Category: Science and faith

The Existence of God: A Concise Summary

Since publishing my essay on the existence of God, I have wanted to provide a concise summary of the argument.

Why do I do this?  It is because when I see the trees and the stars, realizing the transcendent genius which was required in order to create them, I hear a voice saying to me, “I love you.”

The classic cosmological argument for the existence of God rests on the premise that whatever begins to exist – that is to say, anything which is not past-infinite, anything which is not eternal – must have a cause for its existence.  But even before one considers whether or not to accept that premise, it is useful to observe that there are really only four possible scenarios for the origin of the universe.  This can be clearly seen from the following set of necessary propositions.

Either the universe had a beginning, or it didn’t.

If the universe had a beginning, then either it had a cause or it did not have a cause.

If the universe did have a cause, its cause likewise either had a beginning, or it didn’t.

Those three binary possibilities are exhaustive; that is, there are no other possibilities.  This leads to four possible origin scenarios.

  1. Possible scenario #1.: The universe did not have a beginning; that is, it has always existed.

Modern science has shown this simply not to be the case.  There is a scientific consensus, based on extensive observation, that the universe had a beginning approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

  1. Possible scenario #2.: The universe had a beginning, and it popped into existence out of nothing, uncaused.

This is not logically impossible, but it is implausible because it violates the principles of causation, which affirm that nothing happens without a cause.[1]

  1. Possible scenario #3.: The universe had a beginning, and it was caused by some separate entity which itself also had a beginning.

This too is logically possible, but it entails an infinite regress of non-eternal causes, since one must then ask, what caused the cause, and then, what caused that cause, etc., etc.  If the regression is infinite then it begs the question: how did the regression begin if it did not begin with an eternal cause?  The only way for the regression not to be infinite is for it to come sooner or later to a cause which had no beginning, which is equivalent to the fourth scenario.

  1. Possible scenario #4.: The universe had a beginning, and it was caused by some separate entity which did not itself have a beginning – that is, the cause of the universe was some eternal entity. This is one step from theism. Theism does not entail any of the difficulties inherent in the other possibilities: it has not been falsified empirically, it does not violate the principles of causation, and it does not beg the question.  Thus, theism is truly the only plausible explanation for the existence of the universe.

Scientists believe that all matter and energy, along with space and time themselves, came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago.  If so, and if the universe had a cause, then the cause must have been immaterial, timeless, and immensely powerful.  The Fine-Tuning of the universe shows that the cause was a conscious, purposive Agent of incomprehensible intelligence.  These are some of the attributes which science shows the Creator possesses, to a virtual certainty, and now we have come all the way to theism.  God exists.

There is another basis for concluding that the Creator is a personal entity.  If that were not the case – if the cause of the universe were some physical state of affairs existing from eternity past, then all of the conditions needed for the universe to come into existence would themselves have existed from eternity past; and if so, then there would have been nothing to prevent those conditions from producing the universe at some time in the infinite past.  And if that had occurred, then because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system entropy (disorganization) always increases with time, the universe would already have reached heat death.  It has not done so; therefore, the cause of the universe could not have been a purely physical state of affairs existing from eternity past.

[1] This is the first premise of the cosmological argument.  For a more complete analysis of this premise, see joshualetter.com/blog, June 28, 2018, page 11.

The Author of the Gospel of Luke is “a historian of the first rank”

[The following is an excerpt from “The Evidence for Jesus,” by William Lane Craig (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/).  (Citations deleted).]

The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. . . .  I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.  These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament.  Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self-consciously as an historian.  In the preface to this work he writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Lk. 1.1-4)

This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek.  But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian.  He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

Now who was this author we call Luke?  He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life.  But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts.  Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: “we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” “we remained in Philippi some days,” “as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc.  The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities.  In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem.  What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. . . .

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight?  The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively.  The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable.  This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (1990).  Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know.  Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.  According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”  The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank. . . .   This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”  Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

“The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas & Michael Licona.

This is FREE at Amazon for Kindle!  (February 22, 2016 update: No, it’s not free, it costs about $14.  But I didn’t lie, it really was free when I downloaded it.  I don’t know what happened.  But it’s still worth the price.)

Habermas is regarded by many as the world’s foremost authority on the Resurrection, and Licona is the author of the definitive The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Nottingham, England: IVP Academic 2010).

Listen, please: if you want to know the truth and can read, then read this: (click here.)

More Exciting Findings Show Earth’s Uniqueness

The Search for Extraterrestrial Life continues.  You’ve all heard of the “habitable zone”  – the narrow range of distances from the host star at which a planet will have liquid water, an essential condition for life?  Well actually it would seem scientists have identified at least eight habitable zones in which a planet must reside in order to harbor advanced life.  Treat yourself to this.

Excellent Illustration of Fine-Tuning of the Earth

Here is a link to another blogger’s commentary on the very recent discovery of Kepler 452b, an “extrasolar” planet orbiting a nearby star, illustrating very intelligibly why so much fine-tuning is necessary in order for any planet to be habitable for life, especially complex life:

http://rtbsydneychapter.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/is-kepler-452b-really-earth-20-bigger.html

Anthony and I are members of what Reasons to Believe calls its “apologetics community.”  I took a training course and was granted admission to their bulletin board in which approx. 250 scientists and lay people from many backgrounds from all over the world participate.  (It looks like Anthony is in Australia!)  Generally I can get several knowledgeable answers to most technical questions in a day or two.

The original article appears above the line; Anthony’s comments are below.  Enjoy!

What is Homosexuality? A Survey of the Scholarly Literature

Neither public policy nor church policy with regard to same-sex attraction (SSA) should be formed in ignorance of the essential nature of homosexuality as reflected in the best scientific evidence available.  The Survey was first posted June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Obergefel v. Hodges.  Click here to read the February 27, 2016 update.

“What Can I Do?”

Today I received an e-mail from a reader asking, “What can I do?”  And I responded:

Will,

I’m not ready to say the battle is lost.  I prefer to emphasize the fact that we have the victory and really cannot lose.

However, we will lose (although here I am not even talking about the political contest) if our response is merely a repeat of “the Christian Right” of the 1980s and 1990s.  How do we avoid that?

First, pray.

Next, remember that the battle is not ours, but God’s.  Gays’ quarrel is not with us – it is with God and His Word.  Let them wrestle with Him and with their own consciences.

Next, when we address the question of homosexuality, always lead with God’s love and grace and His offer of forgiveness in His wonderful son Jesus.  Emphasize that we are all sinners.  There was a good article about this in Sunday’s NY Times Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/why-evangelicals-should-love-the-pope.html.

Remember that religious freedom includes the non-establishment of religion as well as the right to the free exercise of religion.  That means that it is never enough to quote the Bible in a debate about public policy.  If the government were to adopt a policy based solely on scripture, it would constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion.  Furthermore, in very practical terms, religious appeals are of no use if we hope to persuade those who do not already understand that the Bible is God’s Word; and of course that is the task.  If we venture into policy advocacy at all, we must be prepared with non-religious grounds for our point of view.

Next, inform yourself.  This is something I have not yet completed by any means, but I am working on it.  It’s my view that homosexuality is very poorly understood scientifically, but that if it were understood, the biblical view would be vindicated.  This would merely be a corollary of the “Two Books” model, would it not?  Our understanding of nature is aided by our understanding of the Bible, and vice versa.  So we should make sure we are familiar with the scientific literature that does exist, try to form some understanding of what research still needs to be done, and advocate for the funding of that research.

Finally, pray.

Tom