A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father , where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect? Says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, How have we despised Thy name? You are presenting defiles food upon My altar. But you say, How have we defiled thee? In that you say, The table of the Lord is to be despised. But when you present blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and the sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly? says the Lord of hosts. “But now will you not entreat God’s favor, that He may be gracious to us? With such an offering yon your part will He receive any of you kindly? says the Lord of hosts. Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on my altar! I am not pleased with you, says the Lord of hosts, nor will I accept an offering from you. (Malachi 1:6-10)
And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, And if you will not take it to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the Lord of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take it to heart.
(Malachi 2:1-2)
I believe the questions that hit’s the hardest is “Where is the honor due to me?” I cant imagine how it would feel if God himself stopped me in the middle of worship and told me that He would rather I go home than worship Him half-heartedly…ouch. God expects the people to offer the very best of there offerings. Deuteronomy 17:1 “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God”. God is not honored when He is given something that has no value, instead we must give what truly cost us. So why is it that the people refused to give the very best? Malachi 1:13 “you also say, 'Oh, what a weariness!' And you sneer at it," Says the Lord of hosts. And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; Thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?
Says the Lord.” The people thought they deserved better (or what they thought was better), so they figured “If God wont give His best, why should we?” What the priests and the people failed to realize is God already had gave His best, Jesus. Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors”. God wants 100% from us and as we have seen from the previous verse He deserves every bit of it. Now you may be thinking one of two things (or maybe both of them).
1. I am exempt from this because I am not a priest
2. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, I know longer have to offer anything.
Lets address the first, when a person gives there life to Christ they become a priest. We are called to share the gospel with the world with the love and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.
(1 Peter 2:9)
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
(Exodus 19:5-6)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy” Spirit”.
(Matthew 28:19)
Now for the second, What do we have to offer? Though we don’t offer animal sacrifice, when we choose to follow Christ we offer our lives to Him and his grace.
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service”.
(Romans 12:1)
If we are called to give our bodies, we must give all of it with a sincere heart. God wants us to want to be with Him. A relationship with someone who feels forced to be with you is not going to be very fruitful. God loves a sincere heart and why should we not be sincere. He does not promise an easy life but He does promise that it will be worth it. The very strength we thrive on to serve the Lord comes from Him. He promises to be the rock that will never be shaken. He does not say we wont face any storms but He will provide as ship that will never sink. May we serve the Lord with all our heart, mind and soul. When you wake up in the morning give the day to God and may it completely be in His hands. The Lord who gave us His life so that we may live deserves our very best. We must not find ourselves clinching to things of this world for that very object is what is keeping us from growing in our relationship with Him.
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
(Jeremiah 29:11-13)
In His Grip,
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Exposing "The alternative"
For the skeptic and the learning apologist:
Before applying mathematics and probability to the origin of life, we need to consider seven parameters that will affect the formation of a single protein. First, their oare over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. This means, that in order to have life, the selection process for building proteins must be very discriminating. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as right-handed and left-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendancy is for left- and right-handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, if there was a pond of chemicals ("primordial soup"), it would have been diluted with many of the wrong types of amino acids and other chemicals available for bonding, making the proper amino acids no longer usable. This means there would have been fewer of the required amino acids used to build the biological protein. Fifth, amino acids require an energy source for bonding. Raw energy from the sun needs to be captured and converted into usable energy. Where did the energy converter come from? It would require energy to build this biological machine. However, before this energy converter can capture raw energy, it needs an energy source to build it, a catch-22 situation. Sixth, proteins without protection of the cell membrane would disintegrate in water (hydrolysis), disintegrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen and disintegrate due to ultraviolet rays of the sun if there was no oxygen present to form the protective ozone layer. Seventh, natural selection cannot be invoked at the pre-biotic level. The first living cell must be in place before natural selection can function. Considering all seven of these hurdles, how probable is it that a single protein that a single protein could have evolved from a pool of chemicals?
So far the most commonly used argument for the origin of life is Stanley Millers experiment. Unfortunately
this experiment has been given credit by being placed in science books across the nation as how life first
came about. Though convincing at first if looked at carefully this is an extremely improbable and flawed alternative to the origin of life. I have studied this experiment and even if given billions of years it is still dangerously flawed. Miller's construction of sending a bolt of electricity into this container filled with carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor excludes oxygen, why? Because oxygen will oxidize amino acids and destroy them. Even in an early earth if there were no atmosphere then ultraviolet rays would destroy the amino acids. Also you must factor in hydrolysis which is the decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water. Now yes he did create some amino acids but it was only because he was able to suck them down into a chamber where the electric current couldn’t fry them if they sat there. Where in the primitive earth would you find such a contraption. It would be like saying a bolt of electricity struck a river bank and made clay, and that clay had the texture and form of a brick, then saying that raw energy could create the empire state building. the few amino acids that were found were 50% racemic where 100% purity is essential. 99% of the compounds were toxic.
To produce even non-functional amino acids and proteins, researchers must highly control the experiment in various ways because the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins. Examples include thermal denaturing of proteins by breaking apart their hydrogen bonds and disrupting the hydrophobic attraction between non-polar side groups. Very few proteins remain biologically active above 50ºC, or below about 30ºC, and most require very narrow conditions. Cooking food is a good example of using heat to denature protein, and refrigeration of using cold to slow down biological activity. As any molecular biologist knows from daily lab work, the pH also must be strictly regulated. Too much acid or base adversely affects the hydrogen bonding between polar R groups and also disrupts the ionic bonds formed by the salt bridges in protein. Miller had to deal with the fact that the common cross-reactions of biochemical reaction products cause destruction or interfere with amino acid production. All compounds that interfere with bonding must be isolated or they will destroy the proteins. Therefore, Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds that are not normally found in life. Otherwise, his apparatus would have produced many destructive cross-reactions. After more than 50 years nothing better has come about or else we would all hear about it. Only an extremely intelligent and infinitely complex Creator could have brought life into existence…. His ways are incomprehensible. Information comes from an informer, messages come from messengers. We have a magnificent transcending God who has showed us through his creation how His ways are far superior to ours. This will lead us into Gods ways in the next topic. Isaiah 55:9
Before applying mathematics and probability to the origin of life, we need to consider seven parameters that will affect the formation of a single protein. First, their oare over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. This means, that in order to have life, the selection process for building proteins must be very discriminating. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as right-handed and left-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendancy is for left- and right-handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, if there was a pond of chemicals ("primordial soup"), it would have been diluted with many of the wrong types of amino acids and other chemicals available for bonding, making the proper amino acids no longer usable. This means there would have been fewer of the required amino acids used to build the biological protein. Fifth, amino acids require an energy source for bonding. Raw energy from the sun needs to be captured and converted into usable energy. Where did the energy converter come from? It would require energy to build this biological machine. However, before this energy converter can capture raw energy, it needs an energy source to build it, a catch-22 situation. Sixth, proteins without protection of the cell membrane would disintegrate in water (hydrolysis), disintegrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen and disintegrate due to ultraviolet rays of the sun if there was no oxygen present to form the protective ozone layer. Seventh, natural selection cannot be invoked at the pre-biotic level. The first living cell must be in place before natural selection can function. Considering all seven of these hurdles, how probable is it that a single protein that a single protein could have evolved from a pool of chemicals?
So far the most commonly used argument for the origin of life is Stanley Millers experiment. Unfortunately
this experiment has been given credit by being placed in science books across the nation as how life first
came about. Though convincing at first if looked at carefully this is an extremely improbable and flawed alternative to the origin of life. I have studied this experiment and even if given billions of years it is still dangerously flawed. Miller's construction of sending a bolt of electricity into this container filled with carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor excludes oxygen, why? Because oxygen will oxidize amino acids and destroy them. Even in an early earth if there were no atmosphere then ultraviolet rays would destroy the amino acids. Also you must factor in hydrolysis which is the decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water. Now yes he did create some amino acids but it was only because he was able to suck them down into a chamber where the electric current couldn’t fry them if they sat there. Where in the primitive earth would you find such a contraption. It would be like saying a bolt of electricity struck a river bank and made clay, and that clay had the texture and form of a brick, then saying that raw energy could create the empire state building. the few amino acids that were found were 50% racemic where 100% purity is essential. 99% of the compounds were toxic.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Aren't we born atheists?
Humans are the only species that are able to self examine. We ask ourselves “What is my purpose, and why am I here”? Assuming that people are born without the knowledge of God is not provable either. Infants are born without the knowledge of airplanes, but that has no bearing on the validity of airplanes whatsoever. We cannot ignore either the evidence in Scripture. Who are we as a species? The writer of Psalm 8 sees our potential and strives to give us honor and dignity and purpose by making us “a little lower than the angels.” Then how does an atheist reckon with the most powerful description of the gift of love? Concepts such as love, trust, hope, friendship, caring, respect, self-sacrifice and even humor, go to the very heart of our humanity. They are spiritual entities, not intellectual or physical. They introduce us to a sense of the presence of God every day. Life’s experiences are therefore not a matter of will. People get married, for example, not on the basis of arguments but on a determined desire to build a happy, meaningful and fruitful relationship. I do know that not all people get married for the same reason but traditional marriage is based off of these desires. Man and women engulfed in sin do marry for wrong reasons. So it is with our understanding of God. GOD made US. Technically speaking a skeptic says, “I doubt that God exists” and an agnostic says, I don’t know (or can’t know) whether God exists.” But an atheist claims to know or (or at least believe) that God does not exist, which would be a bold assertion whether it be an infant or a young adult. There are many types of agnostics (as I’m sure you know). Some of the types I believe are based off of apathetic ignorance and or arrogance. Some agnostics believe you can’t know anything hardly recognizing they just made a self-contradicting statement. Others believe there is either insufficient evidence or none at all; sadly simple ignorance is the reason for that belief. Socrates said “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing”. Wisdom is the knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action. So if the statement the typical agnostic makes is you can’t know truth then how do they know that’s true? Isn’t that a truth statement in itself? Could it be that we are born children of God but allow the convincing and deceiving world views shift the way we think. Many former Christians I have met made their transition to skepticism based off of weak reasons. There weak faith led to disbelief, disbelief to bias outlook, and bias outlook to their current stance on God.
The canon of Scripture
To add to or subtract from God’s words would be to prevent God’s people from obeying him fully, for commands that were subtracted would not be known to the people, and words that were added might require extra things of the people which God had not commanded.
Deuteronomy 4:2
“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
If we are to trust and obey God absolutely we must have a collection of words that we are certain are God’s own words to us. If there are any sections of Scripture about which we have doubts whether they are God’s words or not, we will not consider them to have absolute divine authority and we will not trust them as much as we would trust God himself. The earliest collection of written words of God was the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 31:18
“And when He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
The content of the Old Testament canon continued to grow until the time of the end of the writing process. If we date Haggai to 520 B.C, Zechariah to 520-518 B.C, and Malachi around 435 B.C, we have an idea of the approximate dates of the last Old Testament prophets. Roughly coinciding with this period are the last books of the Old Testament history-Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. Ezra went to Jerusalem in 458 B.C, and Nehemiah was in Jerusalem from 445-433 B.C. Esther was written sometime after the death of Xerxes-1 (=Ahasuerus) in 465 B.C, and a date during the reign of Artaxerxes 1 (464-423 B.C.). Thus approximately 435 B.C. there were no further additions to the Old Testament canon.
Josephus (born A.D. 37/38) explained “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets” (Against Apion 1.42) This statement by the greatest Jewish historian of the first century A.D. shows that he knew of the writings now considered part of the “Apocrypha” (The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals) but that he and many of his contemporaries considered these other writings “no worthy of equal credit” with what we now know as the Old Testament Scriptures. There had been, in Josephus’s viewpoint, no more “Words of God” added to Scripture after about 435 B.C
In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples, on the one hand, and the Jewish leaders or Jewish people, on the other hand, that additions to the Old Testament canon ceased after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The fact is confirmed by quotations of Jesus and the New Testament authors from the Old Testament. According to one account Jesus and the New Testament authors quote the various parts of the Old Testament Scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. The absence of any such reference to other literature as divinely authoritative, and extremely frequent reference of hundreds of places in the Old Testament as divinely authoritative, gives strong confirmation to the fact that the New Testament authors agreed that the established Old Testament canon, more and no less, was to be take as God’s very words
Deuteronomy 4:2
“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
If we are to trust and obey God absolutely we must have a collection of words that we are certain are God’s own words to us. If there are any sections of Scripture about which we have doubts whether they are God’s words or not, we will not consider them to have absolute divine authority and we will not trust them as much as we would trust God himself. The earliest collection of written words of God was the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 31:18
“And when He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
The content of the Old Testament canon continued to grow until the time of the end of the writing process. If we date Haggai to 520 B.C, Zechariah to 520-518 B.C, and Malachi around 435 B.C, we have an idea of the approximate dates of the last Old Testament prophets. Roughly coinciding with this period are the last books of the Old Testament history-Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. Ezra went to Jerusalem in 458 B.C, and Nehemiah was in Jerusalem from 445-433 B.C. Esther was written sometime after the death of Xerxes-1 (=Ahasuerus) in 465 B.C, and a date during the reign of Artaxerxes 1 (464-423 B.C.). Thus approximately 435 B.C. there were no further additions to the Old Testament canon.
Josephus (born A.D. 37/38) explained “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets” (Against Apion 1.42) This statement by the greatest Jewish historian of the first century A.D. shows that he knew of the writings now considered part of the “Apocrypha” (The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals) but that he and many of his contemporaries considered these other writings “no worthy of equal credit” with what we now know as the Old Testament Scriptures. There had been, in Josephus’s viewpoint, no more “Words of God” added to Scripture after about 435 B.C
In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples, on the one hand, and the Jewish leaders or Jewish people, on the other hand, that additions to the Old Testament canon ceased after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The fact is confirmed by quotations of Jesus and the New Testament authors from the Old Testament. According to one account Jesus and the New Testament authors quote the various parts of the Old Testament Scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. The absence of any such reference to other literature as divinely authoritative, and extremely frequent reference of hundreds of places in the Old Testament as divinely authoritative, gives strong confirmation to the fact that the New Testament authors agreed that the established Old Testament canon, more and no less, was to be take as God’s very words
Challenging Chance
If you look at the individual parts of the eye (wires) as simple organs than yes it would seem plausible that natural selection and random mutation could have brought about the complex eye we have today. However each part of the eye is highly complex, even the proteins which make up the eye are far complex than you make them out to be. The human brain consists of 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina which is also part of the brain contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells.
There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. The average person consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes unlimited. Each protein in our body however must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. I urge you to take an honest look at the probability and see if gradual evolution is still a reasonable argument.
The 500 amino acids that make up an average sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (one followed by 600 zeroes). If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations in a second, we would still stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination
There are things that are irreducibly complex (bacterial flagellum) how does gradual evolution explain this. For biological things to operate they need genetic information. My question to you is where did the information of DNA come from how did it arise in the first place. Lots of people have wanted to explain the origin of information by reference to the laws of physics and chemistry or by reference of chemical properties of the constituent parts of the DNA. That would be like saying that you could explain the information in the morning paper by reference to the physics and chemistry of ink bonding to paper. There is a chemical explanation as to why the ink sticks to the paper but that does not explain the way the ink got arranged to convey a message that could be understood by speakers of English language information requires a material medium but it transcends the material medium
Even if every mutation has a positive result (which it doesn’t) an unguided process has far greater odds than that of an intelligent designer. Forgive me for using Occam's razor on this one but to put it simply a designer seems much more probable than chance. There is only one known cause for the origin of information and that is intelligence. It looks like a creator left his signature for us on creation. -Psalms 19
There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. The average person consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes unlimited. Each protein in our body however must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. I urge you to take an honest look at the probability and see if gradual evolution is still a reasonable argument.
The 500 amino acids that make up an average sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (one followed by 600 zeroes). If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations in a second, we would still stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination
There are things that are irreducibly complex (bacterial flagellum) how does gradual evolution explain this. For biological things to operate they need genetic information. My question to you is where did the information of DNA come from how did it arise in the first place. Lots of people have wanted to explain the origin of information by reference to the laws of physics and chemistry or by reference of chemical properties of the constituent parts of the DNA. That would be like saying that you could explain the information in the morning paper by reference to the physics and chemistry of ink bonding to paper. There is a chemical explanation as to why the ink sticks to the paper but that does not explain the way the ink got arranged to convey a message that could be understood by speakers of English language information requires a material medium but it transcends the material medium
Even if every mutation has a positive result (which it doesn’t) an unguided process has far greater odds than that of an intelligent designer. Forgive me for using Occam's razor on this one but to put it simply a designer seems much more probable than chance. There is only one known cause for the origin of information and that is intelligence. It looks like a creator left his signature for us on creation. -Psalms 19
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The Moral Argument
The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
The Teleological Argument
The word teleology comes from telos which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, something had to have caused it for a reason. In other words, design implies a designer. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).
The teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly, every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact, top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.
In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
The teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly, every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact, top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.
In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument derives its title from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have had a beginning. So, today, the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually—at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true, try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again, we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider a simple example of the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (such as I drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also does not exist simply because of what I am. So, I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually—at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true, try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again, we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider a simple example of the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (such as I drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also does not exist simply because of what I am. So, I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!
Check it out at Gotquestions.org
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Why Christianity?
If there was the ultimate question at final jeopardy this would be it. First of all there is a question you must ask your self and that is, is truth important? Christianity claims to be the Truth, In fact, Jesus claims to be the “Exclusive Truth” meaning the only way to God is through Him. Secondly, Jesus said those who believe on him will not perish but have eternal life, be saved. These are strong, clear-cut statements, but are they True? Is there evidence behind the claims of Jesus being truth?
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:6
“that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
John 3:15-17
“He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he“.
Deuteronomy 32:4
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
We have all fallen short to the glory of God. Jesus died for our sins so that we are forgiven. By Gods amazing grace we are saved when we submit our lives to him. I ask you to imagine this. You are in a courtroom standing before the judge. The only difference here is you did not sin against the community but to him. He looks at you and reads off everything you have done… He then leans over and says I am going set you free and I will pay the price for you. The first thing that comes to your mind is “I don’t deserve this.” But God loves us so much that he does not wish to see anyone perish. We have an infinitely loving God who has called us to do the same. To love the unloved, to be there for those when no one would.
“Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins.”
Proverbs 10:12
“Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”
John 15:13
"In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling.
Exodus 15:13
God, who calls us friend, and children of His, loves us so much. Though we walk away from him and curse His name whether out of anger or ignorance He still loves us this unconditional love that will never die. This is God, this is Jesus who was crucified on the cross so that we may have eternal life and salvation in the kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:6
“that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
John 3:15-17
“He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he“.
Deuteronomy 32:4
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
We have all fallen short to the glory of God. Jesus died for our sins so that we are forgiven. By Gods amazing grace we are saved when we submit our lives to him. I ask you to imagine this. You are in a courtroom standing before the judge. The only difference here is you did not sin against the community but to him. He looks at you and reads off everything you have done… He then leans over and says I am going set you free and I will pay the price for you. The first thing that comes to your mind is “I don’t deserve this.” But God loves us so much that he does not wish to see anyone perish. We have an infinitely loving God who has called us to do the same. To love the unloved, to be there for those when no one would.
“Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins.”
Proverbs 10:12
“Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”
John 15:13
"In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling.
Exodus 15:13
God, who calls us friend, and children of His, loves us so much. Though we walk away from him and curse His name whether out of anger or ignorance He still loves us this unconditional love that will never die. This is God, this is Jesus who was crucified on the cross so that we may have eternal life and salvation in the kingdom of Heaven.
Right and wrong (Part 2)
Right and wrong Part 2
There are two main feelings someone faces when making a decision. What I ought to do and what I ought not to do. A lot of the time if the task undesirable or even dangerous the “ought to” is the weaker of the two decisions. For example someone you do not know is hanging from a cliff screaming for help. By helping them you put your own life in danger yet you don’t even know the person. The first reaction and sadly the weakest is “I ought to do something” immediately after that comes the rationalizing on if saving this person is worth the risk of your own life. There is one standard that stands alone in this and this is the little voice inside of all of us telling us to do the weaker of the two decisions. Even though we would be putting our own lives in danger the desire to rescue or to do good hits all of us it comes naturally almost as if written in our DNA. Now you may argue that this is nothing but a “Herd instinct” doing things for the good of society is the only reason why we do good, but this is false. C.S Lewis once said in his book Mere Christianity “Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct-by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.” So where does this come from? Not from us, C.S Lewis goes on by saying “The law of Human Nature, or right or wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behavior. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else-a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey” This law which is above man comes from God, who has put in all of us this desire to do good. God is all true and all loving. He blessed us with free will and loves to see us use it to glorify him. We all know the good we ought to do and the conviction it carries. Your next question may be well there are so many religions out there why Christianity? Lets dive right into that on the next topic.
There are two main feelings someone faces when making a decision. What I ought to do and what I ought not to do. A lot of the time if the task undesirable or even dangerous the “ought to” is the weaker of the two decisions. For example someone you do not know is hanging from a cliff screaming for help. By helping them you put your own life in danger yet you don’t even know the person. The first reaction and sadly the weakest is “I ought to do something” immediately after that comes the rationalizing on if saving this person is worth the risk of your own life. There is one standard that stands alone in this and this is the little voice inside of all of us telling us to do the weaker of the two decisions. Even though we would be putting our own lives in danger the desire to rescue or to do good hits all of us it comes naturally almost as if written in our DNA. Now you may argue that this is nothing but a “Herd instinct” doing things for the good of society is the only reason why we do good, but this is false. C.S Lewis once said in his book Mere Christianity “Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct-by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.” So where does this come from? Not from us, C.S Lewis goes on by saying “The law of Human Nature, or right or wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behavior. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else-a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey” This law which is above man comes from God, who has put in all of us this desire to do good. God is all true and all loving. He blessed us with free will and loves to see us use it to glorify him. We all know the good we ought to do and the conviction it carries. Your next question may be well there are so many religions out there why Christianity? Lets dive right into that on the next topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
