Reasons to Believe - Worthy Christian Forums

This an email I wrote to a member of these boards. My information came from a college class I'm taking, called Reasons to Believe, taught by Dr. Bob Martin. This is only 3 of 14 premises; the rest go over miracles, historical reliability of the New Testament, and the various aspects of Jesus' life.

------------------------------------

It is unreasonable for me to ask you to believe in something without evidence, which is why I'm writing this email. I want to meet you where your at, and ask you tough questions, give you tough facts, and really challenge you in your belief! My goal is not to irritate you, or argue with you- my goal is to present you the evidence, and let you discern.


Truth
So, first off- Truth. Is there such a thing as an absolute, knowable truth? Some say yes, some say no, some deny either way; I'm going to tell you that it does exist, that it's knowable, that it's absolute, and that it's exclusive (there's only one truth). Each person's woldview is based on their understanding of the existence and characteristics of truth-

A skeptic will say, "There is no such thing as truth." Well the obvious problem with that is the skeptic is claiming truth in his statement! By simply asking, "Is that true?", the skeptic finds himself without an answer.

The agnostic will say, "You cannot know anything about the truth." That statement is self-defeating- because he is claiming to know that his statement is true. That's like saying, "I cannot speak a word of English."- But you just spoke several words of English to tell me that.

The relativist will say, "Truth is a matter of one's perspective," or "Truth is relative." This statement will cave in on itself because he is claiming that his perspective of truth is absolute. In other words, relativists claim to be absolutely sure there is no absolute truth.

The fourth, and we've clashed a bit on this one in one way or another, is pluralism. The pluralist will say, "All views are equally true," or "All roads lead to Rome." The pluralist believes that the opposite of true is true, and the opposite of false is false. This view is challenged by the Law of Non-contradiction: "Opposites cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." For example, right cannot be left, on cannot be off, and so on and so forth. So, when a pluralist claims the Law of Non-contradiction is false (by asserting that opposites can both be true), they are using the Law to deny the Law! If you ask a pluralist, "Is pluralism true and Christianity false?", they find themselves in a bind- if they say yes, then they become exclusivists (one absolute truth); and if they say no, the Law of Non-contradiction comes in play- Christianity claims that there is only one truth, and pluralism is false.

And what about "tolerance"? To tolerate something implies that something is true and something is false. Why? Because you do not tolerate something that is true! You tolerate something that is wrong.

It is undeniable- Truth is exclusive! There is an absolute, knowable truth.


God Exists!
So moving on to my next point- a "Theistic" God exists.

Either God exists or doesn't exist. The most important element of any worldview is what it believes about God. So, what is a "Theistic" God? He is one that is above and beyond the world (transcendent), yet capable of acting in the world (immanent).
Categorical Syllogisms
There are 3 arguments for God's existence that can be stated as categorical syllogisms using the Principle of Causality. A categorical syllogism is like this:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Mathew is human.
Conclusion: Mathew is mortal.
Principle of Causality (POC)
The Principle of Causality (POC) is simple: Every effect has a cause and everything that came into existence was caused by another. Every painting has a painter, every presecription has a prescriber, every sculpture has a sculptor, every child has a parent, and every piece of legislation has a legislator.


The Cosmological Argument
The first argument is the Cosmological argument- God exists.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has been caused to exist by another.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist by another.

So, where did the universe come from? There are 4 views on this:

1. Uncaused (arose from absolutely nothing). This is impossible, because something cannot come from nothing.
2. Self-caused (caused itself to come into existence). This is impossible since the universe would have to have existed prior to itself to cause its own existence.
3. Existed forever. This is also impossible, I'll get into that below.
4. Caused by another. (i.e. God)

Since the universe cannot come from nothing or come from itself, there is only one possible option for the unbeliever- the universe has existed for an infinite number of moments. This is impossible, as I said before- and this can be proved with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Einstein believed that the Laws of Thermodynamics were the only scientific principles that would be unaltered as science continued to progress.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that any closed system is decreasing. This can be demostrated by two cups of coffee- one fresh and hot, the other old and temperate. The first cup's energy is still intact (heat) because it was caused to exist very recently. The second cup's energy is nonexistant because it expelled its energy the day before. If the universe were infinitely old, the energy would have burned out long, long ago and it would be nearly absolute zero in the universe. Furthermore, since the universe is getting more disordered (entropic), it had to be highly ordered at the beginning. And if it had a beginning, it must have had a "Beginner."


The Big Bang
Next we have the Big Bang- the converging evidence for this theory prove that the universe had a beginning (was created). The Big Bang was first proposed in 1927 by Father Georges Lemaitre. He proposed that the universe is expanding like an explosion ("Big Bang"). Subsequently, Hubble's "red shift" observations supported an expanding universe. Christian astrophysicist Alan Sandage compiled information on 42 galaxies and found that the universe is expanding more in the past than it is today as if the universe exploded into being. This expansion is similar to drawing a dot on a deflated balloon then inflating it. Also, Nobel Prize winning scientists Penzias and Wilson discovered a radiation echo given off by the universe that has the identical wavelength of that which would be given off by a gigantic explosion. On top of that, the Hubble Space Telescope in 1992 discovered the large mass of energy resulting from such an explosion predicted by Big Bang Cosmologists. Even Einsteins theory of general relativity demands a beginning of time. The important point is if we put the Big Bang in reverse we eventually reach a point of "nothingness". But "nothing" cannot produce "something". So the Big Bang must have been caused!

Conclusion: The universe was created by a Creator.

The Teleolgical Argument
The next argument is the Teleological argument (design argument) - God is intelligent. It goes like this:

Premise 1: Design implies a designer.
Premise 2: The universe manifests design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a designer.

There are a huge number of evidences supporting Intelligent Design.

Specified Complexity
Intelligence is implied by a type of order known as specified complexity. To put it simply, the Grand Canyon is a complex feature that was caused by a series of natural events (unspecified). Mt. Rushmore is a complex feature that was created with a series of unnatural events (specified).

An example of specified complexity is DNA. The English alphabet has 26 letters and the genetic alphabet only has 4, but according to Dr. Herbert Yokey's article in The Journal of Theoretical Biology, the method of communicating by the sequence of letters is mathematically identical to our written language (letter = base pair; word = triplet; sentence = gene; paragraph = operon; chapter = chromosome; book = genome). A single strand of DNA carries the same amount of information as one volume of an encyclopedia. If the human language has an intelligent mind behind it to produce those sequences, then DNA must have intelligence behind it to produce its sequences!

Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity simply says that a cell could not have evolved in small steps. Only intelligent design explains the cell's irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity requires that human cells have all of its complex parts (e.g., cilium, vision, human blood clotting, DNA reduplication, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation and electron transport) functioning initially, simultaneously and in the right order for survival. For example, a 5-part mousetrap will not work with only 4 parts.

Furthermore, Doctors Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the mathematical probability that a single cell could evolve by pure chance is 1 in 40 to the 40,000th power (to compare, we have 1 x 10 to the 22nd power stars in the universe), or impossible!

Anthropic Principle
The earth and the universe are finely tuned to support life on Earth. The anthropic principle claims that from the moment of creation, every cosmic constant was intelligently "pre-set" by God for human life on Earth. If any constant had been changed by 1 degree in any direction, life could not exist. This is an example of design from the very beginning of the universe. If the earth's atmosperic oxygen, distance from the sun, gravitational force, crust thickness, or rotation or the the average distace between the 100 billion stars in our galaxy were altered slightly, then life on Earth could not exist.

Conclusion: An Intelligent Creator created the universe.

Moral Argument
The moral argument goes like this:

Premise 1: Moral law implies a Moral Law Giver.
Premise 2: There is a moral law.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

In order to prove that God exists, the moral law must not simply be prescribed BY human beings but prescribed FOR human beings, by God. It must be an absolute moral law that is obligatory, prescriptive, and a "good in itself" duty that is binding on all people, at all times and in all circumstances. Therefore if there is an absolute moral law then there must be an Absolute Moral Law Giver, or God.

C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity covers the Moral Argument very well- I remember seeing that you read it.

Remember, the POC says every effect has a cause. Just as every painting has a painter, and every law a lawgiver; if there is an absolute moral law, then there must be an Absolute Moral Law Giver (God).

One of the biggest problems an unbeliever struggles with is the idea of a morally perfect, all good (omnibenevolent), all powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) God and the reality of evil in the world. When asked how a loving God is compatible with evil in the world, you can go back to C.S. Lewis- "It is the very existence of evil that proves the existance of God!"

Absolutes are unavoidable. It is self-defeating to say, "I am absolutely sure there are no absolutes." Everything cannot be relative. In fact, anyone who is absolutely sure there is injustice in the world or who insists that Mother Teresa's actions were more virtuous than Hitler's actions invokes an absolute moral standard that is independent of peoples mere opinions. If this absolute moral law is beyond us then there must be an ultimate standard of justice, whether they admit it or not, and this standard must be God.

Reality demonstrates that the moral law impresses upon all people, a fundamental sense of right and wrong. We know instinctively and immediately that some things are absolutely wrong. C.S. Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man" recounts that virtually every society past and present agree on basic moral laws. Life does not make any sense unless there is a moral lawgiver.

The moral law is not always the standard how we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.

For example, the libertarian demands justice when someone else intrudes, harms, or inconveniences them. The pluralist who claims homosexuality is normal is disappointed to learn her child is gay. The relativist claims there are no absolute values, yet absolutely values his right to push his agenda on you! Those that protest all wars demand the very safety that the sacrifice of others guaranteed them. Their reactions (not actions) speak louder than words, when it comes to demonstrating universal moral laws.

No one has more succintly conveyed the moral law argument to a contemporary audience than Ravi Zacharias. An angry student at one of his lectures blurted out, "There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God."

Ravi asked him, "If there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a thing as good?"

The student replied, "I guess so."

Ravi countered, "If there is such a thing as good, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil because when you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What, then, is your question?"

Following a long pause, the student sheepishly asked, "What, then, am I asking you?" To which Ravi responded, "If you don't know, I am not going to tell you!"

The moral law is undeniable and proves the existence of God!

Conclusion: We were created by a morally perfect God.

Relevant, concise, and challenging. Thanks for posting it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

wonderful post how did i miss this?
love your sister in Christ,
Rebekah David

GREAT post!!!!
that was just great
lv yr sis in christ
manie

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/emot-highfive.gif) Awesome post. It really made me use my thinking cap. Thank you for putting so much work into it. Blessings.

That was an interesting view on things; thank you for posting it.

93 million miles from the blistering surafce of the sun hangs the planet earth.
A rotating sphere perfectly suspended in the center of the universe. The ultimate creation from an infinate mind. An unbelievably intricate complex design. A supernatural testimony, an irrefutable sign that there is a God.

The size, position and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon to see.
A few degrees closer to the sun we'd disintegrate, a few degrees further, we'd freeze.
The axis of the earth is titled at a perfect 23 degree angle and it's no mistake that it is.
This allows equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist.

Or take for example the combination of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere we breathe every day. It just happens to be the exact mix that life needs to prosper, it doesn't happen on any other planet that way.

You see, the Bible says the invisible things of God are seen through His creation, to believe this is not hair. If there's a design, there's a designer, if there's a plan, there's a planner and if there's a miracle, there is a God.

CHORUS:
There is a hope, there is a light
There is an answer to all answers
There is a flame that burns in the night
And I know, I know, I know there is a God

The Scripture says the heavens decalre the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of His hands. If we allow our minds to drink in all the truth that surrounds the truth that just surrounds us, creation itself with help us understand.

Did you know the moon controls the tides, it's the maid that cleans the oceans. Even the waves don't crash the shores in vain. The tides drag impurities from the depths of the sea, it's nature's constrant recycling chain.

It simply boggles the mind to think that the stars will rotate with such exact precision that it's true. That the atomic clock with an error factor of less than three seconds per millenium is set by the way we move.

Though they silently orbit, the sun, the moon, the stars are like celestial evangelists above. Who circle the earth every 24 hours shouting in every languages that there is a God.

Atheism is the wedge under the foundation of our faith, trying to topple our relationship with Christ. When the fool said in his heart, there is no God, he rejects the truth God painted on the canvas of the night. Atheism has never created an artistic masterpiece, never healed a fatal disease or calmed a fear. Atheism has never still given answers to our existence, peace to a troubled mind or even dried a tear.

For it's God who created heaven and earth and flung the stars in space and breathed in the handful of dirt and it became a man. It's God who sits on the circle of the earth and measures the mountains in a scale, and holds the seven seas in the palm of His hand. It's God who sent His only begotten Son to the cross of Calvary to save our souls from Hell and the grave. It's God who creates, God who delivers, God who heals and God who is worthy of a thunderous ovation of praise.


just thought i would post this song because to me it makes a whole lot of sense.
maybe it might make some sense to those who want proof other than our faith, that there is a God!!!
lv yr sister in Christ
manie

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. It saddens me that this kind of perversion of science and philosophy is so readily lapped up by the masses.

what about this ?
is this more nonsense lapped up by the masses?

you could start by telling us how something comes from nothing. a few examples would be helpful.

then if you want you tell us how non-life comes from life and give us a few examples of that also.