Geplaatst op

Time to Think 11. Do You Want God to Exist?

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Should we want God to exist? And explaining evil in pragmatic belief.

We will consider three related questions with emphasis on the third question pertaining to the existence of evil and suffering:

  1. The ontological question – does God exist? (ontology =nature of being)
  2. The epistemological question – is it rational to believe in God? (epistemology = theory of knowledge)
  3. Should we want God to exist? In a certain sense a pragmatic question. Could it be rational to want that God exists especially regarding evil?

Evil exists and very few would deny it. It is recognized by atheists, agnostics, and theists because it is real. Though many atheists might deny the existence of evil but cannot deny the existence of suffering.

All around and within us, there is much evil and the suffering that results from evil. Humans suffer, animals suffer, nature suffers. (See Time to Think. 4. The Problem of Evil.)

Why does evil exist? One can view this question from a theist or from an atheist/materialist perspective. The existence of evil and suffering is a very strong argument against the existence of God and is often being brought into discussions as a counterargument for the existence of God. But who can explain evil and suffering better, the theist or the atheist? Can there be meaning and purpose,  and reasons, for the existence of evil and suffering?

We will argue that the atheist offers a more desirable explanation. But not that it is necessarily true, even if more desirable. Yet which explanation, the theist or atheist explanation, do we want to be true as it would also have implications for believing in the existence of God?

Let us consider the two explanations.

The atheist explanation for suffering (evil):

  1. The world is a harsh place with a lot of pointless ‘evil’ and suffering.
  2. It is a brute fact, and we just have to accept it and live with ‘how the dice falls’
  3. There is no powerful loving creator and evil and suffering are not surprising.

Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist, well-known atheist, and author ‘The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’ ‘In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.’  Bertrand Russell, atheist philosopher, ‘If there is no God, there is no universal right and wrong’ implying no evil

The theist explanation of evil and suffering:

God is all good, all-loving, and has reasons for the pain and suffering

  1. Free will. Alvin Plantinga, Christian philosopher: free will is necessary in order to make moral decisions, good or bad.
  2. Soul making i.e., the role of suffering in spiritual growth.
  3. Incarnation and atonement by Christ – if there is no evil/sin the Christ would not have been necessary. Through the existence of sin and evil, Christ is made ‘necessary’ or desirable. The revelation of who God is, the goodness of Christ, and God incarnate through His atoning death brings us into a personal relationship with Him and is so great that it outweighs the evil in the world. Christ entered our pain and suffering and became one with our pain and suffering allowing a better understanding of Him, ourselves, and the world we live in.

Skeptical theism argues that we do not always understand the reason for evil and suffering. We as humans do not know the essence of what we are: what is consciousness, what is life, are we just brain or brain & mind, and free will, does it exist? We are but a speck on a speck on a speck in the universe and it would be arrogant and preposterous to judge the essence of the Creator of the universe and that we can even remotely hope to know all the possible reasons He might have.

So, which is more likely, and which is more desirable? That there is no God and there are no reasons for evil and suffering, just a sad, bad, brute fact. But is it reasonable to prefer the theistic explanation? And can it be true?

Let us consider the implication of each view

If the atheist explanation is true:

  1. Most evil and suffering have no purpose or reason.
  2. Most evil is gratuitous (pointless).
  3. Many injustices will never be rectified.

This is a very pessimistic picture.

 If theism is true, it would imply

  1. There are good reasons for evil and suffering e.g., the existence of free.
  2. There is less, probably, no gratuitous evil.
  3. There is ultimate justice – people will ultimately be held accountable for the all pain and suffering they caused. For their evil deeds.

Therefore, it would seem that the theistic explanation is more desirable. But is it true? Or just wishful thinking?

Does the evidence balance out between the two possibilities? What arguments and evidence are stronger? That God exists or that He does not exist?

Let us consider the rationality of pragmatic belief – or practical belief, i.e., a belief aimed at the good, because we want it to be true e.g., believing in free will or you will be depressed if it is true that free will is just an illusion (Sam Harris). A belief without good, conclusive, evidence.

Consider the pragmatic belief that there is no God because I do not want God to be true but lack enough evidence to know that He does not exist, or vice versa.

Is pragmatic belief always irrational? Most of the time, but one can also have a pragmatic belief in God because you want it to be true but also have some good evidence and arguments, and testimony of friends’ changed lives, that support your pragmatic belief.

Consider two jurors in court with the same evidence but it is not a clear case, really complex. One juror sees the person as guilty. The other sees him as not guilty. Two different conclusions on the same evidence in a difficult case, with the evidence inconclusive.

When the evidence does not tell us what to believe, pragmatic reasons can break the tie and influence us to decide what to believe.

Two possibilities: 1. I want God to be true and the evidence is good enough for me and pursuing this route or 2. I do not want God to be true and the evidence is not good enough for me for His existence.

That is when both have the same but inconclusive evidence. Under these circumstances, it is particularly important to seek unbiased evidence and pursue the truth in all sincerity.

We have to seek the truth, find credible and coherent arguments to come to a meaningful conclusion even if the theistic view is optimistic and the atheist view of pain and suffering is pessimistic.

It is not what we want to be true but what is true. The two scenarios described could lead to either, 1. If you believe God exists, even as your decision is swung by your pragmatic belief, God will reveal Himself to you as you believe He exists or 2. If your pragmatic belief contributes to your decision not to believe in the existence of God,  you will drift further away from God denying His existence and seek more evidence/arguments that He does not exist to support what you actually want to be true.

To find God is a life-changing delight and makes so much more sense of life itself. See To Know and to Love God

It would be more desirable if evil and suffering have a good reason but is only when theism is true, that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

The atheistic viewpoint is bleak and pessimistic.

Therefore, have good reasons why you believe God exists or why you believe He does not exist.

 

Recognition for most of these thoughts to Dr Liz Jackson, assistant professor in philosophy, the Ryerson University.

Should We Want God to Exist? Dr. Liz Jackson // CCv1 Session 2.

https://youtu.be/sukh4FeGaEo

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

To Know and Love God vs Being Religious

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

To Know and Love God

‘To know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.’ (not to know about Him but to know Him personally) ‘You need to be born again, this is the way to have eternal life’ (a radical life-changing experience, for some in an instant for some slower over time). ‘Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.’

You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart (a sincere longing to find the Truth)

‘You said, “Seek My face in prayer, require My presence as your greatest need,” My heart said to You, “Your face, O Lord, I will seek”’ (a deep hunger in my spirit from Him for more and more of Him)

‘“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You’ (a life-changing encounter)

‘“I have seen God face to face…” I take joy in doing Your will, my God, for Your instructions are written on my heart.”’ (a deep desire to please the heart of my Father God whom I love so much, never to disappoint Him but to please Him)

‘We love because He first loved us.'(I love You so deeply, yet You first love me)

‘If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.’ ‘In this world you will have trouble’ (Your love far exceeds any hardships in this life)

‘Your unfailing love is better than life itself’ ‘You satisfy me more than the richest feast’ ‘I sing for joy in the shadow of your wings’ (You are the joy of my heart)

‘If Your presence is not going with me, do not let me move a step from this place.’ (I have no desire to be without You, ever)

‘My heart has heard You say, “Come and talk with Me.” And my heart responds, “Lord, I am coming.” I long for You, O God. I thirst for God, the living God. I will go to God, my joy and my delight. You will find delight in the Almighty and will lift up your face to God.’ (my greatest delight in this life is to spend personal time with Him– not in church or in worship or any  church activity but in quietness with Him alone) ‘Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in His presence’ (my greatest delight and joy; Your presence and to please You, the One I love so much)

‘Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together’  (and share our love for God)

Jesus Christ, ‘When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with Me where I am.’ (to be with Him, the lover of my soul. I do not care what heaven would be like as long as I’ll be with Him)

‘I’m torn between two desires: I long to go and be with Christ, which would be far better for me.’

‘”I am your shield, I am your very great reward.”’ (no greater reward than God’s presence in my heart and life. Enjoining Him now, and forever)

Is that Who He is for you, a delight, a joy? The reality of a relationship with the living God that you love to spend time with? Or are you hanging onto  Christianity just as another religion of do’s and don’t’s and should and shouldn’ts?  ‘Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name and in Your name drive out demons and in Your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.’

From: Genesis 15:1 John 3:3 John 17:3 Psalm 27:8 Job 42:5 Genesis 32:30 John 17:3 Psalm 27:8 John 17:3 Jeremiah 29:13 Psalm 40:7-9 Psalm 42 1 Proverbs 8:30 Exodus 33:15 Genesis 32:30 John 17:3   1 John 4:19 Hebrews 10:24-25 Psalm 27:8 John 14:2-3 Philippians 1:23 Psalm 42 Job 22:26 Psalm 43:4 Psalm 119:24 Matthew 7:22-23 Romans 5:5 Matthew 16:24 John 16:33

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time To Think 9. Christianity, World Religions, and Atheism.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

There are three possibilities for the truth of our existence:

I. No God – Atheism; religion is irrational with no truth in its substance and built on deceptive foundations. We are matter.

II. There is a God, and we are more than mere matter:  A. All religions are true with different pathways to God and/or salvation or B. Only one religion is true and there is only one pathway to God and salvation.

Religion is a complex human phenomenon and difficult to define. Definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree are religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous, suggesting that just about anything and everything is a religion. Yet religion as a concept of ‘something outside and greater’ than man is deeply embedded in human nature and present throughout the world where humans dwell and present in the earliest history of homo sapiens. Religion stems from a mysterious longing and deep desperate striving for the transcendent as people do not understand their own condition well. He is aware of his imperfections and has a deep-rooted disposition to understand this imperfection he is so conscious of. It is in his nature to look for purpose and meaning in everything, even so, in his own imperfect existence. Man has an awareness, even so in his subconscious mind, of a greatest conceivable being, of perfection, and has a longing for a ‘better world’ – a better ‘this world’ or a better world ‘hereafter’.

Huston Smith describes religion as ‘the deepest human awareness, which is that of a hierarchical universe, and the goal is the absorption of the self into the infinite oneness.’ Not dissimilar to seeing beauty and long to be absorbed in it. Feuerbach influenced Marx and Freud, states that ‘religion is man’s projection; we construct claims about God and then project them. We look upon these projections and see them as objective realities.’  Freud: ‘religious ideas are not the result of experience or thought; they are illusions, fulfillments of deep, early desires.’

Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Version of the Ontological Argument is as follows: 1. To say that there is possibly a God is to say that there is a possible world in which God exists. 2. To say that God necessarily exists is to say that God exists in every possible world. 3. God is necessarily perfect (i.e. maximally excellent) 4. Since God is necessarily perfect, He is perfect in every possible world. 5. If God is perfect in every possible world, He must exist in every possible world, therefore God exists. 6. God is also maximally great. To be maximally great is to be perfect in every possible world. 7. Therefore: “it is possible that there is a God,” means that there is a ‘possible’ which contains God, that God is maximally great, and the God exists in every possible world and is consequently necessary. 8. God’s existence is at least possible. 9. Therefore:  as per item seven, God exists.

On a doctrinal level, the various world religions are very, very different, fundamentally different. So different that they cannot all be true. All religions have underlying ethical similarities. They all are seeking the truth and therefore all will have significant elements of truth in their teachings. Superficially the different religions might seem the same in many ways, but at the core of each, Christianity differs the most radical from all other religions.

Most world religions teach that one will be accepted by God if you are good enough.  For the atheist, there can be no objective right and wrong and hence this concept is irrelevant. (see Morality and Relativism) Though it is very hard to know when and what is ‘good enough’ if there is a God, e.g., in Muslimism: at the end of your life Allah will decide if your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds. Or one reaches ‘salvation’ if he is ‘good enough’ – Hinduism and Buddhism which are purely about irrational religious experiences.

The different world religious views about God are very different: Christianity teaches the Trinity; before creation, God was one-in-three persons in perfect union. Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but that God is not a Trinity and cannot have a son. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scripture) believed in a combination of polytheism (there are many gods) and pantheism (all is god). Confucius believed in many gods. Zoroaster taught that there is both a good god and a bad god. Buddha taught that the concept of God was essentially irrelevant.

Views on being saved, to be reconciled with God, or with reality differ significantly. Irrelevant to the atheist. Islam teaches that one becomes saved through submission to Allah, but that salvation can never be an absolute certainty except when dying in jihad.  Your good deeds have to outweigh your bad deeds. Hindus teach that salvation is rooted in reincarnation and karma. In Buddhism, it is in reaching a state of enlightenment. Christianity teaches that one is saved by faith, by trust in Christ alone. That He died as the perfect and complete sacrifice for our sins. Salvation is an absolute certainty if Christ’s atonement is accepted.

It is impossible to factually test Hinduism, Buddhism, or Mormonism (the experiences of Joseph Smith) as objectively true. It is all about subjective experiences.

Buddhism is an atheistic religion; God is without substance and reality is denied. For Buddhism ultimate reality is monistic. i.e., denying the existence of a distinction between matter and mind, or God and the world, all is seen as one reality, yet the reality is denied in Buddhism. One cannot question or rationally think about Buddhism, one can only experience it. The truth of Buddhism teachings rests solely on experience, on psychological factors. It is works orientated in terms of the enlightenment (salvation) to reach a state of nirvana, that is a state of desirelessness and passionlessness. Enlightenment is an experience. Reason plays no role.  If you can’t reach nirvana in this life, you can try again by incarnation. To finally reach enlightenment is to escape this cycle, … into nothingness.

Islam claimed to be objectively true but there are serious inconsistencies and incoherencies in the Quran as well as in the Hadith though should not be criticized. https://www.quora.com/Are-Muslims-allowed-to-criticise-the-Quran ‘To criticize the Quran is to show disrespect to the books of Allah and is seen as apostasy. Whoever does this has expelled himself from Islam. It is apostasy to doubt the Quran or to disagree with it, or to not believe in it, even if it is only a single verse.’

All the world’s religions seek to take bad men and make them better by ethics. Christianity, by contrast, seeks to take dead men and make them alive. More specifically, Christianity seeks to take people who are spiritually dead (separated from God because of sin) and make them spiritually alive so they can enjoy a personal relationship with the God who created them. Thus, much more about a relationship than about religion.

This is what makes Christianity unique.

Religious experience alone is never sufficient to demonstrate the truth of a religion. Christianity is the only religion where religious experiences are important, but the factual claims of Christianity can be tested… objectively. And everything depends on the resurrection. If the resurrection of Christ is false, Christianity is false. Christianity is evidential and testable, historically, and experientially. If it is wrong, then you can move on. (with Buddhism or Hinduism, though, you must be in for a long haul of experiences, the attempts to reach salvation and hopefully experience the escape from the endless cycle of life) Grace is unique to Christianity. Others offer hard ways to earn salvation. The best that Buddhists or Christian Scientists can do is to deny evil as an illusion. Yet, we face it every day. Or the atheist who has no explanation for evil, just a brute fact of life. Christians can confront evil, and they have an ultimate solution. Jesus Christ. Time to Think 4. Evil, Pain & Suffering.

Is atheism true? Can it be true that there is no God? You decide as you consider Alwin Plantinga’s Ontological Argument, consider I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and my series of arguments: Time to Think – about the existence of God. (YouTube and Blog). Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Eastern Religions are not rational but based on subjective experiences. Muslimism is in part rational, e.g., the existence of a Creator, but the origin of this religion, the ethics as taught in the Koran as well as the reliability of ancient scripts raise serious questions yet are not allowed to be criticized.

It should be clear that all religions might superficially be the same in some minor ways but fundamentally very different. So different, so contradictive, that only one can be true.

Christianity is open to scrutiny on every level and can rationality be defended. Most importantly The Facts About the Resurrection of Christ on which Christianity stands or falls.

Is atheism open to scrutiny? Not really, because atheists rarely make positive statements about the non-existence of God, and neither ever present good arguments that God does not exist. They only try to refute the arguments for God’s existence or argue that He is not necessary to explain the universe but seldom present any positive arguments that He does not exist or present answers for why is there something rather nothing, what caused the universe, how and why the extreme fine-tuning of the universe for life, the integrated informational complexity of DNA (digital coding) that points to a Mind, what is evil, and the explanation for objective morality?  Except often explanations that are pure speculative theories e.g., the multiverse (for the fine-tuning) or the oscillating universe theory or cyclical universe proposes that the universe expands and contracts indefinitely (for the cause of the universe.)

Only Christianity as the truth of our existence, can be experienced, can rationally be defended, and is factually testable.

My personal experience: ‘The radical change that took place in my heart was not from a rational decision but in response to an overwhelming Love that became rational’

Which truth about our existence is more plausible? Atheism, Christianity, or one or all of the known world religions? You decide.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 7. The Case for Faith. What is Faith and What is the Evidence?

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

 

First, it is important to refute the not only sad but bad misconception that the Christian faith is ‘blind’. So, what is faith, Christian faith? The Biblical definition of faith is trust. And one can only trust someone if there is sufficient evidence to support the trust. In the original Greek Biblical manuscripts, the word pistis was used and in the later translations the Latin word fides. What exactly do these words mean and why is evidence so vital in Christian faith?

Pistis means trust and trust alone, in God and in His promises. Pistis literally means trust. Pistis (ˈpɪstɪs/ (Πίστις) in early Greek was the personification of good faith, of trust and reliability. And trust according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength or truth of someone or something. And in the Bible, of God. (which is impossible really if there is no evidence!)  The word used in the Bible translation is the Latin word fides which means believe, confidence, loyalty, word of honor, truth, authenticity.

Thus, the Biblical word faith, the words pistis and fides, encompass all of the following: it is the trust of someone when there is sufficient evidence to support it, it is the reliability, the assured reliance on the character, on the ability, on the strength and truth of a person. It is the belief in, the confidence in, the loyalty and the word of honor, and authenticity, of the person in question, of God.

The earliest Christians understood pistis/fides as a relationship of trust and faithfulness between God and human beings, which also shaped relationships between human beings. Christians are unique in putting trust at the heart of their relationship with God and Christ. Biblical faith is embodied in a person, a Person with absolute and perfect integrity and faithfulness.

The definition of faith is, according to The Oxford Dictionary ‘A complete trust or confidence in someone or something.’ ‘Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see’ Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) ‘Do not see’ does not imply ‘blind’, that would be a gross misunderstanding of this passage and misconception of the Christian faith. Christian faith is based on evidence, the evidence in what we ‘see’ as we believe the person of God, followed by the actual seeing what He promised and be further evidence for future trust. The rest of the chapter Hebrews 11, gives a long list of people who believed God, had faith in Him, believed His promises but did not see it initially but then saw it fulfilled, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses. In verse 12 the writer asks, ‘How much more do I need to say?’ and he carries on, Gideon Samson, David and more. This is the foundation of the Jewish religion and Christianity. The evidence that God fulfills His promises. That we will always see through trusting Him what we do not yet see as we trust His character, His integrity.

“Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.” Saint Augustine many centuries ago. In other words that what you believe, based on the character of God, you will see fulfilled. In this life and the hereafter.

According to the Oxford Learners Dictionary: ‘blind faith is an unreasonable trust in somebody/something’s ability.’ The Oxford Dictionary second meaning of faith is: ‘a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.’ This is neither fides nor pistis. It is everything but what Christian faith is about. ‘Blind faith’ is baseless, without evidence, mere religious beliefs i.e., Muslim faith, Buddhism, Hinduism. Christian faith is a relationship with a Person that one trusts, based, and build on experience as evidence.

What is the evidence given for Christianity – for faith, to trust God?

  1. Biblical evidence: Christ’s evidence – the miracles: Luke 7, John 20, the Resurrection, historical evidence e.g., in Hebrews 11 – as has been discussed. Supported by accurate reliable documentation.
  2. Personal evidence – radically changed lives; The experience of the reality of a personal love relationship with God – the delight of knowing Him. To Know and Love God vs Being Religious

My own radically changed life. See Tertius Venter Interview ‘The radical change that took place in my heart was not from a rational decision but in response to an overwhelming Love that became rational’

(and multitudes of other Christians through the ages)

Former atheist Lee Strobel – see below

These radical changes have their foundations in and supported by historical, archeological, cosmological, philosophical, and moral evidence added to the evidence of rational argumentation with the coherence of the Bible, history, life, and the reality experienced in this world (unlike any world religion) See my YouTube Channel : A Time to Think

  1. The Biblical evidence. Christ continuously gave evidence in the miracles He did. And In Luke 7: 20-22 we read ‘When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to You to ask, ‘Are You the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 22 … He replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.’ John 20: 30-31 ‘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.’ The ultimate evidence, the resurrection, for His divinity. See Facts about the Resurrection. The apostles’ evidence for what they believed and said was the miracles people saw in their lives, the explosive growth of the church. See The Reliability of the Biblical Account of the Life of Jesus. Christians to this day experience God’s presence, faithfulness to His promises, signs, wonders and miracles in their lives as evidence for the living Christ in their lives.

Every time one would encounter the word ‘faith’ in the Christian Bible it can be replaced with the words ‘absolute trust in the Person of God’.

‘Faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of evidence’ John Lennox, professor of mathematics, Oxford University, and Fellow in mathematics and science philosophy, Green Templeton College.

  1. From a convinced atheist to a committed Christian, Lee Strobel, an award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune and best-selling author of more than twenty books describes in his book The Journey of Lee Strobel, as a journalist and a lawyer by nature, his investigation of Christianity:

As an atheist, he thought that the idea of an all-knowing, almighty, all-present, all-loving God was an absurd idea. God was created by men to help man cope in this hopeless world. He had a skeptical mindset, in the newsroom where he worked, he always wanted two sources of information before publication.

He realized that he had no moral compass for life and lived a self-destructive and self-absorbed life. He lived for himself and became a drunk with doubtful moral behavior. He had no real understanding of right and wrong. Bertrand Russell, atheist, ‘If there is no God, there is no universal right and wrong’ He would destroy someone who got in his way, and it did not bother him. He felt enraged over his inability to find the ‘elusive’ happiness in life.

Then his wife became a Christian. She was an agnostic and was befriended by Christians and she came to know Christ.  Strobel’s response was ‘Don’t give money to the church, that’s all they want’ ‘Don’t ask me to go with you, I’m too smart for that’ Then he noticed the changes in his wife’s life, she became winsome and attractive, and he wanted to know what was behind that. He decided to go to church with her.  The pastor blew his misconceptions about Christianity. ‘All fall short to God’s standard. Does God feel far?’ Sure, he thought. ‘That can all change through Christ in a personal relationship with Him’ He was touched by the words but remained an atheist, a skeptic.

Strobel decided to investigate the credibility of Christianity and realized that if he would find it to be true, it would have huge implications for his life. But the truth was important. Was Christianity fact or fiction?

He decided to take his journalism and legal training and systematically investigate the credibility of Christianity.

He had eight important questions that he investigated over a 1 year and 9-month period.

  1. How many witnesses were there?
  2. Who wrote the Gospel accounts?
  3. Are the gospel accounts historical records?
  4. Is the idea of Christ as a deity just a legend?
  5. How can we trust the oral tradition to pass the facts?
  6. Would the disciples die for something they knew to be false?
  7. Did Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies?
  8. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
  9. “The number of witnesses that were there” – this is always the first question in journalism. He discovered that there were many witnesses to the events of the New Testament and some eyewitnesses took the time to record their experiences, gave good historical evidence of their experiences with Jesus. John, Matthew, Mark, James, Paul and Luke.
  10. “Who wrote the Gospel accounts?” He discovered that there was good historical evidence that the gospel accounts were actually written by the names they bear. He realized that the authors took pains to record only what they knew to be true. Luke was a first-century investigative reporter. See Luke 1:1-4. He investigated the events, spoke to many witnesses and wrote the accounts down in order. Peter said that they didn’t make up the stories, they were eyewitnesses. John wrote about what they had heard and seen and touched with their hands.
  11. “Are the gospel accounts historical records?” Strobel used his training from Yale to take a set of documents and apply legal tests of evidence to determine the credibility. He wasn’t ready to accept the writings as the inspired word of God but had to admit they were ancient historical records.
  12. “Is the idea of Christ as a deity just a legend?” He wondered if the oral transmission of the New Testament was distorted by legend and wishful thinking. Were the gospels written 60 to 100 years later and did they bear resemblance to the real Jesus? He soon realized that very early on Jesus was presented as divine. Matthew, Mark and Luke were written within 50 years of Jesus’s life. Paul’s letters within 16 to 20 years of Jesus’s life. Paul and Peter preserved early creeds which predate Paul’s writings, creeds that affirm Jesus in very exalted terms. Phil 2:6, Col 1:15, I Peter 3:22. I Cor 15:3- 7 is the creed of the early church that affirms the core of Christianity. This creed is dated by scholars as early as 2-5 years after Jesus’ life. Elements of the creed include eyewitnesses and testimony. Therefore, the references to the deity of Jesus were not developed by legends many years later. A.N. Sherman White (classical historian from Oxford): says that the development of legend takes more than 2 generations to wipe out the solid core of historical truth. Craig Blomberg: when you look at creeds and the early preaching in Acts, you see that within the first 2 years after Jesus’ death: a. significant numbers of Jesus’ followers formed a doctrine of the atonement b. they were convinced Jesus had risen from the dead c. they associated Jesus with God d. they believed they found support for these is the Old Testament. The German Historian in 1844 challenged any historian in history to find any case of legend growing up that quickly and wiping out a solid core of the historical proof
  13. “How can we trust the oral tradition to pass the facts?” Strobel realized the significance of the fact that the followers of Jesus were going around telling people about Jesus in the same time frame in which he lived. F.F. Bruce: “If there was any tendency by disciples to depart from material facts in any way, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would serve as a corrective.” How could Christianity take root in the very city where Jesus died and rose again? If the disciples were saying false things about Him, then the movement would have ended. In the historical record, the followers appealed to common knowledge that their audience had about Jesus: Peter’s message in Acts 2: “You know what He did and that He rose. You are all eyewitnesses!” Their response: they didn’t deny Peter; 3,000 people said to Peter, “What do we do? We know we put Messiah to death.” Then those 3,000 believed that day and the Church was born in Jerusalem.
  14. “Would the disciples die for something they knew to be false?” The disciples must really have believed because they were willing to die in support of the belief that Jesus really was the Son of God, who died on our behalf, and proved it by rising from the dead. But that’s not evidence: people all throughout history have been willing to die for religious beliefs. The DIFFERENCE: people will die for religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they are true, but never if they know they’re false. The apostles didn’t just believe the resurrection to be true; they knew it for a fact. They knew the truth and were willing to die for it.
  15. “Did Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies?” Five dozen prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Lewis Lapides, a Jewish scholar read Isaiah 53 and came to the conclusion that that is a picture of Jesus of Nazareth. He wondered if it was a forgery but then saw that the Jewish version of Isaiah 53 read exactly the same as the version used by Christians. He confirmed that Isaiah 53 was indeed about Jesus of Nazareth; became a Christian and the president of a network of 15 messianic congregations. Could anyone have fulfilled the prophecies? Was it easy? Peter Stoner of Westmont had 600 students try to come up with the odds that any human could fulfill just 8 of the prophecies (which was a very conservative consensus). The odds? One chance in a hundred million billion. What about fulfilling 48 prophecies? Luke 24:44—Jesus said that all written by the prophets must be fulfilled
  16. “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” Strobel realized he was not the first one trained in law to take evidence for the resurrection and investigate it. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, a most successful lawyer in history, a defense attorney who won 245 murder trials consecutively, was an atheist and took his monumental knowledge, skill and beliefs and investigated the resurrection for years, from legal tests of evidence. “I say unequivocally that the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt” – Lionel Luckhoo. ‘Jesus died by crucifixion, was stabbed in the heart. Pronounced dead by experts. Placed in a sealed & guarded tomb. On Easter Sunday morning the body was gone. People proclaimed to their death they saw Jesus alive. The earliest writing says 500 people saw him at once. Jewish leaders wanted him dead, the Roman government wanted him to stay dead. The disciples weren’t going to take the body and then knowingly, willingly die for the lie – people don’t do that.’

Archaeology. Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts (acts of the apostle and the early church) corroborates incidental details in his writings that are confirmed by archaeology.  Why would he be careless about Jesus?

Lee Strobel’s investigations lasted 1 year 9 months and he wrote out on a legal pad all the evidence he gathered. He stated that against the huge avalanche of evidence it took more faith to maintain his atheism, he couldn’t. He was trained in journalism and law to respond to evidence and was convinced. He read John 1:12 ‘to all who believed Him and accepted Him, He gave the right to become children of God.’

Based on evidence his life was revolutionized. His 5-year-old daughter saw the changes in her daddy’s life – “I want God to do for me what He’s done for Daddy”

 

The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 6. Moral Relativism

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

Morality without God. Relativism.

What kind of moral person would different moral viewpoints produce? Mother Theresa is an example of a good moral system or viewpoint and Hitler of a bad moral viewpoint. Everyone strives to be moral, hopefully. When accused of an immoral action, one would almost always offer reasons to defend the action and seldom denies the immoral principle underlying the action. ‘What you have said is a lie’ And one will defend the reason for the lie or deny that it was a lie though never the principle that to lie is immoral. We all have a deep sense of what is right, what is moral. But what are the implications and consequences if there is no objective moral standard, no transcended standard outside of us, no God? If an opinion exists that a blatant lie or blatant dishonesty, is sometimes bad and sometimes good?

What are the kinds of people one would expect moral relativism would produce? Both relativism and subjectivism claim that there is no universal truth or objective truth. In relativism, morality or truth exists in relation to culture, traditions, and society, while in subjectivism, morality or truth is subjective and personal. According to these views, things are true only in respect to the individual or set of individuals who holds them. Truth is relative to the subject. When we accept that ‘what is right for me is not necessarily right for you’ it would mean that people who don’t really care about others’ moral viewpoint as what is right for ‘me’ is what is important. It would produce people whose society marches to beat of each individual’s own drum, making one’s own moral rules. A sociopath is a person with no conscience, he freely changes his moral values – this is the fully expressed relativist. If it is all relative and if the decision that something is morally right or wrong depends on variables, on people, ideas, societies, all that change over time, we might find ourselves in a difficult situation, that no principles can be laid down or taught. We will find that we are in changing situations all the time and that morality becomes such a dynamically changing entity that it will crumble to nothing but individual taste i.e. Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, cannibalism.

There are three types of moral relativism that attempt to justify relativism.

  1. “Society does relativism”e., cultural relativism or descriptive relativism

The claim: We used to think morality was objective, but that was before we encountered other cultures and their moral practices. Now we see that people do in fact differ morally across cultures. So, morality is just a function of culture.

Response: Even if this observation is true, then it still does not follow that no one is objectively correct. It is not so clear that there is such a wide diversity of morals. Instead, it could be a difference over the facts, not the values. Example: abortion. Pro-life and pro-choice both hold to value that we should not take the lives of innocent human persons. But they differ over who counts as a person. Some of the apparent differences between cultures are the differences in the facts as they see it. Observation only, is not a sound conclusion for relativism. It tells us about the culture and not about morality.

  1. “Society says relativism”

Claim: You ought to do what society says. You ought to do what your society says you should do. Right and wrong are society-directed. And cultural ideas are equally valid.

Replies: But then there can’t be an immoral society – each society has its own values, and you cannot critique another society from the outside – by what standard can you critique another society? And one cannot critique one’s own society. And by definition, there cannot be immoral laws, again by what standard? The example of the Nuremberg Trial and how the Nazis appealed to this idea – that there are no overarching moral truths by which we can judge another culture. They were following orders, what their societal structure demanded, but the international tribunal did not accept it. The Nazis were immoral. But on ‘society says relativism’ view, we could not have judged the Nazis. Yet, what they did was clearly immoral. Corrie Ten Boom would have been immoral, too, for going against the laws of her society at the time (i.e., when under Nazi rule). Yet, that conclusion is wildly counterintuitive. ‘Society says relativism’ reduces morality to what the law says and not to what is moral. Furthermore, you cannot critique your own society. If this type of relativism were true, then it would be immoral to go against your own society. And there cannot be any moral reformers, who by definition would be immoral going against society. Yet, this too seems clearly mistaken. There are by definition no immoral laws, it reduces what is moral to what is legal.

  1. “I say relativism”

This is individual ethical relativism. What is right for one person might not be right for another, the most radical form of relativism. Also known as subjectivism. But moral truths are known directly and immediately – you don’t come to a conclusion, you know it. Examples: murder is wrong, torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc. These are clear-cut examples of moral truths, and the burden of proof should be on the relativist who denies them.

There are seven fatal flaws in relativism. a. If morality is relative, then relativists can never say something is wrong i.e., in itself. They cannot claim something is intrinsically or objectively wrong for all people. b. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil. To be consistent, evil must be relative to individuals. c. Relativists cannot place blame or accept praise. We praise people like Mother Theresa for doing truly good things, not simply if she did what we happen to like. But on relativism, there is no objective goodness or badness. Praising or blaming another is to make a moral judgment. But, on this view, there is nothing for which to praise or blame another. Relativists cannot claim anything as unfair or unjust. These concepts are normative, too, and presuppose a universal standard. But they make no sense if morality is relative to individuals. e. Relativists cannot improve their own morality. Example of bowling: you can improve your bowling when you have a standard against which you can measure your performance. But here, there is no such standard, if relativism is true. Individuals can change their morality, but that does not solve this problem. f. Relativists cannot have meaningful moral discussions. – if you cannot improve your morality. If there is no such thing as a common good, then such discussions (e.g., in politics) are meaningless. g. Relativists cannot promote the obligation to be tolerant. Tolerance makes sense only if it is an objective moral truth. If there are no interpersonal moral obligations, then there is no basis to promote the virtue of tolerance.

The Consequence of Practicing Moral Relativism is a world in which nothing is wrong, evil or good for all people, nothing is worthy of praise or blame, there is no accountability, no meaningful moral discourse or improvement, a world with no moral tolerance. Nobody can live this way and nobody really does! But relativism is the most pervasive viewpoint. People can talk this way but cannot live it. One sees what peoples’ real moral intuitions are when their guard is not up. Example: The relativist cannot complain of injustice, but they do, ‘that’s not fair, that is my seat, I was here first.’ If people were to speak up against injustice, they deny relativism. But if they don’t speak up about injustice, then they deny their humanity.

But the relativist might still say you shouldn’t force your morality upon me. He is then, in fact, using morality to say this – his own moral standpoint. ‘Everyone should decide their own right/wrong – so I decide you are wrong! Reply: “Why not?” They will in turn push their morality upon you. The relativist cannot accept this in practice because they are human beings – if you speak against injustice, you deny relativism and if they don’t speak out, they deny their humanity.

If one would take his cellphone and walk away, he would immediately object which forces the relativist to see that she/he really holds to an objective standard. We do not want people to be relativists towards us. We want them to be virtues – show high moral standards. People often are relativists naively, or unreflectively. When they are wronged, they quickly become moral absolutists.

If relativism is true that none of the following prima facie bindings can always be true under ordinary circumstances: it is wrong to kill innocent people for no reason, or to torture people for fun, or to rape, that one should do justice and treat people equally, or obey just laws.

Relativism commits two fallacies. 1. Conventional ethical relativism cannot account for moral reformers, who stood up against culture. E.g., Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. But in reality we think that they were doing right in their actions. 2. Relativism cannot account for moral progress. We tend to think that we have improved morally over time (e.g., we no longer permit slavery). But, if relativism is true, then we cannot get closer to getting better, as there is no such thing as better.

Relativism fails. It makes no sense and cannot overcome reality. Objective morals exist, but what is a moral law then? The moral law is not, e.g., something testable by science. But moral laws exist and implicate an objective moral lawgiver. See my talk on morality.

Credit to Greg Koukl, Biola University, California.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 5. Morality. Because of God, or Not?

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

 

What is morality? Where does it come from? How do we know what is right and wrong, and do we know the difference in what we have to do, and what we ought to do? Is there a standard outside of us to guide us, or does each individual, each culture, each society, decide on what is right and what is wrong? How does an amoral universe through non-moral processes end up with a moral framework? A serious question to the materialist.

The word morality comes from the Latin word, moralitas, literally meaning manner, character, or proper behavior. It is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).1

Everyone, including materialists, atheists, everyone, appeal to a moral standard. But is this moral standard objective, in other words, transcended, outside of our material brain, or is it subjective, that is, a product of an evolutionary progress within us, within our brains? What are the implications if it is not objective but subjective and no objective moral standard outside of the human brain exists? Would the moral arguments then be about preferences that are relative to multiple factors? Does objective morality make more sense than moral subjectivism and moral relativism? What are the implications if moral values are subjective and depend on personal, cultural, and/or societal opinion?

Atheist and founder of The Skeptics Society Michael Schirmer explains objective moral values; ‘Just ask the question to the person, the victim, involved. Do you want pain? Do you want to be a slave? Do you want to be sexually abused?  Do you want to be lied to? ‘No’ – that is what is morally right. Do you want to be saved when drowning? ‘Yes’ – that is what is morally right.’ However, it still depends on an individual’s opinion, still subjective and not universally right or wrong. On the question ‘Do you want pain?’, different answers might be possible ‘Will it make me a better person?’ ‘Will I have a better understanding of the world?’ ‘Will it benefit others more than me?’ ‘Yes’, might depend on the possible meaning or purpose of the pain’. If it is untrue in one area of moral questions, then it is not universally true and cannot be objective but still subjective to an opinion.   

It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology; ontology the study of “being,” i.e., what it means for something to “be” or “exist.”) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not ‘what we mean’ by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God. In other words that objective morality exists in God’s existence – moral ontology.

Objective morality implicates a moral standard outside of us and that implicates a transcendent lawgiver.   One can be good, moral, without believing in God, but not without God. How come? If there is no God, there is no basis for objective good or bad, right or wrong, it is just an opinion. Atheists can be moral but cannot justify their morality as there is no standard to measure right and wrong for the atheist. Right and wrong are subjective being determined by individual feelings and opinions. Even cultural and societal opinion is reduced to human opinion. But then whose opinion; Mother Theresa’s of Hitler’s opinion? If one would argue that a culture or society determines its own moral values consider a religious movement that believes and accepts that female circumcision is justifiable and the proper thing to do in their society, does that make it right? We all have a sense of right and wrong and a person does not have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, it is written on all hearts, or in our genes if you will, but the atheist cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.

C.S. Lewis ‘A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.’ We need a straight line, an objective reference point. God’s nature provides that objective reference point for moral values, the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. It is not what God says is good that makes something good or because of what He wills, but because He is good. Good is what conforms to His nature, to His character, to who and what He is. And if the atheist would claim that God is not good, immoral, for, for example, demanding the ‘genocide of the Canaanites’ I would refer to Five questions every Christian should be able to answer | @Alisa Childers – question 2, at 2:18 – 3:30

Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it this way: “Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random persons were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.” In other words, God’s standard versus human opinion.

With no God, there is no reference point of perfection, and we are left with one person’s viewpoint against another, that ‘random person who tried to pull me over’, which is no more valid than anyone else’s viewpoint, a morality that is subjective, and not objective. William Lane Craig puts it this way: It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream, the preferences in the subject, not the object. So, it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject, it’s not valid or binding for anyone else and there can be no evil and no good – it is just an opinion. But if there is something like an absolute ‘right’ we could reasonably expect that there should be an absolute wrong. So, for right and wrong to exist there must be something ‘right’, something perfectly right, that we can use as a standard to measure right and wrong against.  God has expressed His moral nature to us as commands, the basis for moral duties. Something is not good just because God ‘wills’ it, or God ‘wills’ something because it is good. God ‘wills’ something because He is good. Moral action conforms to God’s nature and the more it conforms to His nature, the better it is. If atheism is true, there is no ultimate standard and there can be no moral obligations or duties. According to atheism humans are just accidents of nature, highly evolved animals but animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. If God doesn’t exist, we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

This is a major difference between man and animal. An animal cannot think about his thoughts, cannot be introspective. And if a being cannot think about its thoughts, it cannot be held responsible for moral or immoral thoughts and actions. Animals cannot be moral or immoral. Humans have thoughts and can think, ponder, these thoughts and experience guilt and other moral feelings whilst thinking about the thoughts or actions. And therefore, can be held morally responsible. But to what standard? And the question, ‘what is it that is good and what is it that is wrong’ if only relative to opinion? Is it real?

The problem is that good and bad, right and wrong do exist. Just as our sense experiences convince us that the physical world is objectively real, our immoral experiences convince us that moral values are objectively real. Each one of us makes moral judgments and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck. Every time you say ‘hey that’s not fair, that’s wrong, that’s an injustice’ you affirm you believe in the existence of objective morals and call upon these standards. We know child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong for everybody, always. Is this just a personal preference, just an opinion? No, a man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2 + 2 = 5. Moral intuition naturally rises to the surface when allowed to, when subjective feelings are overridden by emotions.

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” are independent of the person saying it. Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgments.  Like mathematics. What your opinion is on 4+6=10 is irrelevant to the fact; it is also irrelevant of human thoughts about it is. It exists outside of the human brain. It would still be true even if there were no humans. Morals are not invented, they are discovered. Like mathematics.

What this all amounts to then, is a moral argument for the existence of God. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, but objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore God exists. Atheism fails to provide the foundation for the moral reality every one of us experiences every day.

Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.

Recognition to Willian Lane Graig for many of the ideas expressed in this video.

My next discussion will be on subjective morality, relativism, and the implication of such a view.

 

  1. Long, A. A.; Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 366–67. ISBN 978-0521275569.
Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 4.The Problem of Evil.

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The Existence of Evil

God or no God – how does the existence of evil point to the existence of God

Evil cannot be a problem for the atheist. How can this be? You may ask. Evil is real. What is evil and how did it come about, why does it exist? What is the explanation from a materialistic/atheist viewpoint and from the Christian viewpoint? How are evil and suffering connected? The existence of evil poses three arguments against the existence of God. What are they and how do we deal with these arguments?

Evil cannot be a problem for the atheist because in a materialistic worldview there is no objective right or wrong. Materialism implies no free-will – man is just a moist robot reacting to physical and chemical processes, to genes and the environment. There is nothing transcended. I quote new atheist Sam Harris ‘Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it’. With no choice, evil is not possible with a materialistic worldview and therefore neither the consequences nor responsibility for one’s actions. “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”. ― atheist Richard Dawkins. If materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, are produced, and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. But man cannot live with this worldview and the atheist has to make leaps of faith to the upper level (where God exists) as it is not tenable to remain on the lower level (where God does not exist) and live as if there is no evil. See Francis Schaefer’s, ‘The Two-Story Universe’ in my video on “The Absurdity of a Life without God’

Evil and suffering are real. But what is Evil?

The Existence of Evil Poses Three Arguments against The Existence of God: The logical argument, the evidential argument, and the existential problem and I will address all three.

But first, from the Christian perspective. What is evil and why suffering? The existence of God, of a mind, who is love, created humans in His image1, to love Him. Love demands free will. To love without being free to choose to love is a contradiction in terms. Wrong choices lead to personal and natural evil and suffering. God ‘wills’ what is good because He is good. Moral action conforms to God’s nature and the more it conforms to His nature, the better it is.

We have to distinguish between evil and suffering as the consequence of wrong choices.

I. Evil – God is good and not the reason for evil/suffering. The fall of Man is2. Or, if you would, original sin having chosen against the will of God3, against what is good against who He is. And this is the reality of every person’s life, every day4, selfish choices. The consequence is suffering.

A. Personal evil. Choosing self, people, and things above God

B. Natural evil. The world was perfectly created5, but it is now a broken reality. E.g., tectonic plates that move and cause earthquakes and tsunamis6 is the result of convection currents generated by radioactive decay, mutations in DNA and RNA is always an anomaly, a degenerative process, and the cause of the emergence of viral and bacterial pathogens causing disease and destruction, cancer (also in children), etc. The second law of thermodynamics is a process of decay – the universe is decaying.

The whole creation has been groaning together in the pains …7

But there is a promise. God will renew and restore8. Hope for broken relationships and the broken world.

II. Suffering – The Fall of Man is the reason

A. Personal Suffering – because of evil

‘Black suffering’ because of evil – God is not the reason. E.g., broken relationships as a result of one’s arrogance or pride. Or because laws were broken, and one has to pay a fine or be in jail. This is accompanied by guilt feelings. 

‘White suffering’ – this is from God as in the story of Job or personal e.g., hardships as a result of following Christ. But the fall of man, evil, is still the underlying cause. If there was no sin, no satan, Job would not have suffered and there would have been no pain to love and live for God. ‘White suffering’ is without guilt feelings, knowing it is a result of having done the right thing.

B. Shared Suffering of Humanity the consequence of natural evil -consequence of the evil of humanity-

Light is an entity9, a ‘thing’ with a distinct and independent existence with physical properties. Darkness is not an entity, has no physical properties, just the absence of light. Light does not depend on darkness but makes it possible that darkness exists. Light can exist without darkness. The concept of darkness, however, cannot exist without light.

God is an entity. A subject with properties. Evil is not the absence of God but evil is also an entity with properties, e.g. evil intentions. It is something negative and in particular relational. God, an absolute and an entity, does not depend on evil. Evil cannot exist without good. The existence of God makes evil possible, but God can exist without evil. The concept and entity of evil cannot exist without God because the essence of evil is to choose against God, and no concept or entity to compare evil to or to decide that an act is evil. A further point in the argument for objective moral values because God exists.

The Existence of Evil Poses Three Arguments against The Existence of God.

The logical argument, the evidential argument, and the existential problem.

1. The logical argument.

The argument An omnipotent (almighty) God would be able to eliminate evil. b) An omniscient (all-knowing) God would know how to eliminate evil. c) An omnibenevolent (all-loving) God would want to eliminate evil. d) However, evil exists.

So, this “God set” is inconsistent. Either God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, given that evil exists, or evil wouldn’t exist.

The God of traditional theism doesn’t exist, and it is irrational to believe in an all-knowing, almighty, all-loving God.

Response: Free will is the defense. To love without being free to choose to love is a contradiction in terms. Wrong choices lead to personal and natural evil.

Alvin Plantinga’s ‘The Free Will Defense’

i. God’s existence is not logically incompatible with evil – God might have reasons for allowing evil. If reasons are possible, then God’s existence is not a logical incompatibility with the existence of evil. A world with moral good is better than a world without it. But only free agents can do moral good.

ii. Could God have created free moral agents who never do wrong: genuine moral freedom entails the possibility of going wrong. It is up to free creatures whether or not they go wrong.

Free will defense is successful. Philosophers no longer believe the logical problem exists, for the free will defense answers it. No one can disprove God’s existence by the logical problem from evil.

2. The evidential argument.

The argument. In a court of law, it appeals to the preponderance of the evidence, in other words beyond reasonable doubt. There is some evidence for God’s existence but weighed against all the evil in the world the scale tip heavily against the existence of God.

Response. The argument is based on probability and inference. Similar to an argument that goes from ‘there is no good that we know of’ to ‘there is no good’, which is an inference. The argument goes from no apparent reason for all the evil in the world to no morally sufficient reason: from inscrutable incomprehensible evil (that we cannot understand) to pointless evil (for which there is no reason).

Why should we expect to see God’s reasons, to have access to His knowledge? We are morally free creatures who can do and indeed do wrong.

The evidential argument makes God’s existence less probable but there is strong evidence for God’s existence; objective morality, beginning of the universe, finetuning of the universe, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. Our lack of comprehensive knowledge of God’s knowledge and intentions with the concept of free will, make the existence of God very likely.

3. The existential problem.

Evil exists. Atheists have no definition for evil, what evil is and why it exists, and see it as either undeserved and/or unnecessary purposeless suffering. But evil exists and it is very personal.

Response one’s reaction to evil and suffering determines its meaning. Evil draw people closer to God or destroy their belief in God. Either despair, indifference, or growth.

See my video ‘What is this Virus? And God?’

The above pertained mostly to moral evil

Natural Evil.

 The free process defense for natural evil is similar to the free will defense.

A world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby bringing about truly novel effects is better than a static one, in which we could not exercise creativity at all. In Biblically creation, God gave man dominion10. We often exercise it badly, but we are given it to make a real difference in the world. A static world would not allow that. The natural world is complex (technical) and composed of a high number of interrelated, dynamical, dissipative systems which are sensitively dependent on initial conditions. Free creatures with genuine free creativity and a complex world will lead to natural evil. God did not make a complex world in which natural evil cannot exist.

If the world is indeed complex: composed of a very high number of interrelated chaotic systems (complex). A slight nudge in initial conditions will result in natural disasters that God did not do. If the world were not like that, we could never do anything novel to fulfill God’s mandate to us. So why didn’t God make the world stable, to begin with? Why is it unstable? Because of the fall of man, sin – fall and rebellion of Satan12 with its effect on the earth. The initial equilibrium state that God created was disturbed by the fall of Satan, such that natural phenomena, natural evils, occur, ultimately because of sin in the world created by God in which we can make a difference

Conclusion: even God cannot make a complex world in which natural evil could not occur (free process defense is very analogous to free will defense – man’s choices). Just as He ‘cannot’ make a square circle, it is illogical and against God and human rationality.

CONCLUSION

God is a good God. He did not need evil to exist in order for His goodness to be good. He did not need to create at all, nor did He need people. He freely made a decision to create and decided to gift creation with freedom, thereby to receive greater glory from it. He also made evil and suffering possible; He did not create evil but made it possible.

This Discussion on YouTube

1 Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. Genesis 1:26

2 & 3 The fall of man is a term used to describe the transition of the first man and woman from a state of innocent obedience to God to a state of guilty disobedience. Genesis 3:1-24.

4 All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:3 There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans 3:10-12

5 God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. Genesis 1:31

6 The Earth’s crust is broken up into pieces called plates. The crust moves because of movements deep inside the earth. Heat rising and falling inside the mantle creates convection currents generated by radioactive decay in the core. Plate tectonics cause earthquakes and volcanoes.

7&8 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. Romans 8: 20-22

8 … until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago … Acts 3:21

9 A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself. A subject is an observer, and an object is a thing observed.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 3. How Reliable is the Biblical Account of Jesus Christ?

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

In Defense of the Gospel

If we find Mark’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life reliable it could also point to the reliability of the other Gospel accounts by Matthew and Luke and the rest of the New Testament. So, we will consider the Gospel of Mark in some detail with the concerns that Mark’s account might not be reliable.

The account of Jesus’s life by Mark (the Gospel of Mark) is accepted by most Christian and non-Christian scholars as the earliest account of Jesus’ life. If the account of Mark is found to be reliable even so, then would the other gospel accounts by Matthew and Luke be. (90% of what is written in Mark is written in Matthew and 60% of Mark is written in Luke. Matthew has 44% and Luke 58% material in common that is not found in Mark)

There are however three important objections to the reliability of Mark’s account to consider I. Was he a reliable witness to tell the story, close enough to Christ, and willing to tell the truth? Or was he trying to make a Jewish peasant into the Son of God? II. Is the transmission from what Mark wrote to the Greek manuscripts reliable? Important to know that Mark’s original documents are not available. Was it perhaps changed, even corrupted? III. Is the translation from the original Greek manuscripts to today’s New Testament reliable or in some texts changed to what Christians want it to say?

We will discuss each of these objections and start with the most important.

On the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts see – ‘The Resurrection of Christ’

I. The Objection of Unreliable Testimony.

  1. Mark was not with Jesus, he was a post-resurrection person. Response: From scriptural/Biblical as well as second-century evidence it is evident that Mark was associated with Peter while in Rome as Peter’s interpreter. Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) claimed that Mark wrote the Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter.
  2. Jesus was a legend. Response: Experts date the writing of Mark to be around 60 A.D., within 25 to 30 years after the crucifixion, making it most probably the oldest Gospel written. Thus, written much too early to create a legend. Legends are not created within the lifetime of the acquaintances of the supposed legend – created facts and stories are too easy to be exposed as untrue. Records of the life of Alexander the Great was between written 400 and 450 years after the events yet they are given the benefit of the doubt as factually correct.  
  3. Controversial stories of Jesus Christ vs the Pharisees were invented to dissolve debates and written later into the story of Jesus Christ. Response: The issues in the New Testament church were not solved by the sayings of Jesus. If the story of Jesus in the gospel were made up, Paul and others would have solved it by saying ‘Jesus said’ but Jesus is almost never cited to solve controversy except with The Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.
  4. Teachings like the Sermon on the Mount were invented to provide instructions to new Christians. Response: The is no Biblical or extra-Biblical evidence for this statement and accepted widely as the word spoken by Jesus.
  5. Miracles were invented as apologetic material. Response: see The Resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection happened, then miracles can happen.

More evidence for the reliability of Mark

  1. The unflattering portrayal of Jesus. Mark told the truth. He would not have included Mark 1:4-9, the baptism of repentance of Jesus and Mark 6:5, that Jesus could not do any miracles, Mark 10:18, Why do you call Me good or Mark 16: 5-7 the woman as witnesses of the resurrection. Mark gives a feel of integrity, unlike the non-canonical books.
  2. The Presence of Independent Witnesses to what Mark wrote. Matthew and Luke’s account of Jesus’ life that coheres with Mark’s account. And Paul’s account that He saw the risen Jesus who radically changed his life. The high Christology that Jesus is the Son of God, Devine, died for our sins, worked miracles, raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in heaven, took years to develop. Response: Paul wrote a high Christology of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 and written around 51 AD.
  3. The effects of Jesus’ life on people. If he was just a teacher, He would have had minimal effect on the lives of His followers, but His followers were so convinced of His Christology that the church exploded, and His followers were prepared to lay down their lives.

From the above, it can be concluded that the Gospel of Mark is a reliable testimony of the life of Jesus.  

II. Transmission from what Mark wrote to the Greek manuscripts. The objection is that it could be tainted because Mark’s original manuscripts are not available. Response: The question is not whether we have the original documents but how many copies of the original documents do we have, and how early were they written – how close to the original. The time from the earliest copies of Tacitus’ Annals that were written AD 14–68, the central historical source for the first century C.E. Rome, to the original writing is at least a thousand years and 20 copies are available.  With Mark, the time between Mark’s original documents and existing copies is 140 years and thousands of copies are available. The reconstructed text from these manuscripts demonstrates 99% similarity with no major doctrinal (foundational teaching) variance.

III. Translation from the Greek manuscripts to today’s Bible. The objection is that it is a biased translation, that the modern translations from Greek were changed into what they wanted it to say. Response: There are many translations and different translations use different forms to express the same meaning. Some translations emphasize the precise meaning like the New International Version (NIV), and some emphasize the original language, like the New American Standard Version (NAS). Thus, different translations have different emphases but the same meanings and are not biased. The accuracy of the English translations is open to scrutiny by Christian and non-Christian Greek scholars. It is an accurate translation from Greek. This is not really an issue anymore and the least important of the objections to the reliability of Mark’s account of Jesus’s life

Conclusion: each of the main objections to the reliability of Mark’s account has been addressed. It was shown that Mark was a reliable witness, and willing to tell the truth. That the transmission of Mark’s writings to the earliest Greek manuscripts can be trusted and thirdly that the translation from the original Greek to today’s Bible was not corrupted and reliable and open to scrutiny by scholars. Mark’s Gospel is a reliable source about the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 2. Why Life without God is Untenable, if not Absurd

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Man is the only creature that asks ‘why’- questions about his existence. If we are no more than the by-product of nature, the result of matter, time, and chance, and there is no reason for our existence, the answers might just be dark and terrible. (Loren Eisley) If God is left out of the equation, the only prospect is that we will all end up, with the universe, in a purposeless death.

Modern man thought when he got rid of God, that he freed himself but in killing God, he only orphaned himself. Without God, man and the universe are doomed to nothing more than a dark cold purposeless death. Science tells us that the universe is running out of energy and eventually everything, the entire universe, will end up in death. In Sartre’s words ‘the universe is marching irretrievably to its grave, there is no hope, no escape’.

If each individual will pass out of existence when he dies, what ultimate meaning could there be? Does it matter that he/she lived at all? Consider the average person that lived a thousand years ago, in the Middle Ages. The vast majority of these people are completely forgotten by everyone. What they did as individuals, good or bad, makes no difference to anyone today. Their actions while they were alive bore no significance relatively soon after their deaths. And so will our life and actions have no significance within years after our death, once we are forgotten as individuals. ‘We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.’ Ecclesiastes 1:11. If there is only death, there is no ultimate meaning. Everything will be forgotten as if it never existed – our final destination would be unrelated to our behavior. So, we can live as we please.

Without God life becomes ultimately absurd with no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose. Just today’s pleasures for today.

If all is doomed to die anyway, what difference if one has ever existed? Mankind is in the doomed race of a dying universe – it will cease to exist, and it will make no difference. Each individual will die, the human race will stop to exist, and the universe will die; just a cold, dead, lifeless, lightless chaotic conglomeration of stars swallowed by black holes. And no one to remember anything.

This is the horror of modern man: in reality, because he ends in nothing, he is ultimately nothing. And doomed to purposelessness in a forgotten vacuum of nothing.  

Life might be significant relative to now but ultimately there is no significance to anyone’s life. What is the ultimate difference between the life of a Hitler and a Mother Teresa, if they both and their actions will be forgotten in a thousand years from now?

If there is no God, there is no ultimate meaning. People live as if their lives have meaning, but it is inconsistent with their worldview. A self-delusion really to ‘create’ your own meaning.

So does the concept of morality lose its meaning without God? If there is no God there can’t be objective morality, no objective right or wrong. Without God, who can say whose values are right or and whose are wrong? Hitler, Mother Theresa? Morality becomes an expression of individual taste, of personal subjective feelings, and relative judgments. With the implication that means it is impossible to judge war, suppression, crime, evil, love as bad or good. It becomes only the bare valueless facts of existence, personal opinion. I will soon do a talk on morality in this series.

If death is the only and final outcome of existence, what can the goal and purpose of life be? All for nothing? We are here to know purpose and humans seek it all the time!
If not, we are no better than a dog or an insect. Without God, there can only be despair if we are honest with ourselves. If God is dead, man is dead.  For atheist Friedrich Nietzsche the implication is that atheism equals nihilism, the belief that nothing is real, that it is impossible to know anything, that all values are based on nothing, especially moral values, believing that life is inherently and utterly meaningless. Without God, there is no goal or purpose for the universe. And man is merely a biological electro-chemical machine, controlled by altering genetic codes and cannot have a free will and neither have rational thoughts.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s solution holds ‘two possibilities: face the absurdity of life or live valiantly with courage and determination’. Or atheist Bertrand Russell ‘build your life on unyielding despair’. Albert Camus ‘come to terms with the absurdity of life, then learn to live in love with one another’.

Without God, you are in a desperate position and have to try and make the best of reality. But it is impossible to live consistently in despair and with incessant attempts to deal with the situation.

Francis Schaeffer illustrates this concept in the Two-Story Universe – model a ‘two-story division of knowledge’. The first level is the finite world without God: a life without ultimate meaning and purpose. Absurd. The second level is life with meaning, purpose, and value because of a belief in God that created the universe and us for a purpose. It is impossible to live happily and consistently without God, on the first level. Without God, you can either be consistent and unhappy being stuck on the first story or inconsistent, in what you believe and jump to the second story and be happy. Modern man, the atheist, is living in this two-story universe. He lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live consistently and be happy. He makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm that life has meaning, value, and purpose, but he has no right to do it. He is inconsistent if he does that.

Three areas that show that life is absurd without God and that you cannot be consistent and happy. To be true to yourself, to be true to truth, and be consistent with a materialistic worldview one cannot be but unhappy. To be happy you have to be inconsistent with one’s materialistic worldview.

  1. Meaning

Without God life has no ultimate meaning because everything is ultimately on its way to death and all will be forgotten as if never existed. But people continue to live if life has meaning. You can ‘create’ meaning by freely choose to follow certain actions – Sartre. This is utterly inconsistent. If life is meaninglessness, because there is no ultimate meaning, then to ‘create’ meaning is meaningless as it will also end in death and be forgotten.  Man is trapped in the lower story. To ‘create’ meaning represents a leap of faith into the upper story. Sartre has no basis for this leap of faith – without God, there cannot be any objective meaning. This is only self-delusion because each person can’t give the universe its own meaning. The universe without God is ultimately meaningless irrespective of how the individual sees it. So, you have to pretend.

2. Value; ethical values and human value.

Represents the most blatant inconsistencies in the materialistic worldview.

Bertrand Russell confessed ‘I do not know where ethical values come from. Dostoevsky, ‘All things are permitted but man cannot live this way. Everything in him cries out to what is wrong but does not know why.’  Sartre admitted that the Holocaust was wrong but he could not live with his denial of absolute ethical values. Moral compatibility – an atheist cannot live consistently with this.

Feminism. If God does not exist, then women have no value more than a female goat. In nature male is dominant. But nobody can live with such a dehumanizing view. Francis Crick (Watson-Crick-DNA) concludes that man is no better than a laboratory specimen. If so, why was the holocaust wrong? We can only protest consistently if we believe in God.

No God and humans have no value. Inconsistent if you say they do

3. Purpose

You have to create a purpose. It is self-delusion without God. You cannot reach a logical conclusion.  Ernest Bloch, ‘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. It is hardly sufficient to keep the head high and to work as if there is no end. He makes the leap of faith to confirm but it is inconsistent. If God does not exist, then nobody has any value. And if you say that humans do have value, you are inconsistent. Live as if immortal.

The dilemma. Postmodern man denies God’s existence and results in absurdity of purpose, meaning, and objective moral values. 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. The ‘Noble Lie Option.’ We deceive ourselves means by some noble lie thinking that we exist in the universe that has meaning. Our quest for personal wholeness and self-fulfillment becomes only relative to the individual. No social coherence – relativism. 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, and atheism fails.

Biblical Christianity offers meaning, value, and purpose. Not proof but spells out the workable alternative. The existence of God makes sense of morality, the moral force behind the moral law, shame and guilt, equal rights, human value.

This blog on YouTube.

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram
Geplaatst op

Time to Think. 1. Arguments for the Existence of God

Share us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

We all, at times, experience a sense of detachment from people, from matters important to us, and sometimes, from life itself. As if we are not really in control. We all experience shame and guilt. And deep inside, we hunger for meaning in life and sometimes even wonder about the possibility of life after death. We find ourselves with a sense of alienation from a God that we might not even believe exists, but guilt feelings are real. We feel we are not in the best place we could hope to be and have a constant and deep yearning for something better somewhere out there.

Why would this discontent be, why these feelings of alienation that dwell in the human heart, if we only consist of matter and nothing but a product of blind evolutionary processes? Why can’t we just live and enjoy what is at hand and find happiness in this life, find true contentment? Or could it be that a developmental process was at play, at least as a possibility, a process that guided human development for a higher purpose? That the human heart was created for meaning rather than for happiness?

We find ourselves in a natural world that communicates to us and is filled with the splendor of great beauty, of astounding order in nature, of perfect scientific laws, a cosmos filled with mathematical rationality. All these that epitomize our universe. Why is there not simply chaos around us if the only reality that exists is that of no purpose, no plan, no design? If it is only a fact of matter, energy, and pure chance? The universe a mere product of blind unguided processes?

The existence of objective moral values, the sense of right and wrong, is impossible to explain lest there is a perfect standard outside of us to compare it to. C.S. Lewis ‘A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.’ Relativism, subjective moral values, that is, ‘what is true for you is not necessarily true for me’ is the logical and necessary consequence of a materialistic worldview, a view that nothing but matter exists. A view that implicates that there is no standard outside of us. But this is not tenable. Hitler thought his actions with the Holocaust were perfectly justified. What would have made his thoughts and actions crooked if there was no objective Straight Line to measure his actions to. Materialism fails to explain the deep sense of universal objective right and wrong. Even if you might argue that a culture or society determines its own moral values. If a religious movement believes and accepts that female circumcision is justifiable and the proper thing to do in their society, does that make it right?

Why does the universe exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? Where did it come from? Why am I here? Life’s deepest questions.

If the universe had no beginning, always existed, coming to the present moment would require crossing an infinite number of actual earlier moments and it would be impossible to reach the present moment. But the present moment is here, therefore the universe had a beginning.

Observation of our universe teaches us that 1. whatever begins to exist has a cause (there are no known exceptions). We argued that 2. the universe began to exist, had a beginning. This also confirmed scientifically – a beginning 13.772 ± 0.040 billion years ago, the Universe Singularity. The necessary conclusion that follows from 1. and 2. is that 3. the universe has a cause. (The Kalam cosmological argument).

What could the most plausible cause be for the existence of the universe with its astonishing beauty, inbuilt order, elegant scientific laws, exquisite and exact fine-tuning that makes life possible, the existence of mathematical and human rationality, of objective morality? Could the cause be a senseless reality caused by random chance with no purpose, just a brute fact? Can this ever be a reasonable and satisfactory conclusion? (even if a multiverse is postulated, that has no scientific grounds as an argument but a mere attempt to escape God, would still need an explanation of how it all started).

Logically, a much more plausible cause for the existence of the universe would be an uncaused cause, a cause outside of the universe with its matter and the time-space continuum that came into existence at the universe singularity event (Big Bang). An uncaused cause that existed before and outside the existence of matter, time, and space. A Cause that is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, with intelligence beyond comprehension and with a personal will that, by volition would use the power of His will to bring a universe into existence.  

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ Genesis 1:1. As scientific evidence became stronger and stronger over the last 100 years it was realized and accepted as fact that the universe indeed had a beginning and did not exist from the ‘eternal past’.

The Judeo-Christian concept of God has always been that He is an everlasting (timeless and omnipresent) God, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), an unseen Spirit (immaterial and spaceless), and a personal God with a free will. A God who would create the universe with so much beauty for His pleasure and a desire to share this pleasure with His created beings, with humans created in His image. Genesis 1:26. Beauty is a mental awareness and can only exist if a conscious mind exits that can perceive it. A Mind, God, that created beauty for His created beings, for human minds.

God. The most plausible cause for the existence of the universe, for our very existence.

“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” ― C.S. Lewis

This blog on YouTube

Time to Think – future topics

  1. Why Life without God is Untenable
  2. The Problem of Evil
  3. Can we Trust the Bible
  4. Evidence for the Resurrection
  5. Other Religions
  6. What about those who never heard about Christ?
  7. Darwinism
  8. Defense of the Soul

Follow us >> FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram