In Part 1 Who Was Jesus?, we covered the possibilities of His identity.
He was a fraud who was intentionally deceiving those who followed him.
He was deluded himself, and thought he was the Son of God, but wasn't.
He was Divine.
Additionally, we covered the possibility that the Gospel narratives were legendary, fictitious accounts that didn't accurately describe who Jesus really was. We provided good rationale for discounting this assertion.
In Part 2, we discussed Jesus own self-perception. We provided abundant testimony from Him and from His enemies (and/or the reactions to Him) as to Who He claimed to be. As we stated earlier, He was killed for something, and it wasn't for being a “good moral teacher.” He was killed for claiming to be God.
Part 3 will discuss other things Jesus is recorded to have said that may affirm His claim to be deity.
Matthew 5:3-12 commonly referred to as the Beatitudes, expresses how one should approach life with all its difficulties and how God responds to His people. The discourse is profound in its simplicity and sobriety as to what we face during our time on earth.
Matthew 5:17-6:18 details a higher moral law than had previously been given to the Jewish people. His words made people consider their heart attitudes and motivations rather than just the outward behaviors. His moral law dealt with WHO we are as human beings and not just what we DO. His teaching here even gets into religious hypocrisy and self-righteousness, things that people who hate religion talk about these days. Jesus decried it Himself 2000 years ago.
In chapter 6 of Matthew Jesus discusses how important it is for us to guard what we allow to enter our bodies through our eyes. He discusses man’s tendency to become anxious over physical provision and encourages us to trust God’s provision. He also makes it clear that greed prevents us from serving God.
Matthew chapter 7 contains one of the most often quoted passages in the Bible.
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Most people stop the quote after the first verse. Jesus words are more in line with the “Golden Rule,” which follows in verse 12 of the same chapter. Here he teaches us to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” He is simply advising us to examine ourselves and to avoid making rash judgements of people. Instead, He instructs us to judge fairly as we would want to be fairly judged.
In Matthew 10 Jesus speaks of the cost of following Him. It is apparent He isn’t selling His followers on wealth, fame, or adulation.
“and you will be hated by all for my name's sake.” Matthew 10:22
Likewise, in Mark 10:44 Jesus says:
“and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else.”
These are not the words of a megalomaniac. These are sober words that Jesus spoke so that His followers might understand that the Kingdom He often referred to was not one of earthly riches or power.
In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus explains to His disciples that soon He will be executed by the religious leaders in Jerusalem. The disciples are still thinking that His kingdom is going to be an earthly one and one of them, Peter, rebukes Jesus for saying that these things were going to happen. Jesus firmly let Peter know that Peter’s motivations weren’t the same as His. That Peter had set his mind on human power and prestige. He actually called Peter Satan in this exchange and then told His disciples the following:
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?
The verses I’ve shared in this entry do not prove that Jesus is God. That wasn’t my intention. I used these to rule out that He was a fraud or that He was deluded. A fraud wouldn’t have painted such a gloomy picture of what the future held. His words were rooted in a very sane understanding of what was facing Him and what would face His followers. There wasn’t a grandiose attempt at luring people into His “cult.” He spoke sober, sane, words of truth. Part 4 of Who Was Jesus? will focus in on the alleged miracles Jesus performed and the words He spoke in conjunction with these events.
History reveals that Jesus was arrested, flogged, and crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect of Judaea serving under the Emperor Tiberius. Depending upon the historical documents reviewed, you will deduce that Jesus was executed for one reason or another. The four New Testament accounts of the life and death of Jesus agree that he was killed due to being falsely accused of blasphemy by the Jewish religious leaders who then reported to the Roman authorities that Jesus was leading a revolt of some sort. Christians believe that Jesus was God in human flesh and that He willingly allowed Himself to be executed as a means for mankind to be reconciled to God.
Whatever version of accounts a person chooses to believe has to take into account the historical fact that Jesus was killed for some reason. The Jewish religious leaders, nor the Roman government would have executed a “good moral teacher,” without some sort of provocation. The Jews must have thought Jesus claimed something of Himself beyond what a “good moral teacher,” or simple Rabbi would have said. The Romans must have believed or been told something else as well. What makes the most sense? What did Jesus claim for Himself? Who did He say that He was? There are a number of places in the New Testament documents where Jesus made explicit claims as to His identity.
John 10:28-30 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”
Mark 2:5-11 Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “My child, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the teachers of religious law who were sitting there thought to themselves, “What is he saying? This is blasphemy! Only God can forgive sins!”
Jesus knew immediately what they were thinking, so he asked them, “Why do you question this in your hearts? Is it easier to say to the paralyzed man ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk’? So I will prove to you that the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.” Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, “Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!”
The Jewish religious leaders knew what Jesus was claiming when He told the man that his sins were forgiven. Jesus didn't deny it. He didn't say, “No, I didn't mean it that way. What I was saying was...” Instead, He was even more emphatic, saying that as only God could forgive sin, likewise, only God could heal a paralyzed man. He then told them in essence, “I am God! I can heal and I can forgive.”
Jesus also claimed that He was the Good Shepherd, and that His Father commanded Him to give His life for His sheep. He claimed the ability to give up His life and to take it back again.
“The Father loves me because I sacrifice my life so I may take it back again. No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.” John 10:17-18
There are a number of additional passages where Jesus claimed to be God. There are many where He described Himself as “The Son of Man.” As opposed to this being a a mere expression for Jesus humanity, it is actually an exalted title for the coming Savior, or Messiah referred to by the prophet Daniel (Daniel 7) some 600 years before Christ.
Perhaps the most striking claim to me is found in John chapter 8, when Jesus uses the name God called Himself when speaking to Moses in Exodus 3. Moses asks what to tell Pharaoh when asked Who sent him to bring the Israelites out of from their captivity in Egypt.
God replied to Moses, "I Am Who I Am. Say this to the people of Israel: I Am has sent me to you." Exodus 3:14
In an interaction with the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus tells them,
“Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.” The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am!” At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.
Again, the Jews weren't confused about what Jesus was claiming. They knew exactly what He was saying, and Who He was claiming to be. That's why they picked up stones to try to execute Him. It seems that He must've determined that it wasn't yet time for Him to die. So, whether naturally, or supernaturally, He hid Himself from them.
My intent in today's post is to make it clear that Jesus knew His identity and made it clear. It was for His claimed identity that He was executed. Nothing else makes much sense in my opinion. It is clear that He claimed to be God. What did His other words and deeds reveal about His identity? We will further explore these clues as to the identity of Jesus next time.
When you boil everything down to the essential elements, you are left with the person of Jesus. Who was He? His human life on earth spanned a mere 30-ish years, and yet the impact of that short time on our planet has been without parallel in human history. Why? What was it about Jesus that caused such a stir? As C.S. Lewis famously wrote,
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not Intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)
Lewis clearly elucidates the dilemma faced by those trying to figure out, “Who was this Jesus?” We are left with what was termed thetrilemma,by a 19thcentury preacher named John Duncan.
1. Jesus intentionally deceived humanity by conscious fraud.
2. Jesus was, himself, deluded or deceived.
3. Jesus was Divine.
Another possibility exists. There is the possibility that the Jesus we read about in the Biblical narratives are legendary or “made up,” by the writers. When examining the 4 Biblical narratives describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, we read incredible accounts of things that surely include things that are unusual and hard to believe. However, these accounts also contain things that are messy and don't seem like things that someone trying to create a character would include. For example:
So, we come back to the question of Jesus' identity and it seems that the trilemma gives us our only choices.
Let me know your thoughts.
My apologies for the lack of posts in a the last week. Things have been a bit crazy around the Gerelds' house. I wanted to bring things towards a close in my journey to a coherent, consistent, worldview, that accounts for the world as we experience it. The topic today will be to investigate the motivations for “making up” the Christian religion, or the evidence to support that its formation was based on historical facts that occurred in a real place, in real time, with and through real people.
The road to follow Jesus was not paved with gold on this side of eternity. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself, told the disciples to expect trouble in this world (John 16:33) The aim of following Christ was to be transformed to be made more like Jesus until going on to join Him at home in Heaven. For the twelve disciples who'd followed Christ in His ministry years, or immediately after His resurrection, the commitment to following the carpenter turned itinerant rabbi wasn't met with fame and fortune. Rather, it was primarily met with scorn, derision, hatred, anger, and rejection. Ultimately, for all but one, and maybe two, of the disciples, their belief and resulting commitment to sharing the story of Christ and how He reconciled man to God led to their martyrdom. Various sources reveal how Jesus' disciples left this world.
What do you think? Let me know. Comments and questions are welcome!
I borrowed the causes of death for the disciples from a National Geographic Article. I also learned these in my Church History class from seminary.
For me, one of the most compelling reasons I believe in a good God is the nearly universal human awareness of morality. There are wide-ranging opinions regarding morality. Many people say that morality is subjective. To support their claim, they point to different cultures and the vastly different moral norms found around the globe. It is true. In one culture someone may bring their neighbor dinner while in some remote areas of the world, someone may eat their neighbor for dinner. This extreme example aside, moral norms do vary widely. However, what is consistent is that all people have some sense of morality. Some will balk at this statement claiming that they themselves, or others may be amoral, that “anything goes,” as far as they are concerned. This breaks down as soon as someone “wrongs” them or someone they care about. At that point a person is convinced that morality is a real thing. Still, the argument is made that morality is a human construct, or the result of evolutionary processes that came about to preserve mankind in the survival of the fittest.
The idea that morality is the result of societal evolution is a popular notion, but one that I believe is flawed in its failure to account for moral behaviors that would seem to be in direct opposition to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory and the terms “Survival of the Fittest,” and Natural Selection, refer to the process of less dominant genes ultimately being “beaten out” or removed from the gene pool through various means. For instance, more well adapted organisms may selectively mate with other well adapted partners to the exclusion of the less adapted organisms, thus ending the genetic line of the lesser organisms. Other factors may also play a role in the removal of the so-called “bad genes.” Environmental conditions may change and eliminate some. Predators, including those of the same species may eliminate genetic competition by killing rivals.
When this occurs in nature, among wild animals, there is little concern about morality. The exception to this would be that many people will lament the damage that man has done to the natural environment in cases where an animal's decline may be attributed to mankind's intrusion into nature. Of course, this thought process seems to miss the fact that man's so-called intrusion into nature could also be looked upon as Natural Selection at work as man is supposedly the top of the food chain and the pinnacle of evolution up to this time. Though people tend to blame humanity for our encroachment on other wildlife, most human beings still agree that human life has worth. Therefore, killing people has been looked upon as immoral throughout history with few exceptions. There have been horrific genocides over human history and these have been roundly criticized by humanity. Still, what drove those who committed these atrocities? Did Hitler not aspire to create the Master Race? Was his idea out of line with evolutionary theory, or was it acting upon evolutionary theory? Richard Weikart, Professor of History at Cal State Stanislaus, has written several books addressing this topic. Criticism or praise for his books seems to depend on the worldview of the critic. In his book, From Darwin to Hitler, Weikart explores the connection of Darwinism to Hitler's beliefs and the moral impact these beliefs had in Nazi Germany.
Looking at Nazi Germany gives us an example of an entire culture buying into a particular ideology and the devastating effects that were manifest as a result. Without an objective standard for morality, we are all subject to formulating our own. This is a perilous state for humanity. Things can go smoothly for a culture as long as those in power share common moral norms with the people they lead or govern. However, if those in power have a different ideological or moral belief system, there is reason for the populace to be fearful. If there are no moral absolutes, if there is no objective moral standard, then opinions, feelings, preferences, and ambition may drive the morality of a society. The ramifications for this are profound, particularly if we look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.
From an evolutionary view, humanity should aspire to keep the strongest, smartest, most well-adapted genes in the collective gene pool. Those who don't advance the genetic ascension should be eliminated. As opposed to a moral obligation to care for the elderly, sick, weak, physically or mentally challenged, these people should be removed from the gene pool, and they should not be allowed to use the limited resources available as the earth's population continues to grow. In essence, these “needy” people should be killed. That sounds and is reprehensible. Yet, I find it difficult to come up with a rational argument against it from a purely evolutionary standpoint. On the contrary, there are things that we see in humanity that we instinctively know to be good. These acts contradict a purely evolutionary explanation. For example, Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor was a Navy SEAL manning a sniper hideout along with three of his SEAL teammates during operations in Ramadi, Iraq. On September 29, 2006, insurgents apparently located their position A grenade was tossed through the doorway into their rooftop hideout. Monsoor was closest to the door. His teammates said that “He never took his eye off the grenade. His only movement was down toward it.” Mansoor threw himself onto the grenade killing himself, but saving his teammates. As a member of a SEAL Team, Monsoor would be considered elite in several areas. His physical strength, endurance, and skills would be among the best in the world. His mental aptitude and emotional and psychological prowess would also have to be elite as the training required to become a SEAL is renowned for its brutal combination of physical and emotional endurance challenges. The genetic profile of a SEAL would be a definite “keeper,” for the evolutionary gene pool. Yet, when we see heroism like that of Michael Monsoor, we marvel at the goodness, bravery, and valor of a person who would make such a sacrifice to save others. An evolutionary theorist may contend that this moral choice was made to preserve the genetic contributions of his similarly gifted teammates. This contention seems extremely flawed in that it removes a primary objective for any organism living within a system governed by evolutionary laws. That motivation? To keep your genetic material in the gene pool. Additionally, the choice to sacrifice oneself for the others, to genuinely align with “Survival of the Fittest,” must only be made if it is conclusive that the genetics of the survivors is superior to the one who makes the sacrifice. Obviously, in the heat of battle, these types of choices are made, not because of “evolutionary forces,” but because of character, goodness, and love. I will provide one final example that, for me, is difficult to explain if morality is an evolutionary construct. The name Benedict Arnold has become synonymous with betrayal. Arnold served as a general for the American Continental Army in the Revolutionary War before defecting to the British and leading their troops against his former country as a Brigadier General. Most of us view betrayal as one of the most egregious and hurtful actions that can be taken against another person, or people. Yet, why would this make sense from an evolutionary standpoint? Arnold benefitted greatly financially and vocationally. One could argue that his actions were consistent with a “survival of the fittest” mindset. A traitor may rightly see that their best chance at living and prospering may be to sell out their friends, workmates, etc. If the others weren't smart enough to make that choice, then, they deserve what they get. Of course, this isn't how most people view life. Most of us see these types of actions as despicable. We know that these selfish actions are wrong. Why? God teaches us through the words of Paul as he writes to the church in Rome:
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom. 2:14-15
There are an abundance of verses in the Bible that tell us that God is good. Psalm 106:1 says “Praise the LORD! Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.” Jesus Himself said, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good...." The biblical worldview believes that morality is objectively established by the One Who is good. God is good and defines good. In the same letter to the Roman church, Paul tells them that the mind of man has been darkened by sin. He says that, as a result, we make wrong choices. The prophet Jeremiah writes in his book that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. This may sound harsh, but it does explain the extremes in what various cultures have arrived at in their definitions for morality. It explains the horrors that are possible when morality becomes a relative choice made by mankind that is often driven by convenience or popular opinion. Objective morality as defined by God requires that mankind submits to His authority. This is humbling. I know that there are times in my life when I have tried to define my own morality. My prayer is that I live a life of constant repentance from that tendency. I believe that many people have a mistaken idea about what submission to God's authority really is. Yes, it can be difficult (but life is difficult anyway!). However, submission to a good God, a God who designed every good thing, is not intended to spoil our fun. To the contrary, Jesus tells us that He came that we might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10). The One who invented fun, joy, food, sex, happiness...the One who is good, wants you to have life and have it the way it was designed.
I see goodness in the world. I see evil in the world. I believe both are real. Therefore, I believe in a good God, and I am so grateful to Him.
Until next time!
Evolution has become the go-to response for many who hold to an atheistic worldview when asked to account for the appearance of life on earth. Despite this common refrain, evolution has never been an explanation for the beginning of life. The theory of evolution as presented in Darwin’s Origin of the Species, does not offer an explanation for the appearance of life. Darwin's theory assumes the existence of life and then offers an explanation of how these first, primitive organisms evolved to bring about the remarkable diversity we see today.
Some of the best minds in the world have worked tirelessly trying to formulate laboratory conditions that would allow inanimate, non-living matter to come together to create life. They have never been able to do so. Amazingly, if they were able to construct some sort of living organism, all it would prove is that with the proper environmental conditions, a mind could, through the use of intelligence, design life. The possibility of the environmental conditions coming together and forming life by chance is highly improbable for numerous reasons. Supporters of the idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) have presented various ideas including the so-called “primordial soup,” (a pond, puddle, ocean, lake, etc.) where the various building blocks necessary for the development of life came together and began to mutate, and somehow randomly produced a self-replicating entity. Early evolutionary biologists greatly underestimated the complexity of even the simplest life forms. A simple protozoan is often thought to be one of the earliest, simplest organisms. Even these “simple” organisms are now known to be overwhelmingly complex.
One of the many scientists who worked in the laboratory to build foundational components for life was Stanley Miller. He was able, through input of an electrical charge in combination with water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gasses to form amino acids in a test tube. This has been hailed by many as proof that under the right circumstances, life could be formed by chance in earth's early environment. As I mentioned before, this merely proves that intelligence combined with the right ingredients in the right place, in the right combination, could produce a starting point for life as amino acids are foundational for the formation of proteins. Having all the raw materials necessary to build life isn't the issue. Synthesizing these ingredients in the right combinations, amounts, and in an environment that supports their stability, is what makes abiogenesis extraordinarily improbable given the current atheistic beliefs about the age of the universe, the stability of compounds, and about just how many “ingredients” are necessary for the simplest life to develop.
The simplest life form requires millions of parts at the atomic level.1 In a 1973 book entitled, Evolution: Possible or Impossible, James Coppedge laid out the following time and probability estimates. He allowed for the commonly held view that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, AND that all the components necessary for life were available in the primordial sea, AND that bonding processes were sped up by a trillion times, AND that every atom on earth was used. With those parameters in place the estimated chance of one protein forming would be approximately 1 in 10,000. A protein is not life. It is a building block for life. An estimated 239 proteins are necessary for life to exist. Coppedge estimated the probability of those 239 proteins forming with those assumed properties present on earth to be 1 in 10119,879. The time required to accomplish this would be 10119,831years. This is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000........ longer than the earth has existed. (The number would be 10 with over 100,000 zeroes after it longer than the earth has existed.) This is outside the range of probability. Keep in mind that a fully functioning first organism needs to form before any natural selection/evolution can take place.2
For me, it doesn't appear that there is any good reason to believe that life just popped into existence. Rather, I believe that many atheistic scientists have a preconceived bias that it had to happen through naturalistic causes and therefore a supernatural cause is ruled out a priori. That seems to be a more closed-minded approach to where the evidence leads than that of the theist.
In the upcoming post, I will begin to move away from these high-science discussions to more of my philosophical reasons that I believe God exists. Next we will discuss the possibility of objective morality.
2Coppedge, James, F. 1973. Evolution: Possible or impossible? Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
In 1978, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias would be awarded the Nobel Prize for physics. What had they discovered? In a nutshell, they discovered evidence for the beginning of the universe. These two men were working for Bell Labs attempting to measure “high latitude radiation from the Milky Way.” They were using the world’s most sensitive radio receiving device designed to pick up extremely low temperature radiation. In order to detect the extremely low temperature radiation they were looking for (the Milky Way radiation) they needed to get rid of any other “background noise” that would interfere. After accounting for and removing the other “noise,” they found that there was radiation they were picking up from beyond the Milky Way. Up until that time, many scientists believed in a “steady-state” theory of the universe that basically said that the universe was eternal. Many people had problems with this theory and other ideas were formulated. A few concepts that are out there include the Eternal Inflation/Multiverse Theory, the Oscillating Universe Theory, and other ideas that include things reminiscent of the movie the Matrix. Some of the theories seem pretty fantastic. It seems that many of them want to avoid the implications of a beginning, which the evidence for the Big Bang seems to point to.
Before Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery of the background radiation, many scientists had put forth an idea of a Big Bang. These scientists believed that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. “Creatio ex nihilo,” is the Latin phrase used by scientists meaning creation out of nothing. A couple of these early Big Bang Theorists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman actually predicted that there would be a low level background radiation from the initial explosion…a sort of after-glow of creation. In 1948 they predicted that this background radiation would have a temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin. When Penzias and Wilson discovered the radiation, they found that Alpher and Herman were really close, as the actual temperature was 3 degrees Kelvin.
I sometimes enjoy reading modern scientists’ thoughts on origins, space, time, life, etc. I’ve enjoyed reading some of Stephen Hawking’s writings such as A Brief History of Time. I consider any and every idea based on whether it is logically coherent, consistent and whether it jibes with what I know of science. I’m not as concerned with the certifications or titles of the person sharing the idea as I am the validity of his/her arguments. That being said, I recognize that I am a person with presuppositions and biases. I am not alone in this. Everyone has them. Including the scientists. What I have found in listening to many ideas regarding the beginning of the universe, is that that at some point the theorist begins to use language that sounds more meta-physical than physical. There are often attributes of the universe described using deistic qualities or, nonsensical descriptions of time before time began.
The difficulty of the Big Bang for many is that it necessitates a beginning. But, this beginning is very different than anything ever witnessed or experienced. This would be the beginning of time, space, matter, and mass, EVERYTHING in the physical universe. There are innumerable difficulties for the thinker who believes that the physical universe is all there is. One difficulty is what, or Who caused the beginning. The attributes of the cause/Cause would necessarily transcend time, space, matter, etc. To state that affirmatively, one would say that the Cause would be immaterial, timeless, and infinitely powerful. One could also argue that the Cause would be personal as it/He chose to create something from nothing. The ability to choose an action versus inaction, or to actualize the potential universe, seems like it would require a mind. I have my biases. I get it. But, I’d encourage you to read some of the science that seeks an explanation apart from a cause like the one I describe. You will quickly see that there are biases throughout as well.
Earlier today I read excerpts from a recent interview with Stephen Hawking in which he was seeking to describe time before time and the universe before the universe. Professor Hawking has a brilliant mind and has contributed much to science particularly in the fields of quantum mechanics, physics, mathematics, and cosmology. Still, there are times when I read the ponderings of his gifted mind and wonder what pushes him past the simple yet astonishing truth that an Infinite, Powerful, Timeless, Loving Creator brought this all in to being. I’ll close with a couple of quotes by Robert Jastrow, the former Dartmouth Professor, physicist, astronomer, and NASA scientist.
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." God and the Astronomers (Norton 1978)
Jastrow, who referred to himself as an agnostic and a non-believer, concluded in a 1982 Christianity Today interview:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Until next time when we’ll discuss the appearance of life in our universe.
The teleological argument states that if something shows signs of design, then, there must be a designer. This argument was famously discussed in William Paley’s 1802, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of a Deity. The oft used “Watchmaker” analogy derives from there. Here is a quick paraphrase of the Watchmaker analogy.
I’m walking in the forest and hit my foot on a rock. You ask me, “Where did that rock come from?” I answer that the rock, for all I know, has always been there. Or, that it naturally ended up there through erosive processes, a landslide, etc. If however, I am walking through the forest and find a watch lying on the ground, my deduction would be different. I would assume that the watch hadn’t come together and arrived at that point by natural processes. The intricacies, function, and design of the watch necessitates a designer, or a watchmaker.
Paley went on to describe that the appearance of complexity in the natural world pointed to an even more powerful, intelligent Designer. The premises and conclusion of Paley’s teleological argument goes something like this.
Paley’s argument is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it immune to criticism. Richard Dawkins, the atheistic crusader, has famously responded to Paley’s argument with a book entitled, The Blind Watchmaker. David Hume penned his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in 1779, which sets forth his arguments against the teleological argument. As with any argument, including arguments for God, everyone approaches the data/evidences with their own presuppositions. That is, no one is without bias. Understanding that bias is inevitable is helpful in understanding why something that seems perfectly reasonable to you may seem completely irrational to someone else.
For our purposes, we will not go into tremendous detail regarding the teleological argument. Instead, we will discuss some foundational topics and principles.
The Beginning of the Universe, including all matter, mass, energy and time.
Secondly, the idea of an eternal universe denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law states that this finite energy is being expended in its usable form as it is transferred into less usable, less accessible forms, i.e. the ash and the radiant heat from the burning wood. The Second Law is also the source of the idea that the universe is moving toward disorder or entropy. As the usable energy in the universe is transferred into less usable, less accessible forms, entropy is the natural result. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out of usable energy and the universe would have reached chaotic disorder.
Finally, the idea of a Creator God is consistent with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics as He was the outside agent Who was neither material, energy, mass, etc. Himself, but Who acted to introduce these, or create these out of nothing. Some may contend that God as the answer isn’t intellectually satisfying or scientifically rigorous. I disagree. Science is limited to observable phenomena in our universe, i.e. light, sound, matter, mass, energy, time, etc. Those who want to explore beyond the beginning of these are leaving the realm of the scientific and enter the realm of the meta-physic or the supernatural. One may contend that just because a god created the universe, doesn’t mean it was the God of the Bible. This is a valid argument. We will explore that challenge in a later post.
Most scientists have recognized the problems inherent in the ideas of a self-creating universe or an eternal universe and have developed alternate theories. Most of these theories simply push the question of a start back one step. Others may use terminology and descriptions that sound oddly like those one would use to describe a Creator/God, but since their presuppositions don’t allow for it, they use other words and terms in their descriptions. The general conclusion in the scientific community is that the universe has a definite beginning. Most scientists refer to this as “The Big Bang.”
Next week, we will begin to look at the “Big Bang,” and its implications in the scientific community as well as for those of us who believe that God created the universe.
(Thank you to Jeff Miller, PhD at Apologetics Press. Your article, God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective, was helpful to me as I wrote this. https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 )
How would one learn the truth about a person from history? Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington…anyone we wanted to learn about who preceded our arrival on planet earth. A fair questioner could ask if we have a high level of certainty that the aforementioned individuals actually lived. The same questioner could then go about using the Historical Method to determine the legitimacy of the claims made about these people. He may then weigh the forensic evidence that these people lived their lives in particular ways. In order to learn about these leaders from the past, or any other person from the past, requires that we first search for literature, archaeological evidence, and other clues that allude to their existence.
The Historical Method is a means for collecting data to discover what has transpired in the past. When investigating purported events, whether alleged to have occurred a month ago or a millennium ago, all evidence must be examined to determine the accuracy of reports. When reviewing historical writings (often referred to as textual criticism) there are numerous factors that historians consider.
1. Authorship—was the person an eyewitness to the events they are reporting, a primary source. Or, was the person a secondary source, that is, did they get their information directly from a primary source.
a.Motivation of the writer. Was there a motive for the writer to communicate falsehood or truth?
2. Dating—how much time has passed since the events occurred and when the author wrote his/her account.
3. Manuscripts—Original or a copy? If a copy?
a.Accuracy compared to the original. Deduced through comparing multiple copies looking for textual variants.
i.How early are the copies? How many do we have? These factors help assure the veracity of the copies.
There are many other criteria that may be considered when researching history, but these are some of the important ones. I will not begin to examine the New Testament accounts of Jesus, or even go into the Old Testament documents in today’s blog entry. I am only wanting to establish that there is a means for discovering historical fact or at least a means for determining whether there is good evidence for purported events. I also want to establish that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discover historical truth through the scientific method. Scientific inquiry is of great value in determining scientific truth. It is useless with unrepeatable events such as births. You and I have a birthdate. Science will not reveal that to us. Historical documents such as our Birth Certificates, Passports, newspaper articles about us, biographies written about us, etc. are how one would learn about us.
Later in this series we will assess historical documents in reference to the God of the Bible, including the Bible itself, as well as other Christian and non-Christian references. Next however, we will examine the evidence for a Creator/God from nature including life on earth as well as the apparent design of the universe. This, “argument from design” is often referred to as the Teleological Argument.
Until next time.
As we discussed in the previous post, there is truth. To refute that statement requires the refutation to be true. So, if someone says, “There is no absolute truth.” Their self-contradiction is made clear by asking the question, “Is that true?” Everything we do in this world is contingent upon there being objective truth. Science depends on truth. Math depends on truth. Reality depends on our recognizing that the universe operates with the assumption of certain truths.
Each day we go into the world with the opportunity to make an impact. Each person whose paths cross ours matters. Lives intersect for a reason. I believe there is One who directs our steps to these sometimes seemingly random meetings. My goal for these encounters is that I make a difference. That is my desire for those who venture across my blog. I hope you are blessed and it makes a difference for you.