can come to believe in the authority of the miracle worker (Jesus Christ), and thus that He is God – the creator of the universe for whom miracles would not be of any difficulty. This approach still needs historical evidence for the claimed miracles per se but does not need to be overturned by the naturalistic prejudice against miracles if the argument for God’s existence is strong enough.

Just as the resurrection of Christ is pivotal to Christianity, the stand or fall of the truth of Christianity, even so, is the resurrection of Christ the final evidence for the reality of miracles. No resurrection, then no divine Christ, no Christian God and no miracles.

And to conclude this discussion.

What are the specific purposes for miracles in the Bible i.e., in the Old Testament, the New Testament and today? One might notice that in most cases it is about God giving evidence to His people to trust Him, to have faith in Him, and not to believe in Him blindly but to have good reasons. Here are some examples.

  1. Proof of God’s existence – in the present moment and referring to the past e.g., “Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him.” Genesis 21:2
  2. To demonstrate the deity of Christ John 20:30,31 they give reasons to believe in Jesus ‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that by believing you may have life in His Name. Mark 2: 1-12, the paralyzed man; He heals to demonstrate His authority to forgive sins. Verse 9 Is it easier to say to the paralyzed man ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk’? 10 So I will prove to you that the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.” Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, 11 “Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!”
  3. God shows compassion for the weak, needy, and oppressed through Jesus’ miracles. Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.
  4. The authenticity of the disciples and the spread of the Gospel. Acts 3: 1-14 7 Then Peter took the lame man by the right hand and helped him up. And as he did, the man’s feet and ankles were instantly healed and strengthened. 8 He jumped up, stood on his feet, and began to walk! Then, walking, leaping, and praising God, he went into the Temple with them.
  5. Care and concern for people. Acts 14:8-10 8 In Lystra there sat a man who was lame. He had been that way from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed 10 and called out, “Stand up on your feet!” At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.
  6. All miracles serve to strengthen believers’ faith

Miracles are events inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and attributed to some supernatural cause. Miracles are not acknowledged as a possibility in a strict materialistic world. However, the proof that miracles do happen is based on evidential proof and on the evidence for the existence of God.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram

Time to Think 13. Mind and Body. The Animal Within.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Are we just one thing? Is the brain and the mind one thing? Or are we a material brain and an immaterial mind? Thus, two things. What are the arguments for and the implications, if the brain and the mind are two different things?

Our spiritual human nature and our carnal animal nature are two forces constantly fighting each other. Our animal nature is trying to keep us from carrying out what our spiritual human nature is directing. Our spirit nature is always moving us toward being fully human and finding purpose in life in the image of the Creator. Our evolved animal nature is always trying to satisfy its basic carnal needs and desires and, if not managed, will sabotage our spirit nature with disastrous consequences. Adapted and adjusted from ‘Spirit vs. Flesh’ – Kendall Bridges1

The more one overcomes the carnal nature of man, the animal within, the more human and the less animal-like one becomes in behavior and being, finding true purpose and meaning in life.

Most materialists, and atheists, hold that evolution makes the existence of an immaterial soul, or mind, highly unlikely. If Darwinism is true, if God does not exist, it would evidently implicate that the mind and the brain are the same thing.  But the question is, can the mind be pure matter and how did it come to be?  Did it evolve from matter and is nothing but matter? Or are there persuasive arguments to contradict this notion? The mind-body problem raises the question; are humans one kind of thing with the mind equal to the body, just material? Or two kinds of things, namely body and mind, that is, material and something more? The strict physicalist holds that humans are one kind of thing. Just physical. We are a physical substance, brain only, with physical properties only. Yet, holding this view, the existence of consciousness is a problem. (‘A Concise Essay that Refutes Physicalism.’)

Christianity teaches that the soul and the body are not the same and described in the Old Testament2 as well as in the New Testament3 scriptures. Are these concepts supported by human experience, by human psychology, by neuroscience, by reality? Christianity also teaches that the soul continues after death to exist without the body until the resurrection4

 Where does the truth lie? Are we more than just a physical brain? What are the arguments for or against it?

Mind is associated with the brain. The two terms are often used interchangeably. The brain is considered to be a physical thing, the mind is considered to be mental (immaterial). The brain is composed of nerve cells and can be touched, whereas, the mind cannot be touched, e.g., thoughts cannot be touched, nor can it be physically demonstrated. The brain is clearly a biological, physical organ. But it is not clear what ‘mental functioning’, what we call ‘mind’, consists of. Is it some kind of force or substance that exists apart from the physical realm, or is it merely a product of the physical functioning of the brain, and nothing non-physical, nothing immaterial? There is no consensus of what is meant by the word ‘mind’ but for our purpose, we would interchange it with the word soul. Soul then includes all the concepts; ‘the I’ – the essence of ‘me’, my mind, ego, and spirit – thus soul is the immaterial apart from the physical brain and experiences the world in being consciousness.

When the question is asked, ‘Why do you read that book?’, we might with a scan detect brain activity in the person’s brain, but nothing can detect the answer or know the answer by any means other than the individual decides to tell us, and then tell us. The activity of the thought is detectable (material process) but not the thought,  the answer itself, with its meaning (mental/immaterial). Meaning, like information, is immaterial and never physical. Like the story (the information/meaning) in a book. The paper and the ink are material/physical but never the story/meaning/information it conveys. The story/meaning/information needs a mind to read and interpret and understand it, coming from another mind. The two minds (immaterial) that use two brains (material) to create, understand and interpret the story/meaning/information (immaterial).

Consider the Structure of The Human Soul

Evolution can explain where the body comes from but not where the mind, (soul/ego/the ‘I’), the immaterial, comes from. Darwinism is a physical theory. Humans have many capacities (potentialities, abilities) that we do not exercise, that are often not functional. And cannot be physical. For example, when we are sleeping, we can have the capacity to speak English but not speaking English. We have the physical/electrochemical pathways of the language laid down in our brains but the potential to use the language is not physical, the potential to form ideas, stories, to convey information using the language, is not physical but immaterial potentials. You can never touch or demonstrate the capacity for immaterial information that is processed by using the language.  We also have the capacities to have capacities. I have the capacity to speak English, but not Russian, but I have the capacity to develop that capacity, to speak Russian, too. It is simply not possible, if not absurd, to try to physically demonstrate or empirically prove that an individual has the capacity to develop the capacity, to speak Russian. It is an immaterial concept but nevertheless real. Let me explain further.

Faculties or abilities of the soul are families of resembling capacities Examples are;

1. Capacities of seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, and hearing.                               My eyes don’t see. I see. But my eyes have to function. My mind, soul, the ‘I’, needs the faculty of sight. An eye cannot see. An eye reacts to light impulses. The light stimulates a chemical reaction within the eye (protein changes caused by the light on the retina), these protein changes stimulate the nerves in the eye and an electric impulse is generated and carried to the brain where more neuro-chemical reactions take place with the result that I see, that the ‘I’, the mind, being consciousness, can see. My eye or my brain cannot see but I can. This cannot be demonstrated physically, though the effects of this ability can. You react to what you see having received what you see through your eyes and brain.

  1. The mind is my set of capacities to reason, think and believe. My mind is a faculty of my soul – all my capacities together.
  2. Emotions are a set of capacities. Again, the effects of the emotions experienced by the ‘I’, by consciousness, can be seen but the emotions itself cannot be seen or physically demonstrated.
  3. The will is a set of powers to choose – the faculty of volitional will. Not physically demonstrable.
  4. The spirit, a faculty of the human soul. It is a power to be aware of God and be related to Him.

None of these 1 – 5 can be physically demonstrated or proven (the effects of it, yes, but not the capacity)

The ‘I’, experienced by consciousness, am essentially my soul. I, my soul, am attached to my body but I am not my body. I have a body but am not identical to it.

What is the essence of humans? The definition of essence; the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features. In metaphysics, Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.) specifies the classic definition: the essence of a thing is that which it is said to be per se. It is that which is most irreducible, unchanging, and therefore constitutive of a thing. A thing’s essence is that property without which the thing would cease to exist as itself.

The essence is the ‘I’, experienced by consciousness, is the immaterial ‘thing’ that is you, who, and what you are. When I am a child, it is ‘I’ who is that child, though through an immature brain I experience the world in an immature way. In the same way, I experience the world differently through a mature brain when grown up – the brain has changed, not the ‘I’, the who I am did not change. I am still the same person. The person with a brain damaged in a car accident and unconscious, is still a person, still the same person, still the same ‘I’, but cannot experience the world through his brain. He might be unconscious but still have the potential to be conscious if his brain would allow him. He would still be the same person. Like an individual trapped in a car wreck. He is still a person (the same ‘I’) but cannot get out of the wreck at that moment to experience the world outside of him. If a person is brain-damaged, he might act differently, his family might even say that he is not the person they used to know but in essence, he is still the same person and not a different person that has not excised before. He just acts differently. When you sleep you are not conscious, but with the potential to be conscious. You are still a person, the same person.

Thus, the happy/depressed, introverted/extroverted, cooperative/non-cooperative, peaceful/violent person, is how one, the I, experience and react to the impulses that come to one, to the ‘I’, through the brain. And that shapes one’s personality that can change but the ‘I’, the essence of who I am, cannot change. One can say that someone’s personality has changed, over years or with frontal lobe brain damage, but he, the ‘I’, cannot change, the essence of who he is, stays the same. Similar to the ‘I’ that experiences the world as a child and later an adult – the ’I’ does not change, the essence of who I am stays the same.

You are the ‘I’, the mind, the soul, the spirit. But you are not the material brain. The ‘I’ and the brain are intimately intertwined with constant ‘traffic flow’ between the two. The ‘I’, the mind, acts through the brain with the physical world, and the stimulations from the physical world reaching the brain, influence the ‘I’, the mind, continuously – how you feel and experience the world, but these stimuli cannot change the ‘I’. The ‘I’ can also decide out of free will, volition, how to respond to these stimuli from the brain.

The mind is not the brain, not the physical body. Though in a materialistic view it is the same thing. But a person would not say ‘My brain speaks to your brain’ No the person, who has a brain, speaks to the other who has a brain. I (mind, spirit, soul) am me.  I am not a brain but have one. We often hear people say, ‘Use your brains!’ Deep down we know we are not our brains but something we can and should use. I have a foot and I have a brain, but I am not a foot nor a brain. The mind is an immaterial entity or substance that uses a brain, uses the foot.

When a human is conceived, information that is immaterial is carried by the DNA in the sperm and ovum, from the two parents, to form the first cells, the embryo, the new individual. And a new ‘I’ come into existence. The original physical DNA from the parents is soon replaced by newly formed molecules/proteins/DNA and there is nothing physical of the mom and dad left in the newly formed cells, the newly formed individual, soon after the first replication of the DNA – just the original information. Immaterial information from mum and dad fused and brought a new ‘I’ into existence. We are immaterial in essence from the moment we come into being. The essence of a person is information and that is immaterial. Like the story in a book or a recipe in a recipe book – it is not the paper or the letters but the immaterial story, the information, that is of the essence. When you think of a 7-year-old child that is growing, every single molecule in his/her body has been replaced many times since conception and will be replaced numerous times. An adult has nothing physical in him/her that was present when he/she was 7 years old, or at conception for that matter. Everything single molecule has been replaced. Just the information is the same, absolutely identical to the original. The immaterial information never changes. But the person will still say that that 7-year child was him/her, ‘I can remember things from that time, it was not somebody else, it was me.’ So physically it is not the same person but the properties of the person, the essence, the I, the mind, is the same. The body continually changes with its need and desires from year to year over a lifetime but the immaterial reality of the ‘I’ continues unchanged within that person.  So, the mind is the immaterial unchanging essence of a person. But the ever-changing evolved body, with its basic inbuilt needs, continues to interact with the mind, with the ‘I’.

In this sense, it is the same with animals, but the status and properties of the mind of the animal limit it to being an animal and nothing more. Animals are not created in the image of God with its profound implications. Animals do not bear the image of the Creator, have no moral awareness, and therefore no moral accountability. Animals cannot think about their thoughts or ponder their actions, neither can they weigh up their options of what they ought to do. Not what they can or cannot do, but what they ought to do. They have limited free will as they cannot ponder their actions, no free thinking, no concept of beauty (an immaterial concept existing only in the mind of humans and of God), or any concept of narratives. They act on their immediate impulses, their immediate needs, ‘survival of the fittest’ needs; to be in a power position, to fight and protect themselves to survive, to protect their young, protect their territory, need for food, to reproduce, etc. All with a consciousness immaterial mind. And man’s carnal drives, the ‘animal’ within, is often the cause of the great fall in lives, closely linked to the same drives: 1. power – over other humans, 2. money – expanding and protecting his/her territory, and 3. sex.

What does the word carnal mean? Cambridge dictionary: ‘carnal; relating to the physical feelings and wants of the body. Carnal desires: thirst, food, sexual’. Animals have a simple mind in comparison with a human mind. For example, dogs can have thoughts and engaged in means of reasoning – if there are two choices e.g., to chase the cat and get rebuked by the owner or not chase the cat and be told ‘good boy’, the dog can decide which he would like better.  But humans can have thoughts about thoughts and ponder them. Animals can have desires, but we can change ours. Animals have beliefs, he can believe his owner will shout at him if he does not do what he was taught not to do, but we have beliefs about our beliefs. Animals cannot engage in moral deliberation and form moral judgments. An animal cannot experience conflict between desires and duty, but they can have a conflict between two desires. In the animal, it is not possible to appeal to duty to explain their behavior.

If a being cannot think about his/her thoughts, the being cannot be held responsible for moral/immoral thoughts and actions. Animals cannot be moral or immoral. If a cat kills a mouse, it was not an immoral act.

In the strict materialistic view, we have no free will, we are highly evolved animals reacting to neurochemical pathways in our brains that interact with the environment that causes further reactions in the brain that we have no control over.

The experience and reaction of the mind, our thoughts and emotions, are not physical/material. It transcends the material. The conscious mind, the ‘I’, as we have argued, is immaterial. No surprise then that no one knows or can explain what consciousness is. It is not physical, but like mathematics, that is immaterial, we can study it. If the materialist is committed to the view that consciousness is material and thoughts are things, then, as Galen Strawson5 says ‘Unless, of course, the materialist chooses to make the case that consciousness does not really exist’

We do have empirical evidence that the immaterial events, e.g., thoughts and feelings, occur, (not what they are but that they exist) and we have empirical evidence that things (such as brains) exist. Why, then, does the mind necessarily have to be anything other than part of the natural world?’ Because if the ‘I’, the mind, is identical to the brain, in the sense of being material, i.e., chemical processes, it follows that there cannot be a free will, there cannot be spontaneous thoughts, responsibility, moral decisions, moral accountability, as these would all be the result of chemical processes over which you, the ‘I’, the mind, has no control. Sam Harris, new age atheist, ‘Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.’ – that is the necessary and only conclusion if all is physical, material, chemical processes. Only a mind apart from the natural world, from the physical brain, can have free thoughts not bound by chemical processes but can react to these processes freely. So, this would really ‘force you’ to move from “materialism” to the “transcended” and opens the question of whether or not God exists.

If we are indeed a material brain and an immaterial mind, as I have tried to demonstrate, where does it lead us to?  If one would hang on to atheism, we are merely highly evolved animals with no free will and no moral accountability with all the consequences of this view. Nobody can live like this. But from a theistic point of view reality seems to make much more sense if we are more than a physical brain.

‘God created our bodies from the dust, (i.e., from the elements of this earth.)  And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being, an individual complete in body (carnal) and spirit.’6 Our spirit/mind has been created in the image of God7 and this sets us profoundly apart from the animal kingdom and implicates that all humans are equal before God. ‘And underscored in the New Testament. ‘There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’8 ‘In His own image’, God created us and this has profound implications, it gives humans immense value and makes us all equal; men, women, people of all ages and all the races of this world – the basis for objective human rights – the materialist has no basis for equal rights but merely his opinion. If we are truly no more than highly evolved animals, then nothing more than ‘survival of the fittest’ would apply. As we so often see in the business world and many other aspects of life – the ‘animal within’ walking over, pushing aside,  devouring his fellowman. And atheist Peter Singer’s9 views on non-voluntary euthanasia of handicapped babies is no surprise. And in His image, we were given free will, the will to choose to love, to hate, to choose between right and wrong, and we have a deep sense to distinguish between right and wrong. Free thinking is only possible if our minds are more than just a brain. The materialist has no basis to believe that he has free thinking, that he can trust his own thoughts if we are the product of evolution with physical properties only, and therefore nothing but moist robots with our thoughts the result of neurochemical reactions in the brain determined by our genes, brain development and reacting to the environment.

But if we do have an immaterial mind, a soul, the ‘I’, in a body with a brain, then we can understand the constant internal conflict between my physical body, the evolved animal within, with its carnal nature, or ‘flesh’, versus my mind, my spirit, soul, the ‘I’.

We have been given this carnal (‘animal’) body with its primitive desires that we have to reign over to be fully human. It is a lifelong conflict but also a challenge not dissimilar to a marathon athlete running the race, which is hard, yet very satisfying when the race is successfully completed. And during this race, the more we overcome, the more human and the less animal-like we become

The study of animal behavior to understand human behavior explains much about humans but only insofar the elementary behavior patterns are concerned. There are obviously important basic animal behaviors within us that are good and essential e.g., care for the young, satisfying hunger. But the study of animal behavior cannot shed any light on the spiritual behavior of man e.g., morality, ethical behavior, and more. These you have to compare to the character of God, the ultimate good.

Man received of the Spirit of God at creation, and we can control, and as spiritual beings, reign over our carnal fleshly ‘evolved animal’ body with its animal nature and desires. We have a moral awareness and therefore are morally accountable. We have the ability to think about our thoughts, ponder our actions and make rational decisions. We have free will and free thoughts. Though we are subject to and intimately interwoven with our ‘animal body’ with its extremely strong deeply embedded impulses and desres that are impossible to conquer in full to make one fully human. And we need help.

Describing the ‘animal within’ refers to the ‘animal nature’ within, not our wonderfully created body. The human body is wonderfully made, the most beautiful and complex in all of creation, in all of this vast universe. ‘For You formed my innermost parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well… I was being formed … intricately and skillfully…’ 10

Man with his own free will and thoughts can be successful, to some degree, to overcome the ‘animal’ nature with its urges and desires yet often need the law to keep him in reign. Society, with or without the law, needs to keep many accountable, to restrain him/her not to act like an animal; take what is not yours, lie for your own survival/benefit’s sake, act sexually inappropriately.  We all have the spirit of moral knowledge within us, morality is deeply embedded in our souls – unlike animal nature with no morality. Morality is not an evolved human characteristic. It is imparted to us from the Creator who created us in His image and sets us apart from all animals. Morality is, therefore, objective – transcendent – and not subjective – based preferences based on personal or group opinion. See my Blog: Morality. Because of God, or Not? and Moral Relativism

How do we live then, not with the nature of higher evolved animals, but as humans with fully well-developed spiritual characteristics and morality that would set us further and further apart from our animal nature, reigning over the ‘animal within’? Not only created but living in the image of God, our Creator?  ‘For the mind that is set on the flesh, (our animal nature), is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot’.11

We need to learn that our animal nature can be overcome and that we are free to grow in Christ to become fully human as we have been created to be. That one can reign over the ‘animal within’.

Many people do not desire to live this ‘fully human’ life but would prefer to hang onto the ‘animal within’ with its basic desires’ to survive as he sees fittest, even if one needs to walk over fellow humans, act as your desires direct you. What is even more sad is that animals die and so do their minds, and so do we who would hold on to the ‘animal’ within. ‘For those who live according to the flesh (carnal nature) set their minds on the things of the flesh (basic desires), but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit’12 ‘For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.’13

‘Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, …14 ‘Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.’15 If we do not realize that we have died with Christ, or we fail to submit to the work of the Holy Spirit, our carnal nature will gain the upper hand, causing us to remain in submission to our animal nature.

This is the sad condition of so many people is that the most remain carnal, constantly falling victim to the animal nature. Such Christians and others have little insight into spiritual truth, enjoy meager daily fellowship with God, if at all, and fail to lay hold of His promises.

We should earnestly ask God to help us distinguish between the carnal and the spiritual, and to enable us to yield ourselves completely to the guidance of His Spirit. We can ask the Lord God, reveal to me, by the working of His Spirit, where I still live and speak as a carnal person.

‘Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry (anything more important than God in our lives e.g., money, power), sorcery (e.g., astronomy), enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.’16 These all refer back to power, money, and sex as I have elucidated to earlier.

‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. By sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.’17 ‘For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.’18 ‘But put on the Lord Jesus Christ (accept Him and let Him reign in our lives), and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.’19 ‘And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.’20 ‘Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.’21 Do not allow the ‘animal within’ reign in your life and prevent you from being fully human as you have been created to be. ‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.’22

‘The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.’23

Are we just one thing? I have demonstrated that it makes no sense to see the mind and the brain as one thing. It is not a logical conclusion. We are a material brain and an immaterial mind. Thus, two things, intertwined but in their nature, they are in constant conflict with each other.

We are body and spirit. We, our spirits, are to reign over the carnal bodies, ‘the animal within’, to be fully human, to understand and enjoy life to the full. To live in peace with God, with ourselves, with our fellow human beings. And not to destroy life around us, not to cause pain to ourselves and to our fellow beings but to be what we have been created to be. It is but a long road of growth, a marathon, and we need our Creator in Christ to overcome the ‘animal within’ and life will strangely grow into an unexpected and surprising beauty, not only for us but also for our fellow human beings, into the likeliness of Christ and in a personal relationship with God.

References

1 Your Spirit nature and your flesh nature are two forces constantly fighting each other. Your flesh nature is trying to keep you from carrying out what your Spirit nature is directing. Your Spirit nature is always moving you toward God’s plans and purposes for your life. Your flesh nature is always trying to sabotage your Spirit nature. Spirit vs. Flesh – Kendall Bridges

2 Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 Life, lovely while it lasts, is soon over. Life as we know it, precious and beautiful, ends. The body is put back in the same ground it came from. The spirit returns to God, who first breathed it.

3 Matthew 10:28 “… There’s nothing they can do to your soul, your core being. Save your fear for God, who holds your entire life—body and soul—in His hands.

4 Philippians 3:20-21 But there’s far more to life for us. We’re citizens of high heaven! We’re waiting the arrival of the Savior, the Master, Jesus Christ, who will transform our earthy bodies into glorious bodies like His own. He’ll make us beautiful and whole with the same powerful skill by which He is putting everything as it should be, under and around Him.

5 Galen John Strawson (born 1952) is a British analytic philosopher and literary critic who works primarily on philosophy of mind, metaphysics (including free will, panpsychism, the mind-body problem, and the self).

6 Genesis 2:7 AMP

7 Genesis 1:27 So God created human beings in His own image. In the image of God, He created them; male and female He created them.

8 Galatians 3:28

9 Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher, currently Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.

10 Psalm 139:13-15

11 Romans 8:7

12 Romans 8:5

13 Romans 8:13

14 Galatians 5:19

15 Romans 6:12

16 Galatians 5:19-21

17 Romans 8:1-39

18 Romans 8:14

19 Romans 13:14

20 Galatians 5:24-25

21 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

22 Colossians 3:5

23 1 Corinthians 2:14

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram