Post Author: Bill Pratt
The Apologetics 315 blog has a very impressive archive of mp3 audio files of all sorts of Christian apologetics material. If you like to hear apologetics instead of just reading it, this is a great place to go. These guys are performing a valuable service for all of us with this compilation.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
See if you can follow this argument, which is one form of the cosmological argument.
The first premise should be uncontroversial. If something begins to exist, it needs a cause of its existence.
The second premise draws upon the findings of science in the last century. We have Einstein’s theory of relativity dictating a beginning to space, time, and matter. We have enormous evidence for the Big Bang, which is the moment the universe exploded into existence about 13. 7 billion years ago. We also have the second law of thermodynamics, which says that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing in the universe – a universe that is decaying cannot be infinitely old because it would have run out of usable energy by now.
To sum up the last paragraph, science seems to have shown that the universe did indeed have a beginning. All of time, space, and matter came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. If that is the case, then the universe needs a cause, and that cause cannot be a part of the universe, because nothing can cause itself to exist.
So what kind of cause are we talking about? Based on the cosmological argument, we can deduce that this cause of the universe has the following properties: self-existence, timelessness, nonspatiality, immateriality, unimaginable power, and personhood.
Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.
This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.
The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.
All of these are attributes of the God of Christianity. That is not to say we have proven the exact God of Christianity exists, but we have certainly made a persuasive argument that a being with some of his qualities exists.
Now that’s something to think about.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Certainly the appearance of design in the natural world makes a strong case for the existence of a super-intelligent being, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Many people look at the world around them and marvel at its functionality and complexity. A common reaction to the functionality and complexity of the world is to wonder who or what made it that way.
Based on that intuition about the world, theists, those who believe in a single creator God, have made an argument about the existence of God in the following way.
Premise 1 is fairly straightforward. If something can be shown to be designed, it must have had a designer.
Premise 2, however, requires evidence. Below is an extended quotation from William Lane Craig, one of the foremost Christian scholars of our day.
During the last thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife’s edge. It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe such as ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions that must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 123rd power. There are [many] such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.
It is not just the physical conditions that must be present in the universe for life to exist that exhibit complex design. There is also the issue of life itself.
Living cells are composed of DNA. DNA consists of nitrogen bases called adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine which are commonly represented by the letters A, T, C and G. These letters form genetic codes which provide the instructions for the building and replicating of all living things. The four letter genetic code is identical to any other written language. The sequences of genetic letters spell out exact instructions just like a sentence in English would.
To give you an idea of how complex life is, a single-celled amoeba contains the equivalent of 1,000 sets of an encyclopedia in its DNA. The human genome is composed of about three billion nucleotide base pairs. Years ago, Carl Sagan estimated that there is the equivalent of 20 million books of information stored in the human brain. This number is considered to be conservative now. The amount of information contained in living cells and the human brain is truly staggering, and thus the conclusion of complex design seems easily warranted.
Before we move on, I need to quickly add that the evidence presented above of design in the fine tuning of the universe to support life and of the composition of life itself is merely scratching the surface. Many fantastic books have been written in the past 20 years detailing far more evidence of design in the natural world than what was mentioned above, so hopefully I have just whet your appetite to read more!
But now, if we have shown that the universe is indeed characterized by complex design, then who or what is the designer?
I think we can make the following conclusions about the designer. The designer is super-intelligent and purposeful. The intelligence of the designer far surpasses any kind of human intelligence ever seen. The designer is purposeful because all designs have purposes behind them. We are not dealing with a being who is randomly creating with no purpose.
Have we arrived at the God of the Bible? No, we haven’t, but we have certainly made a strong case for the existence of a designer who has at least a couple of the attributes of the God of the Bible, and we have eliminated the possibility that no such designer exists. We haved ruled out the possibility that the universe is caused by some irrational or purely non-intelligent source.
Theistic arguments for the existence of a Designer confirm the intuition that many people have had since the dawn of man. To say that everything we see in the world around us just happened by chance is simply unbelievable.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Only if the skeptic is open to the existence of a God who can intervene in the affairs of the world.
I have discussed the historical reliability of the New Testament with many skeptics over the years. The skeptics I typically speak to inevitably dismiss or downplay much of the historical evidence that I present. They argue that ancient writers didn’t understand the difference between history and myth, that mythical stories of gods were rampant in the ancient world, that ancients were credulous and unsophisticated, and so on.
As soon as I respond to one of these arguments, they have another one along the same line. It turns out, however, that the reason most of them don’t believe the Bible is historically reliable is because they don’t believe the miracles included in the Bible could possibly have occurred. They don’t believe the miracles could have occurred because they don’t believe a God exists who can perform miracles.
Obviously, if no God exists who can perform miracles, then miracles cannot occur!
On the contrary, those who are open to the God of Christianity existing often find the historical evidence to be quite impressive. Why? Because they believe that a God who can perform miracles might exist. They may not be totally convinced, but they don’t dismiss it out of hand.
My advice to any Christian who is discussing the historical reliability of the Bible with a skeptic is to pause and ask the skeptic if they believe in the real possibility of a God who can intervene miraculously in the world. If they don’t, you need to drop back and discuss that issue first. Otherwise, you may very well be wasting your time.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Apologist and author Bill Foster has just written a new book entitled Meet the Skeptic. I was unfamiliar with Bill before reading this book, which was given to me by one of our church staff.
I have read a truckload of books on apologetics, so I was a little bit dubious that there was anything new here, but I was pleasantly surprised. Bill certainly covers some familiar ground, but the difference between his book and others is that he attempts to model skepticism by placing modern skeptics of Christianity into four categories, based on their worldview. He then describes the “root idea” of each of these worldviews and gives readers some suggested approaches to conversing with each of these kinds of skeptics.
The first kind of skeptic is the spiritual skeptic. The root idea is: “Good works get you to heaven.”
The second kind of skeptic is the moral skeptic. The root idea is: “People should decide for themselves what is right and wrong.”
The third kind of skeptic is the scientific skeptic. The root idea is: “The natural world is all there is.”
The fourth kind of skeptic is the biblical skeptic. The root idea is: “The Bible is man-made.”
As I have conversed with skeptics over the years, I have certainly encountered all of these. In fact, in some cases I have interacted with a skeptic who could be placed in multiple categories. It is always helpful to have a mental framework of where a person is coming from when speaking to them about Christianity, and this book will nicely serve that purpose.
One caution, however. Every skeptic is an individual, and they will not always fit neatly into a category. Most people can’t stand being labeled, so anyone using this book needs to be careful that they don’t come across like a Christian label-maker. I’m sure Bill Foster would agree that these categories serve as guidelines, but we always need to truly engage with a person and learn about them as a unique individual.
A couple questions for our blog readers. Do these categories seem right to you? If you are a skeptic, what is your reaction to these four categories?
Something just occurred to me. Maybe the skeptics have written a book called Meet the Apologist …..
Post Author: Bill Pratt
I just finished a detailed study of the seven miraculous signs Jesus performed in the Gospel of John. If you don’t recall, they are:
The fascinating thing about these miracle accounts is how people reacted to them. There is a wide cross-section of responses. The way I would summarize the responses is in the following way:
It is my contention that these miracles act like a mirror for each person that saw them. The miracles, for those who loved God and were willing, confirmed their hope for a true Messiah.
For those who wanted a political savior, Jesus’ miracles confirmed their hope in him as a “political Messiah.”
For those who wanted to retain their own autonomy and power, Jesus’ miracles did nothing but agitate them. There was no miracle he could perform that would convince them.
Where the heart is willing, evidence, such as miracles, can be quite convincing. Where the heart is not willing, no amount of evidence will do.
As an apologist, this frustrates me to no end. I have spent years amassing evidence for Christianity, which I think is thoroughly convincing, but many times I present that evidence to people who are completely unwilling to listen. I’ve just learned to roll with it, though, because I also present evidence to people who are willing to listen, and that always makes my day!
Which kind of person are you? Which group would you fall in? If you are someone who no amount of evidence can convince, then why is that?
Just some food for thought.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
The classical Judeo-Christian belief has always been that God is all-powerful, or omnipotent. He can do whatever is actually possible to do, but not what is actually impossible to do. We previously covered this topic in “Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can’t Lift It?”
But there are some who deny that God is all-powerful because of the problem of evil. An all-powerful God, they say, could defeat evil, but there is still evil in the world. Therefore, God cannot be all-powerful.
This is exactly the view that Rabbi Harold Kushner took in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Kushner’s son died of a horrible disease at the age of 14, and Kushner decided that even though God loved his son and wanted him to live, God could do nothing to stop the onslaught of the disease. God is handcuffed by the laws of nature.
In essence, Kushner believed that God was either limited in power or not infinitely loving. Kushner could not stand to worship a God who was not infinitely loving (a God who didn’t care about his son’s suffering and death), but he could stand a God who wanted goodness to reign on earth, but could not make it happen.
Contrary to what Kushner believes, there is another option. God could be all-loving and all-powerful. In fact, Christians believe that if God is not all-powerful, then his love is impotent. Why should we worship a God that wills goodness but can do nothing about making sure that goodness will be victorious? The God Kushner worships cannot guarantee that evil will ever be defeated and that good will prevail.
The true God is allowing evil for a time, but promises that in the future, all accounts will be settled. Evil will be defeated and the suffering that humans endure in this earthly life will seem trivial. Those that love God will spend their afterlife with him, and those who reject God will spend their afterlife away from him.
Rabbi Kushner’s dilemma is resolved by the future promises of God. This is the blessed hope that all Christians have.
Note: If you would like to see Rabbi Kushner debate the issue of God’s omnipotence, in light of the problem of evil, with Norman Geisler, please order the DVD’s from The John Ankerberg Show. It is a fascinating discussion.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
If you are a person who says this about Christianity, excuse me for being skeptical.
God performed miracles through Moses, and yet Pharaoh did not believe.
God performed miracles through Elijah, and yet Jezebel did not believe.
Jesus performed numerous miracles that confirmed his power over sickness, weather, and even death. Ultimately he rose from the dead. Yet still some who saw these miracles did not believe.
God has provided plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and rose from the dead. If you are a person who has heard the gospel message and understood it, but you continue to demand more evidence in the form of miracles, ask yourself if there isn’t another problem.
Is it possible that you just don’t want to believe? Is it possible that no matter how much evidence you are shown, that no matter how many times God reveals himself to you, that you just will not believe?
If that is the case, search your own heart and figure out why you don’t want to believe. Where is this barrier of belief coming from? We can answer your questions about Christianity, but until you deal with your will, our answers will remain unpersuasive.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Imagine the following scenario: two people claim to know the same professional football player. The football player’s name is Alex and he plays in the NFL. The first person who knows Alex the football player describes him this way:
He is 6′ 6″ tall, he weighs 305 lbs., he plays left tackle, he is married, and he plays for the Carolina Panthers.
Now the second person describes Alex the football player:
He is 6′ 2″ tall, he weighs 256 lbs., he plays middle linebacker, he is single, and he plays for the Atlanta Falcons.
When when we started out, we were pretty confident that these two people were talking about the same Alex the football player. Once we asked for more details, though, we quickly discovered that they are not the same person at all, but two different people. We just needed a little more information about Alex from each person.
This is the same situation with the God of Islam and the God of Christianity. Both are claimed to be the God of Abraham and both are monotheistic creator-God’s. If we stop there, we might conclude that they must be the same God.
Unfortunately, there is a slight problem. Christians believe that God is three persons in one nature, a Trinity. The three persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims flatly reject the Trinity. There is only one person who is God, not three.
Second, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man – he is fully God and fully man. Muslims completely reject this idea of Jesus as God-man. They view Jesus as a mere human prophet who is less important than the final prophet, Muhammad.
There are more differences in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, but we need go no further. Just based on the differences highlighted above, we are 100% sure that these two Gods are not the same.
One final note. We must admit that there are some similarities in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, and when Christians speak to Muslims about God, we can use these similarities as launching pads to share our faith. However, just because there are some similarities, we must not fall into the trap of papering over the very real and very significant differences. Closing our eyes to the key beliefs of these two religions doesn’t get us anywhere.
I read this over on GeoChristian’s Blog. It doesn’t advance the argument for Christianity at all, but I think it does give the reader some insight into the minds of the crop of new atheist writers who have been attacking Christianity for the last few years.
Rev. Cwirla, in his review of the Charlotte Allen article on atheism that I linked to in my previous post, summarizes the new atheist (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, et al.) arguments as follows:
1. The existence of God can’t be proven scientifically, therefore there is no God.
2. Religious people do bad things, therefore there is no God.
3. No one has yet to convince me there is a God, therefore there is no God.
4. The world sucks, therefore there is no God.
5. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist, therefore there is no God.
Pretty good summary of the shallowness of modern atheism.