Dr. Fernandes gives a quick series of evidences for the existence of God. He does a great job of summarizing up several well known arguments (cosmological, teleological, etc) and looks at their implementations.
This is an excerpt from Dr. Fernandes’ book, “God, Government and the Road to Tyranny“.
Moral relativists deny the absolute moral law. Still, they, like all people, recognize the evil actions of others when they are wronged. When they are wronged, they appeal to an objective and universal law that stands above man. Moral relativists deny the absolute moral law in the lecture hall, but they live by it in their everyday lives. Moral relativists reserve the right for themselves to call the actions of Hitler wrong, but, if there is no such thing as right and wrong (as the moral relativists say), they cannot really call any action wrong.
The moral law does not ultimately come from within each individual, for then no one could call the actions of another, such as Hitler, evil. The moral law does not ultimately come from each society, for then one society could not call the actions of another society (such as Nazi Germany) wrong. Finally, the moral law does not ultimately come from world consensus, for world consensus is often wrong. World consensus once thought the world was flat and that slavery was morally permissible.
Appealing to world or societal consensus as the ultimate source of the moral law is actually just an extension of the view that the individual is the ultimate source. The difference is only quantitative (the number of people increases). However, for there to be a moral law above all men (in order to judge all men), this moral law must be qualitatively above all men. If there is an absolute moral law qualitatively above all men, all societies, and the world consensus, then there must be an absolute moral law Giver that stands qualitatively above all men, all societies, and world consensus.
The absolute moral law is eternal and unchanging, for we use it to condemn the actions of past generations. Since the moral law is eternal and unchanging, the moral law Giver must also be eternal and unchanging. The moral law is not descriptive of what is; it is prescriptive of what should be. Prescriptive laws need a Prescriber.
Since the absolute moral law leads directly to the existence of the theistic God (the absolute moral law Giver), many atheists and pantheists may feel compelled to reject it’s existence. On the other hand, people who wish to live promiscuous lives often choose to reject God’s existence. The apostle John appears to be talking about these people:
“And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:19-20).
“With God all things are possible.”
For some Christians this truism is a mantra, spoken whenever obstacles or trials stand in their way. God will overcome! Seriously, is there really anything God can’t do? It seems like common sense, doesn’t it? God is capable of doing anything.
However, a young YouTube apologist called MigKillerTwo, in his second video on defending Substance Dualism, had something quite interesting to say on the subject. When confronting this question, his answer was both enlightening and honest. Before I get to his answer, however, there are a few scripture verses to consider.
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matt 19:25-26)
Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God. (Luke 1:36-37)
These verses are standard faire for a Christian layman. Imagine my surprise when this verse was brought into the conversation.
Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. (Heb 6:17-18)
Apparently, atleast in one area, something is impossible for God. God cannot lie. From here, ones mind begins to ponder: What else is it impossible for God? Why are they impossible? Does this mean there’s a contradiction in the Bible?
This is where MigKillerTwo stepped in and gave a well reasoned answer. First, he admitted that there are things God cannot do, like: lie, sin or die. However, in his reading of the scripture, that did not present a contradiction. The statement, “nothing is impossible” merely means: God cannot fail to accomplish all that He sets out to do. Nothing is withheld from Him (God is all powerful).
MigKillerTwo didn’t stop there. He also explained why certain things were impossible for God. These fall into two categories:
1) Behavior against His own nature.
“God is Love” (I John 4:8b)
“God is just” (II Thess 1:8)
2) Behavior that is impossible by definition (logical contradictions).
So when the classic question comes up: “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?”, you can confidently say: Yes. The physical body of Jesus certainly had limitations on how much it could lift. So yes, it is possible. If they demand you give an answer for God the Father, you can safely ignore the question. It is logically inconsistent. God is Spirit and as such is not subject to the laws of gravity. When God did take on a body, He was Jesus. Therefore your original answer stands. This answer is not logically impossible nor against God’s nature.
As Christians must be clear with ourselves: God will accomplish everything He sets out to do. Nothing that is logically possible is beyond His grasp. However, God will not act against His loving nature (and aren’t we glad He doesn’t).
I hope that explains what I learned from MigKillerTwo’s video and I pray it gives you the same small amount of insight I received.
Over the past few years, I’ve been involved in a number of “text” debates on YouTube. Whether in the form of 500-word comments or full-fledged e-mail debates, they often help me discover my own reasons for believing more fully.
After watching a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and a woefully unprepared professor of philosophy, I read through the comments to look for anything of interest. One particular posted challenged anyone to e-mail him a response to his amazing textual response.
Well, having watched the entire series (12 parts I believe), I decided to clarify the stance of Dr. Craig … and ended up following his arguments to obtain my own reasons to believe. Here, printed below, is the e-mail I received (from my challenge) and my response.
“haha I am not claiming that this is the truth but that it is at worst as equally possible as a creator, can you demonstrate how it is possible for all of these [universal physical] constants to be different and if so how much different can they be? Simply asserting that all these constants could be changed liked turning a dial or knob proves nothing. So we aren’t “going with” multiverse yet we are just looking into it instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying “god did it“
The “anthropic principle” argument, as it is called, isn’t questioning whether the constants of the universe can change. The weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity, and the other constants behave in a consistent way. In doing so, they allow matter to exist, planets to retain atmospheres, and life to exist.
The question isn’t, “Can these constants be changed?”. The question is, “Why do these constants exist in the first place?” The constants of the universe don’t have to exist (there’s no universal law necessitating gravity or the weak nuclear force). However, they do exist. Without them all working together in just the right way, no life could inhabit this universe.
If you take the odds of all the forces working together (like a great refined machine), you get an astronomical number (pardon the pun). Positing a near infinite number of universes, each with different “constants”, is a fair way of justifying this universes existence: We’re just the lucky one who drew all the right straws in just the right order.
However, this is pure imagination. There is no evidence supporting any multiverse theory. Is is pure speculation for which it is impossible, by definition, to find any evidence. This is just a “god” theory in a different package (the mulitverses are in “heaven” and we can’t see them or detect them, but we know, by faith, that they are there). Merely stating a conjecture does not make it more likely than any other.
——————————————————–
“The monkey’s writing Shakespeare argument is totally irrelevant for what we are trying to analyze how and why our or any universe could start from non-intelligence not the odds of intelligence creating something written and why would you assume the odds are the same or similar?”
The point of that argument is: If you have semi-intelligent beings failing to create a mildly complex form (a book) and that because of a lack of intelligence, how can you expect something infinitely more complex (life) to form without intelligence?
——————————————————
“I am sorry your god of the gaps is insufficient. We do ask ourselves how was our universe created? This is a gap in our knowledge that will hopefully be filled soon. There have been many natural events in which people thought that could only operate through direct godly control (formation of solar systems, etc) for they were unexplainable otherwise, then science comes a long and shows how natural mindless systems can cause them. So I do not assume that there could not be a natural process of some kind that can create universes”
Indeed, your problem, as I’ve shown in the multiverse argument, is a “science-in-the-gaps” issue. All kinds of speculations are tossed about these days, most without a shred of proof nor the hope of discovering any in the future. Yet, it is somehow more plausible than an intelligent designer merely because it is a naturalistic solution. If you are to claim that our theory is false because we have no evidence, and I absolutely believe we do, then how can a wild conjecture you believe be any more true?
As for things like forming solar systems or forming stars, here is another glaring problem. It is mathematically possible for stars to form, but only in the wake of an exploding supernova. So where did the “population I” (first generation) stars come from? We can’t see any in the universe. As a matter of fact, no matter how far “back” we look all the stars are the same (same composition, same sizes, and same life cycles). On that note, where do elements heavier than iron come from? There is nothing in the known universe capable of creating them. There are many “problems” for modern science for which answers are “invented”, believed, and then extolled as true to the masses.
Science doesn’t “show” us how it did happen, rather it only shows us how it “could have” happened. It’s all about probability.
——————————————————————————-
“how does this god exist? We are told by Craig that it is NOT in time and NOT in space. So now that we know how it does not exist, I would like to know how it does exist and how it is possible. Also are you a deist? For that is all the fine tuning argument addresses.”
Well, the “anthropic principle” and “fine-tuning” arguments both merely assert the existence of an “active, coherent intelligence” causing the universe. They do not address who or what the intelligence is. There are other arguments for that. I think Dr. Gary Habermas is a better reference on that topic.
As for how can a god exist … good question. Unless this intelligence chooses to let us know that, we won’t know. We are aware of other dimensions and planes of existences outside of our own, and we can make a case that a god exists there.
For example, a nice young lady (her story is on Dr. Habermas’s site) was diagnosed with an impending brain aneurysm. The doctor, a brilliant brain surgeon, found that the operation would kill the patient by bursting the artery (causing instant death).
His solution was to … well … kill the patient. The young lady was placed on the table, her blood was drained (to prevent an aneurysm), and her body was chilled to well below normal temperatures. She was a brain dead corpse. The surgeon then proceeded to repair the damaged artery without harming the brain matter (which had begun to solidify in the cold and thus was more resilient).
After the operation, the nice young lady was revived. She started talking about the operation … and how she had watched the entire thing from above: The different colored socks, the strange tools, and even the maneuvers of the doctor’s hands. What happened?
Was she dreaming? No, she was brain dead. Did her mind construct a fantasy during revival? No, she had no brain activity. This event was, by definition, supernatural (not part of a purely naturalistic, scientific world view).
If you’re interested in hearing the evidence of the supernatural (from NDE’s and ADE’s), Gary Habermas does have books, articles, and , fortunately, audio and video.
http://garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm
Look for: Near Death Experiences
or for some video:
http://garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm
Look for: Near Death Experiences as an Argument Against Naturalism
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved
The deity of Christ is hard to accept for many people. For one to admit that Jesus is God in the flesh is to admit that he owes Him complete allegiance. Recognition of Jesus’ Godhood calls for the abandonment of one’s autonomy. Therefore, many people refuse to worship Jesus as God and consider Him to be merely a great human teacher. Mohandas K. Gandhi said of Christ:
It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God. And that only he who believed in Him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God . . . then all men were like God and could be God Himself.1
The internationally respected theologian, John Hick, also denies Christ’s deity:
Now it used to be assumed—and in some Christian circles is still assumed—that this Jesus, who lived in Palestine in the first third of the first century AD, was conscious of being God incarnate, so that you must either believe him or reject him as a deceiver or a megalomaniac. “Mad, bad, or God” went the argument. And of course if Jesus did indeed claim to be God incarnate, then this dilemma, or trilemma, does arise. But did he claim this? The assumption that he did is largely based on the Fourth Gospel, for it is here that Jesus makes precisely such claims. He says “I and the Father are one,” “No one comes to the Father, but by me” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” But it is no secret today, after more than a hundred years of scholarly study of the scriptures, that very few New Testament experts now hold that the Jesus who actually lived ever spoke those words, or their Aramaic equivalents. They are much more probably words put into his mouth by a Christian writer who is expressing the view of Christ which had been arrived at in his part of the church, probably two or three generations after Jesus’ death. And it is likewise doubted whether the few sayings of the same kind in the other gospels are authentic words of Jesus. How, then, did this Christian deification of Jesus—which began within the first decades after his death and was essentially completed by the end of the first century—take place? Such a development is not as hard to understand in the ancient world as it would be today. . .2
It is interesting that Hick admits that the New Testament, quotes Jesus as claiming to be God. Second, he acknowledges that the deity of Christ was being taught within a few decades of Christ’s death (which is what the creeds prove). And, third, Hick recognizes that the deity of Christ was completely established as church doctrine by the end of the first century AD. However, by admitting these three facts, Hick is inadvertently conceding that all the available evidence points to the authenticity of Christ’s claims to be God. Surely the apostles would have stopped this heresy (if indeed it was a heresy) when it started just decades after Christ’s death. The Apostle John would also have opposed this teaching as it was being established as church dogma at the end of the first century AD.
Contrary to what John Hick believes, true scholarship bases its decisions on the evidence, not on mere speculation. All the available evidence points to the fact that Christ did claim to be God. The eyewitnesses who heard these claims died horrible deaths refusing to deny their validity. No liberal scholar has ever proposed an adequate explanation as to how a legend that Jesus claimed to be God could develop while the original apostles (those who personally knew Christ) were still alive and leading the new church. Legends take centuries to develop into dogma.3 Any attempted origination of legends cannot get started while honest eyewitnesses are still alive (especially if these honest eyewitnesses hold positions of authority in the church). Therefore, liberal scholars like Hick can believe what they wish. However, to deny that Christ claimed to be God is to simply ignore all the available evidence. Liberal scholars throw out any passages of the Bible that do not agree with their antisupernaturalistic biases, but this is not true scholarship. True scholarship examines the evidence; it does not speculate as to how the evidence can be explained away. The World Book Encyclopedia is an example of the high regard in which many people esteem Jesus, while stopping short of calling Him God:
Jesus Christ was the founder of the Christian religion. Christians believe that He is the Son of God who was sent to earth to save mankind. Even many persons who are not Christians believe that He was a great and wise teacher. He has probably influenced humanity more than anyone else who ever lived.4
It is not wise to call Jesus merely a great man and teacher since He claimed to be God. For no merely great man or wise teacher would claim to be God. If Jesus claimed to be God, then we must view Him as either a liar, insane, or God. There are no other alternatives, and no ignoring of the evidence will help.
In chapter twenty-five it was shown that the message found in the New Testament is one and the same as the message of the first generation church. The ancient creeds found in the New Testament predate the New Testament and represent the teachings of the apostles themselves.5 Several of these ancient creeds teach the deity of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus claimed to be God. The leaders of the first generation church taught that Jesus is God, and they were willing to die for their testimony. Hence, there is no reason (apart from an a priori bias) to reject the claims of deity made by Christ in the New Testament. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God:
But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I myself am working.” For this cause the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18).
Whenever Jesus spoke of a unique Father-Son relationship between God the Father and Himself, the Jews understood Him to be claiming equality with God the Father. Jesus spoke to the Jews in their language. He communicated to them on their terms. They understood Jesus to be claiming to be deity. If Jesus never meant to claim to be God, then He was one of the poorest communicators who ever lived. If Jesus was misunderstood by His listeners, He should have clarified His words. A clear and articulate representation of His words would have been in His best interest; He was executed for blasphemy (Mark 14:60-64).
Jesus taught that He deserved the same honor that the Father deserved:
For not even the Father judges anyone, But He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:22-23).
Since the Father is God, the honor due Him is worship. Therefore, Jesus taught that He also deserved to be worshiped. Despite the fact that the Old Testament Law forbid the worship of any being other than God (Exodus 20:1-6), Jesus accepted worship on numerous occasions (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; 20:28-29). Jesus also stated:
You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am (John 8:23-24; 58).
The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus’ claim to deity in this passage: “they picked up stones to throw at Him” (John 8:59). The comments of J. Dwight Pentecost are helpful:
Christ affirmed, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” (v. 58). “I AM” was the name of the Self-existing God who had revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:14). Jesus Christ was claiming to be “I AM”, the Self-existent God. He was claiming eternity. To the Jews this was blasphemy.6
Merrill C. Tenney also elaborates on this specific claim of Christ:
In actuality the phrase “I am” is an assertion of absolute, timeless existence, not merely of a personal identity as the English equivalent would suggest. A comparison of the use of the phrase, “I am” with self-revelation of Jehovah in the Old Testament shows that much the same terminology was employed. God, in commissioning Moses (Ex. 3:14), said: “Thus shalt thou say to unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” When the Jews heard Jesus say, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” they took the statement to mean not priority to Abraham, but an assertion of deity. To them it was blasphemy, and they picked up stones to cast at Him.7
It is important to note two things about this passage. First, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” This would have been merely a claim to have preexisted Abraham. Though this would be a bold claim in itself, Christ actually said far more than that. Jesus was claiming that His existence is always in the present tense. In other words, He was claiming eternal existence for Himself. He was declaring himself to have absolutely no beginning. He was claiming that He was not bound by time. He was declaring Himself to be the eternal God. Second, Christ probably spoke these words in Aramaic (the common language of the Hebrews of his day). Therefore, He probably did not use the Greek words “ego eimi” for “I AM.” Rather, He would have used the Hebrew “YHWH.” This was the title for the eternal God. Out of reverence for God, the Jews never spoke this word. So here, Christ was not only be speaking the unspeakable title of God (YHWH), but He was using it to refer to Himself. Properly understood, this was probably Christ’s most unambiguous claim to deity. The Jews clearly understood this, and for this reason they attempted to stone him. Another clear claim to deity made by Christ is the following passage:
“I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God” (John 10:30-33).
Concerning this passage, Merrill F. Unger wrote, “Jesus asserted His unity of essence with the Father, hence His unequivocal deity. . . and the Jews understood Him.”8 In this passage, Jesus clearly claimed to be equal with God the Father. Christ said that His nature is identical to that of the Father. The Jews understood Him to be calling Himself God. They later sentenced Him to death for these claims to deity.
Jesus also made other claims to deity. He said that, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). When He prayed to the Father, He asked the Father to return to Him the glory which He and the Father shared before the universe was created (John 17:5).
The apostles were Jesus’ closest associates. They were more familiar with the teachings of Christ than anyone else and they called Jesus God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). This is further confirmation that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.
Considering the strong evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, Christ’s claims to deity cannot be considered as legends. The teaching that Jesus is God predates the New Testament (as shown in the ancient creeds), and is best explained by attributing the source of this doctrine to Jesus Himself. It must be remembered that the apostles were not liars. They were sincere enough about their beliefs to die for them, and they recorded unambiguous statements made by Christ attributing deity to Himself.
The deity of Christ is not a legend. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. Hence, one cannot consider Him to be simply a great man; for no mere man claims to be God. If Jesus is not God, then He was either a liar or insane. There are no other options.
The absurd idea that Jesus was a liar who claimed to be God can be easily refuted. For Christ is considered, even by many who reject His claim to deity, to have taught the highest standard of morality known to man. His teachings have motivated such actions as the abolition of slavery, government by the consent of the people, the modern hospital system, education for all children, and charitable programs for the needy. A liar could not have possibly encouraged these movements.
Christ has had a positive impact on mankind like no other person. It is extremely unlikely that so much good could come from a deceiver who led people astray by claiming to be God. The eyewitness accounts of the apostles display the tremendous love Christ had for people. It is not possible that a self-centered and egotistical liar could express genuine affection for his fellow man like that expressed by Christ. The question can also be asked, “Would a liar die for his lie?” It is doubtful that Jesus would lie and then suffer death by crucifixion as a consequence.
It has already been shown that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event and not a hoax. But, why would God raise a blaspheming liar from the dead? Christ offered His resurrection as proof for His claims to deity (John 2:18-21; Matthew 12:38-40). Therefore, His resurrection proves the validity of His claims to be God. He claimed to be God and then proved it by doing what no mere man could do—He rose from the dead.
Christ’s claims to deity have been shown not to be legends or lies, but the possibility remains that Jesus may have been insane. Could it be that Jesus claimed to be God because He was mentally disturbed?
Often, people compare Jesus of Nazareth with other respected religious leaders. However, very few of these leaders (if any) claimed to be God in a unique sense. Some have claimed to be God, but then teach that we are all God. Jesus claimed to be God in a sense that no other man could claim to be God. Usually, when a religious leader makes a claim as bold as this, it is evidence that he is unbalanced. Charles Manson and David Koresh are two examples of this type of religious leader. The evidence for their instability is obvious. However, this is not so in the case of Jesus. He made bold claims to deity, but also backed these claims by the life He lived and the things He did.
Declaring Christ to be insane is not a common view. Nearly everyone admits that He was a great teacher, even if they reject His deity. However, insane people make lousy teachers. The teachings of Christ are not the teachings of a mad man. They are the greatest teachings ever taught by a man, and this man claimed to be God incarnate.
The miraculous life of Christ is also evidence that He was not insane. Christ gave evidence for His bold claims through His supernatural works. The apostles were eyewitnesses of these miracles. Even the enemies of Christ, the Jewish religious leaders of His day, did not deny His miracles. Instead, they stated in their Talmud that Jesus “practiced sorcery.”9 Though they rejected Jesus’ message, they were forced to admit that He did supernatural works. However, the powerful influence for good that Christ has had upon mankind declares His miracles to be from God and not from Satan. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles show that He was not insane. They provide strong evidence to support His claim to be God.
Another piece of evidence that shows Christ was not insane is the fact that His life and works were prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. A small fraction of the prophecies He fulfilled are listed below:
As was noted earlier, these are just a few of the many prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.10 Even liberal scholars admit that these prophecies were recorded hundreds of years before Christ’s birth. Although they deny the traditional early dates of the Old Testament books, it is almost universally accepted that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) was completed two hundred years before Christ was born.11
Most liberals do not consider some of the prophecies listed above as having been fulfilled by Christ. This is because these liberals a priori deny the possibility of miracles. Since they deny Christ’s resurrection, they also deny that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of the resurrection. Even if one removes the Old Testament predictions concerning the supernatural aspects of Christ’s life, one is still left with the evidence from the fulfillment of prophecies of the non-supernatural aspects of Christ’s life. Norman Geisler has noted that the chances of Christ fulfilling just sixteen of these prophecies by mere coincidence are 1 in 1045 (a one with forty-five zeroes after it).12
In fact, three of these Old Testament predictions concerning the Messiah—Daniel 9:26; Isaiah 42:4; Isaiah 53—are enough to prove that only Jesus of Nazareth meets the messianic qualifications. Daniel 9:26 stated that the Messiah would be executed before the destruction of the temple (which occurred in 70AD). Isaiah 42:4 teaches that the Gentile nations would expectantly await Christ’s law. Isaiah 53 declares that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth is the only person in history who has fulfilled all three of these prophecies. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and was crucified around 30AD (forty years before the temple was destroyed), the Jews rejected Him, and He received a wide Gentile following.
The life of an insane man would not be prophesied. It is also unlikely that these predictions would refer to an insane man as the Messiah (God’s anointed one) and “the mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6). More than 200 years before Jesus’ birth, His life and works were predicted. He fulfilled these prophecies and performed many miracles. It is absurd for someone to call Jesus insane. To accept His claims is the only reasonable response.
The historical evidence shows that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by raising Himself from the dead. History shows these claims are not legends, and that He was not a liar, insane, or merely a great man. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
The following ancient creed was formulated and proclaimed by the first generation church. It declares Jesus to be God and Savior, and instructs all creation to surrender to His Lordship:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
This ancient creed states that the day will come when all creation will bow down before Christ and confess that He is Lord. One can bow to Jesus now, or one can bow to Jesus later, but, the fact remains, that the day will come when all will bow before Christ, both the saved and the unsaved. The saved will bow before Jesus to worship Him as their Savior and King. The lost will bow before Him, due to their fear of His power and authority.
1 Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi Autobiography (Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1948), 170.
2 John Hick, The Center of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1968), 27-28.
3 Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds., Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 154.
4 The World Book Encyclopedia vol. 11, (Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1985), 82.
5 Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 148-149.
6 J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1981), 288.
7 Merrill C. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 150.
8 Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 555.
9 Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, 98.
10 For a fuller treatment of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, see: Josh McDowell, 141-177.
by Paul Pardi
Most philosophers of religion do not believe that the traditional deductive “proofs” for God’s existence work. Many that do believe they work do not see them as formal proofs but as inductive arguments that make a cumulative, probabilistic case. Does this mean that the business of defending religion (formally known as apologetics) is dead? To the contrary, in certain circles, apologetics is an active area of study for philosophers of religion. In fact, it is hard to find a philosopher of religion writing today who is not concerned with the subject at one level or another.
Yet despite the current prominence of the discipline, the formal task of what philosophers of religion today have come to know as “defending of the faith” actually is a rather late development. The short story goes something like this. Before the enlightenment, the idea of defending belief in God against atheistic argument was rather unheard of. Instead, formulations of logical proofs or the culling of historical and scientific evidences was part of a larger programme of developing a well-rounded theology. Rarely did anyone think that proofs were necessary in order for one to have a rational faith. In fact the idea that one would need to depend on arguments for belief in God was foreign to the mainline, pre-enlightenment philosophers who thought about the matter.
When Locke, Kant, and Hume came on the scene ostensibly destroying the formerly stalwart ideological fortresses with their bifurcation of reality and skeptical view of knowledge, God’s existence, as well as other religious truth claims, came under attack. Unfortunately for many, a result of the enlightenment attack on certainty undermined the force of the theistic “proofs” and the reliability of the scientific and historical evidence (at least qua evidence). Almost immediately, these rational defenses of God’s existence became passé at best and at worst were considered fallacious or rationally unacceptable. The reaction of many theists was to attack directly the Enlightenment thinking and develop a rationalistic counterattack that had the theistic proofs at its core. Out of this came the formal discipline of apologetics—the project of rationally defending the existence of God. Under this project, the proofs and evidences that formerly served as a support to faith now came to ground it.
For many believers and philosophers however, faith continued despite the attack on the proofs. As I already mentioned, pre-enlightenment theism never really relied on the proofs as a ground for faith anyway. There was a difficulty though. Though pre-enlightenment theism didn’t rely on the proofs, they did play an important supporting role to faith. The average believer’s attitude towards formal arguments for God’s existence was like the typical American mindset towards the US judicial system: my daily freedom doesn’t depend upon my knowing it but its nice to know its there if I ever need it. When post-enlightenment thinkers dismantled the formal proofs, many believers decided to devalue them altogether (epistemically speaking) and take a more “experiential” approach to grounding belief in God. To push the judicial analogy one step further, the new attitude was like the attitude of one who rejects the court system after finding out that all the United States Justices are on the Mob’s payroll. The term “fideist” or “existentialist” has been applied to the most radical forms of this movement though on the average, these terms would be too drastic. Philosophy of religion then entered the post-enlightenment, post-modern era with God’s existence largely being grounded either by strict evidentialism or by rejecting evidentialism and appealing to personal conviction based on leaps of faith. These two approaches have dominated apologetics up to the present time. Recently, however, many philosophers are returning to the pre-enlightenment approach to apologetics (a move which, in no small part, is due to a rejection of the enlightenment epistemology).
Even so, the Enlightenment has had a significant effect on apologetics and all three approaches have significant characteristics that mark them as post-Enlightenment. First, they are focusing less on ontology and more on epistemology. That is, philosophers are becoming more concerned with defending the belief that God exists than with rationally proving God existence per se. The difference is subtle but important. In the not so distant past, one would be inclined to ask and answer the question, “Does God exist?” Presently we’re more apt to hear the question framed as, “Is it more reasonable to believe that God’s exists than that He doesn’t?” The changing nature of public and philosophical discourse may be part of the reason this shift may have occurred (discussed below). After all, apologetics is, by definition, a defense ad populum. If one’s apologetic does not reach the minds of the ones to whom the apologetic is aimed it is entirely ineffective as a defense. The second main trend is that of trying to wed a strong evidentialist approach to the more existential one by attempting to demonstrate the rationality of the apologetic system even if the apologetic itself isn’t rationalistic. For example, Reformed apologists are working on arguments that attempt to that one’s experiences of God are veridical and therefore provide an adequate ground of rational belief in God.
I’m concerned here with highlighting apologetic trends as they apply to theism in general and not a particular religion like Christianity or Islam. However it is significant to note that much of the good work in apologetics is being done in the context of a particular religion. For example, Zondervan just released Five Views on Apologetics that discusses five evangelical Christian approaches to defending belief in God. Another example can be found in the scholarship of the Catholic Church. The Pope’s latest encyclical demonstrates the church’s continued commitment to evidentialism. His Fides et Ratio is garnering attention from all Christian denominations both Catholic and Protestant. It is a fine work and upholds the commitment to the integration of the spiritual life with the life of the mind. (For a Reformed evaluation of the encyclical, see the Books and Culture special article, “Faith and Reason.”)
Still, many philosophers of religion working in the field of religious epistemology and apologetics are concerned with the rationality of theistic beliefs. This type of apologetics provides a foundation for the work being done at the level of a specific religious system. This past spring, the University of Aberdeen focused its International Gifford Conference on natural theology. Natural theology attempts to develop a philosophy of religion and theology apart from any revelation claim. The Conference, titled, “Natural Theology: Problems and Prospects,” featured papers by theists and non-theists alike.
Probably the most creative work being done in the evidentialist camp falls under the rubric known as “Design Theory.” Berkely law professor Phillip E. Johnson (author of the widely read, Darwin on Trial; Johnson’s latest book, The Wedge of Truth, is directed against naturalism and was just published by Intervarsity Press) is spearheading this “movement.” In the United States, The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think-tank, has pooled together some of the top minds doing work on the subject. The fellows of the Institute’s “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture”, which include Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski , and Stephen C. Meyer, have been writing on a wide variety of topics and speaking all over the country promoting design as a theory of explanation. In November, CRCS will be hosting a conference at the venerable Yale University entitled, “Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.” This conference, like the “Design and its Critics” conference recently held at Concordia University, will be a forum for presentations on both sides of the question.
Interestingly, the arguments of design theorists like those mentioned above are not given under the auspices of an apologetic per se (though their work does include some apologetic work). That is, these philosophers are not arguing that their conclusions entail that belief in God is more reasonable than not. Rather, they are arguing for design as a theory in and of itself. For example, Demski’s now famous The Design Inference barely mentions theism in the entire monograph. The goal of the book is to describe ways in which design could be detected in events. However, or so the thinking goes, if one buys the system’s conclusions then theism isn’t too far off. At the very least, accepting design in the universe certainly makes theism more reasonable than not. This example brings to the fore the subtle shift in the way apologetics is being done. Though this certainly does not represent the entire evidentialist field, it does I believe represent an important direction evidentialist apologetics is taking.
A second way philosophers have defended belief in God has gotten an ideological boost in recent days from postmodernism. This second approach might be considered the antithesis of evidentialist apologetics. I will call this approach “deconstructionist” apologetics (I’m loathe to use that term because of the baggage it carries but I do think it is the best term for this position). The idea is that the rationality of belief in God is not dependent upon beliefs being formed in the mind of a would-be believer by way of evidence or, in some cases, even an act of God. Rather a religious belief is rational because the believer made a choice to believe based on what she loves and hates. Some of the spin-offs, I believe, of this fundamental epistemology are religious pluralism. Much of the recent work by John Hick, D.Z. Phillips and some of the process philosophers like Hartshorne, and on the more postmodern side, Jean-Luc Marion and John Caputo (and one might even include here Cornel West).
Some readers may find it odd that I’m suggesting that a person like Hick or Caputo is doing apologetics. It is odd in the sense that these philosophers are not intentionally attempting to present a defense of theistic belief. However if one considers that the project of folks like Hick and Caputo is to place religious belief within a modern, scientific, pluralistic framework and make it “fit,” it becomes clear that they are seeking to rescue religious belief from irrationality or irrelevance. In that sense, they are constructing an apologetic.
It should be clear that this approach is the terminus ad quem of the move away from a metaphysical or ontological apologetic to an epistemological one. If, for example, someone like Hick can show that all religious belief just is an affective movement towards “the real” then perhaps the religious believer really isn’t all that different from the inquisitive scientist who is seeking to discover the nature of the universe. Religious belief then becomes much more “rational” than it would be if we took all that talk about a real, transcendent person seriously. So, whether religious belief is viewed merely as a language game, a private narrative, or an internal longing for something transcendent, it becomes protected from the criticisms of non-religious epistemology (it becomes irrelevant whether or not there really is a God as construed by orthodox religions). Religion becomes isolated from the rest of one’s noetic structure and thus is not subject to the rationality constraints of it. This claim itself becomes a defense of religious belief. For an excellent overview of the developments taking place in this space, see David G. Kamitsuka’s new book, Theology and Contemporary Culture published by Cambridge (especially chapters 2 and 3).
The third approach to doing apologetics incorporates, very broadly, some features of the first two approaches. The third approach agrees with the deconstructionists in that enlightenment-style rationalistic evidence and philosophical argument are not viewed as necessary to ground belief in God and to make it rational. However, it also holds that this approach to belief —rejecting evidentialism— itself is rational and presents arguments and evidence in an attempt to argue for that conclusion. Most of the philosophers, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and William Alston being the most prominent, who are developing ideas in this area are doing so under the auspices of Reformed epistemology. (The version of Reformed epistemology I discuss here is not the only version. C. Stephen Evans is developing a version of Reformed epistemology along Kierkegarrdian lines that is seeking to be sensitive to postmodern concerns. See my WHiP article “Postmodernizing Religion”).
Where these philosophers differ from the deconstructionists is in the fact that they believe religious knowledge is objective knowledge. That is they hold that religious belief actually is of something real. They differ from the evidentialists in that they deny that belief in God has to come by way of evidence and argument. Rather, believe in God, like other types of belief (e.g. beliefs formed by perceptual experience) can be formed by an internal function or by way of an act of God or a combination of both. For example, thinkers in the Calvinist tradition hold that belief in God is formed by way of a capacity of soul that is designed to detect God. When formed in this way, the belief is both immediate and rational.
Plantinga’s latest opus, Warranted Christian Belief, is already receiving much critical attention and is an apologetic in the truest sense. In it, Plantinga does three major things. First he argues that all of the arguments against the rationality of God fail. He examines the critiques of Kant, Freud, Marx, and looks at postmodern critiques and attempts to show why their critiques of religious belief don’t work. Second, he painstakingly develops the notion of a sensus divinitatus—a divine sensor—that allows a human being to directly detect and form belief in God. He draws on the rich Christian tradition found in folks like Calvin, Saint Thomas, and Jonathan Edwards. Finally, after establishing the rationality of theism, he argues for the rationality and superiority of the Christian religion specifically. Though the book primarily is a discourse in religious epistemology, it serves as a staunch defense of the rationality of belief in God and is aimed and “defeating defeaters” for that belief. This is a paradigmatic example of the return to the pre-enlightenment philosophy.
It seems to be the nature of human beings to want to provide reasons for believing the things most dear to them even if those beliefs turn out to be irrational or just plain false. Given that philosophers tend to be among the more inquisitive, I think its fairly safe to say that apologetics will continue to be a dominate discipline within philosophy of religion for the foreseeable future. In philosophic years, that’s millennia.
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved
There are three distinct types of cosmological arguments. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) used the argument based on the principle of existential causality (all limited, dependent existence needs a cause for its continuing existence).2 3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) utilized the principle of sufficient reason (everything that exists must have an adequate explanation for why it exists).4 Bonaventure (1221-1274) used the kalaam cosmological argument (everything that has a beginning needs a cause).
Thomas Aquinas is famous for his five ways to prove God’s existence.5 In his first way, he argued from the observable movement or change in the universe to the existence of an unmoved Mover. Aquinas’ second way reasons that the the causality found in the universe demands the existence of a first, uncaused Cause. His third way concludes with the existence of an independent Being as the cause for the continuing existence of all dependent beings.6 These first three ways to prove God’s existence are cosmological arguments. They all use the principle of existential causality.
Aquinas’ fourth and fifth ways to prove God’s existence are not cosmological arguments. Aquinas’ fourth way (the limited perfections in other beings must be caused by the existence of a most perfect Being), could be classified as a moral argument. His fifth way (the fact that mindless nature moves towards specific goals implies the need for an intelligent Mind to guide these natural processes) is a teleological argument.7
Aquinas’ first three ways to prove God’s existence utilize the principle of existential causality. The thrust of these three arguments is as follows. Aquinas argues that experience shows man that limited, dependent beings exist. These limited, dependent beings need other beings for their continued existence. For example, humans and animals depend on air, water, and food to sustain their existence. However, argues Aquinas, adding limited, dependent beings together will never give someone an unlimited and independent whole. Therefore, the sum total of limited, dependent beings (the universe) is itself limited and dependent. Hence, concludes Aquinas, the ultimate cause of the continuing existence of all limited, dependent beings must itself be unlimited and independent.8
Aquinas further argues that there cannot be two or more unlimited and independent beings since, if there were, they would limit one another’s existence. But then they would not be unlimited. Therefore, there can only be one unlimited and independent Being.9
Aquinas reasoned that this unlimited and independent Being must have all its attributes in an unlimited way. Otherwise, it could not be an unlimited Being.10 Therefore, this Being must be all-powerful, for He is the source of all the power in the universe.11 No other power can limit Him. He must be eternal for He is not limited by time.12 He must be immaterial since He is not limited by matter.13 This Being must also be all-good since He is not limited by evil.14 He must also be unlimited in knowledge.15
As was mentioned in an earlier chapter, the teleological and moral arguments can be used to compliment the cosmological argument. Therefore, Aquinas’ fifth way to prove God’s existence (his teleological argument) can be used to provide additional information about the unlimited and independent Being. Since mindless nature works towards goals (such as acorns always becoming oak trees and not something else), there must be an intelligent Designer overseeing natural processes. For without intelligent design and guidance, nature’s processes would be left to chance. There would be no orderly patterns that could be described as natural laws. Therefore, this unlimited and independent Being that all finite and dependent existence depends upon for its continued existence, must be an intelligent Being.16
Christian philosopher Norman Geisler is a modern proponent of Aquinas’ cosmological argument using the principle of existential causality.17 Winfried Corduan, another contemporary Christian philosopher, also employs this type of cosmological argumentation in his writings.18
Saint Bonaventure utilized the kalaam cosmological argument for God’s existence.19 Bonaventure argued that whatever began to exist must have a cause. He believed that it could be proven that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, concluded Bonaventure, the universe must have a Cause.20
Both Bonaventure and Aquinas believed that the universe had a beginning. They accepted this because it was taught in the Bible. However, Aquinas did not believe that this could be proven philosophically. Bonaventure disagreed. He believed that it could be philosophically proven that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, Aquinas argued for the sustaining Cause of the universe (existential causality), while Bonaventure argued for the Cause for the beginning of the universe (the kalaam argument).21
Bonaventure contended that if the universe had no beginning, then there would exist an actual infinite set of events in time. However, Bonaventure reasoned that an actual infinite set is impossible. If an actual infinite set is possible, then contradictions would be generated. For example, Set A contains all the even numbers. It is therefore infinite. But Set B contains all the even and all the odd numbers. Set B would then contain twice as many members as Set A; still, Set A and Set B are equal. For they are both infinite. Bonaventure did not deny potential infinite sets. He only denied infinite sets of actual things (such as actual events in time).22
Bonaventure also concluded that since it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite set, then the universe could not be eternal. It had to have a beginning. If the universe is eternal, then one could never reach the present moment. For no matter how many moments one passes, one will never pass an infinite set of moments. But, if the universe is eternal, then there are an infinite set of moments in the past. Hence, one would not be able to reach the present moment. But, since mankind has reached the present moment, then the universe had to have a beginning.23
In addition to this philosophical evidence, there is now strong scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe as well. Though this evidence was not available in Bonaventure’s day, it can be used by the contemporary apologist to strengthen or confirm Bonaventure’s cosmological argument. Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe includes the second law of thermodynamics (energy deterioration) and the big bang model.24
The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most firmly established laws of modern science.25 It states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is running down.26 This means that someday in the finite future all the energy in the universe will be useless. In other words, if left to itself, the universe will have an end.27 If the universe is going to have an end, it had to have a beginning.28 At one time, in the finite past, all the energy in the universe was usable. This would mark the beginning of the universe. However, the universe is winding down; therefore, it must have originally been wound up.29 Hence, the universe is not eternal; it had a beginning. Since it had a beginning, it needs a cause. For from nothing , nothing comes.30
The big bang model also teaches that the universe had a beginning.31 In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions.32 As time moves forward, the universe is growing apart. This means that if one goes back in time the universe would be getting smaller and smaller. Eventually, if one goes back far enough into the past, the entire universe would be what scientists call “a point of infinite density.”33 This marks the beginning of the universe, the big bang.34
There have been two main attempts by modern scientists to refute the beginning of the universe. The first is the steady state model.35 This view holds that the universe had no beginning. Instead, it always existed in the same state. However, this view (which never gained wide acceptance in modern times) was disproven in 1965 when the radiation background of the universe was discovered. This radiation background indicated that the universe was at one time in an extremely hot and dense state. Thus, the universe has not existed throughout all eternity in a steady-state.36
The second attempt to escape the beginning of the universe is the oscillating model.37 This model teaches that at some point during the universe’s expansion, gravity will halt the expansion and pull everything back together again. From that point there will be another big bang. This process will be repeated over and over again throughout all eternity.38 But the oscillating model fails. First, there is no known principle of physics that would reverse the collapse of the universe into another big bang.39 Second, current scientific research has shown that the universe is not dense enough for gravity to pull it back together again.40 Third, even if it could be proven that several big bangs have occurred, the second law of thermodynamics would still require that there was a first big bang.41 Therefore, since the universe had a beginning, it needs a cause.
What if the cause of the universe needs a cause? Could not an infinite chain of causes and effects exist stretching backwards in time throughout all eternity? The answer is no. It has already been shown that an actual infinite set is impossible. There had to be a first Cause. This first Cause must be uncaused. It could not be caused by another, for then it would not be the first cause. Nor could it be self-caused because it is absurd to say that a being preexisted its own existence in order to cause its own existence.42 Therefore, only an eternal, uncaused Cause can be the cause of the universe.
Again, the teleological and moral arguments for God’s existence can be utilized to complete the cosmological argument. Since intelligent life is found in the universe, the Cause of the universe must be an intelligent Being. No one has ever shown how intelligence could have evolved from mindless nature.43 Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence.44
Morality also exists in the universe. Without morality, there would be no such thing as right and wrong. The moral judgments people make show that they believe there is are right and wrong,45 but nature is non-moral.46 No one holds a rock morally responsible for tripping him. Since nature is non-moral, but morality exists in the universe, the Cause of the universe must be a moral Being.47
If morality is relative, then each person can decide for himself what is right and what is wrong.48 But then no one could condemn the brutal actions of Adolph Hitler. Society also cannot be the cause of moral laws since societies often pass judgment on one another.49 Therefore, one society, when judging another society, appeals to a moral authority that transcends all societies. Only an absolute moral Lawgiver who is qualitatively above man and societies can be the cause of a moral law that stands above man societies and judges their actions. Therefore, the uncaused Cause of the universe must be an intelligent and moral Being. This means that God must be a personal Being.50
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz utilized the principle of sufficient reason to argue for the existence of God.51 This principle states that there must be a sufficient reason or explanation for everything that exists.52 Many beings exist that do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For instance, a man depends on his parents for his birth, and now he needs air and food to for his continuing existence.53 Leibniz argued that there cannot be an infinite regress of explanations because then there would be no explanation why anything exists at all.54 Therefore, reasoned Leibniz, something must exist which contains within itself the reason for its own existence.55 This Being explains not only its own existence but the existence of all else as well.
Leibniz is not claiming that God is self-caused; this would be absurd. Instead, he is claiming that God is self-explained. God is the explanation for His own existence only because He is an uncaused Being.56
The cosmological argument for God’s existence (in any of its three forms—existential causality, kalaam, sufficient reason) is probably the strongest argument for God’s existence.57 Still, non-Christians often reject that it proves God’s existence. Yet, the apologist is not attempting to prove God’s existence with mathematical certainty. In fact, very little (if anything) can be known with mathematical certainty about the real world.58 One can, however, argue to God’s existence from premises that are beyond reasonable doubt.59 The denial of these premises is absurd, forced, and temporary.60 The premises can be viewed as actually undeniable (each premise must be affirmed in any attempt to deny it).61 Therefore, God’s existence can be proven with a high degree of probability.
Probability arguments can be extremely convincing. The everyday decisions that man must make are rarely (if ever) based on certainty. They are instead based upon a high degree of probability. When a person drives over a cement bridge extended hundreds of feet above the ground, that person is expressing faith that the bridge will support the weight of the vehicle. This is not a blind and irrational faith. There is much evidence for man’s ability to build such structures. The person driving across the bridge is basing his faith on the available evidence, though absolute certainty eludes him. In like manner, the existence of God can be proven with a high degree of probability. Because man is limited in knowledge and vulnerable to errors, his knowledge is limited and therefore extends only to the realm of probability.
It should also be noted that a person may know (with a high degree of probability) something to be true, though he or she may not be able to prove it.62 A suspect of a crime may know he is innocent yet not be capable of proving it. In the same way, many Christians know (with a high degree of probability) that God exists, though they cannot prove that He does.
Having said this, it is now necessary to show that the basic premises of the cosmological argument are beyond reasonable doubt. Once this is shown to be the case, the apologist and the non-theist will share common ground from which the apologist can argue for God’s existence.63
This common ground (which forms the premises for the cosmological argument) consists of four factors, 1) the law of non-contradiction, 2) the law of causality, 3) the principle of analogy, and 4) the basic reliability of sense perception.64 All people, whether theist or atheist, must live like these four principles are true.
The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.65 If something is true, then its opposite must be false. If the non-theist attempts to deny the law of non-contradiction, he must first assume it to be true in order to make the denial. Otherwise, the opposite of the denial could also be true.66 Though a person may deny this law, he must live, speak, and think as though it is true.67
The law of causality states that everything that has a beginning needs a cause.68 However, to deny this law is absurd. If the law of causality is not true, then something could be caused to exist by nothing. However, nothing is nothing. Therefore, nothing can do nothing. Hence, nothing can cause nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. If one rejects the law of causality, then there is no basis for modern science. Modern science must assume this law when attempting to discover the relationships that exist between the elements of the universe.69
The principle of analogy declares that two effects which are similar often have similar causes.70 For instance, a watch shows tremendous design and complexity.71 So does the universe. In fact, a single celled animal has enough genetic information to fill an entire library.72 Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that since it takes an intelligent being to make a watch, it must also have taken an intelligent being to design the universe. It seems rather unlikely that an entire library’s worth of information could have evolved by chance. An Intelligent designer is needed.
Finally, the basic reliability of sense perception is accepted by theists and non-theists alike.73 Though people are sometimes mistaken in the conclusions they draw from what their senses perceive, their sense perceptions can usually be trusted. All people live as though their sense perceptions were reliable. They move when rocks are thrown at them. People stay clear of railroad tracks when they hear the whistle of a coming train. Modern science must assume the basic reliability of sense perception in order to examine nature.
Any strong cosmological argument will be built upon these four presuppositions (the laws of non-contradiction, causality, analogy, and the basic reliability of sense perception). Though the non-theist may deny these four presuppositions for sake of argument, he must presuppose them in everyday life. He must live as if they were true. Any philosophy that cannot be lived, such as is the case with atheism, is not worth believing. Though a person may verbally deny God’s existence, he must still live as if the God of the Bible does in fact exist.74
First, after examining the theistic arguments, it is evident that the strongest philosophical argument for God’s existence is some type of cosmological argument. However, this does not mean that the other arguments for God’s existence have no place in apologetics. As was shown in this chapter, the moral and teleological arguments can be used very successfully to complete the cosmological argument.75 Premises from the moral and teleological arguments can be used to unveil some of the attributes of the uncaused Cause.
Secondly, when using the kalaam cosmological argument (as was utilized by Bonaventure) the Christian apologist should not argue against the existence of an actual infinite set. For the Christian believes that God is all-knowing (omniscient). This is usually understood to mean that God knows an actual infinite number of things. Therefore, an actual infinite set does exist (though only in the mind of God). Hence, the Christian apologist is incorrect when he argues against the existence of an actual infinite set. The kalaam argument for God’s existence loses no force by merely arguing for the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite set (this is all that Zeno’s paradox proves). That would be enough to prove that the universe had a beginning and, therefore, needs a Cause. Or, the apologist may argue for the impossibility of an actual infinite set existing outside the mind of an infinite God.76
Third, when doing apologetics, the Christian should adapt his or her argumentation to meet the personal needs of the listener. For some non-theists, psychological arguments for God’s existence will be more persuasive. For others, philosophical arguments are more convincing. The goal of apologetics is to lead people to Christ. Therefore one’s apologetics should be tailored to meet the needs of the listener.
Fourth, all defenders of the faith must remember that even if their argumentation is effective, the listener may still choose to suppress the truth. It is not easy for people to admit that there exists a God to whom they must answer. The desire for human autonomy (to be one’s own master) is very strong. Only the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit, working in this case with apologetic argumentation, can convince the human will to accept the existence of the God of the Bible.77
Fifth, arguments for God’s existence provide strong evidence for the existence of the theistic God. Still, historical evidences are needed to show that Christianity is the true theistic faith (as opposed to Islam and the present-day form of Judaism).78
3 J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 18.
10 Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, 125.
17 Geisler, Apologetics, 237-258.
18 Winfried Corduan, Reasonable Faith (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993), 102-121.
20 Copleston, A History of Philosophy vol. II, 251-252.
26 Norman L. Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson, Origin Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 117.
43 Francis A. Schaeffer, Trilogy (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 283.
45 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 19.
51 Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. IV, 324.
53 John Hick, The Existence of God, 168-169.
56 Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. IV, 325.
57 I disagree with Geisler and Corduan on this point. They consider only the Thomistic cosmological argument using the principle of existential causality as successful. The author of this work finds the arguments put forth by Geisler and Corduan against both the kalaam argument and the use of the principle of sufficient reason unconvincing. See Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 172-174.
58 Geisler and Feinberg, 129-131.
60 Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. I, 210.
63 Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, 70-72.
69 Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, 82.
70 Geisler and Anderson, 69, 124.
73 Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, 71-72.
75 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-249.
76 I discussed the rejection of this premise (“the impossibility of an actual infinite set”) in a November, 1994 telephone conversation with Dr. J. P. Moreland, professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology. Moreland used this premise in his book Scaling the Secular City. Moreland agreed that it is probably best to no longer use this premise in the kalaam cosmological argument, and that the premise “the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite set” would be sufficient in establishing the beginning of the universe. Dr. Moreland also related that the premise of the kalaam argument could be changed to “the impossibility of an actual infinite set in the concrete (outside the mind) realm.” This premise could be proven by showing the contradictions that would arise if actual infinite sets existed outside the mind. Some of these contradictions have already been discussed in this chapter. What the Christian should not argue for is the impossibility of an actual infinite set existing in the abstract (inside a mind) realm. For if an actual infinite set cannot exist in a mind, then God cannot know an actual infinite number of things. But, if an actual infinite set exists in a mind, this mind would have to be an infinite Mind (an omniscient Being). Only an infinite Mind can know an infinite number of things. Since it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite set, finite minds will never know everything an infinite Mind knows even if the finite mind continues to learn more and more throughout eternity.
78 Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 263-265.
Download 1000's of audio sermons, lectures, and debates for free!!!
