Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True 1. Truth about reality is knowable. 2. The opposite of true is false. 3. It is true that the theistic God

Twelve Points that Show Christianity is TrueTwelve Points that Show Christianity is True1. 1. Truth about reality is knowable.Truth about reality is knowable.2. The opposite of true is false.2. The opposite of true is false.3. It is true that the theistic God exists.3. It is true that the theistic God exists.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by: a. His fulfillment of many prophecies;a. His fulfillment of many prophecies; b. His sinless and miraculous life;b. His sinless and miraculous life; c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrectionc. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection9. Therefore, Jesus is God.9. Therefore, Jesus is God.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and 12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and

anything opposed to it is false).anything opposed to it is false).

God: Evidence ForGod: Evidence ForGod: Evidence ForGod: Evidence For

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2007 Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2007

Outline:Outline:Outline:Outline:I. The Importance of God’s I. The Importance of God’s

ExistenceExistence

II. The Definition of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s Existence

III. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for God’s Existence

IV. The Rejection of God’s ExistenceIV. The Rejection of God’s Existence

I. The Importance of God’s I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceExistence






Everything we believe is based on it:Everything we believe is based on it:

A. The Bible is the Word of A. The Bible is the Word of GodGod

B. Christ is the Son of B. Christ is the Son of GodGod

C. The Resurrection is an Act of C. The Resurrection is an Act of GodGod

D. Salvation is the Work of D. Salvation is the Work of GodGod

Note:Note: Little wonder the Bible begins-- Little wonder the Bible begins--

““In the beginning In the beginning GodGod….”….” (Gen. 1:1) (Gen. 1:1)

If this verse is true, then everything else in the Bible If this verse is true, then everything else in the Bible is credible.is credible.

If it is not true, then nothing else is credible.If it is not true, then nothing else is credible.

Everything we believe is based on it:Everything we believe is based on it:

A. The Bible is the Word of A. The Bible is the Word of GodGod

B. Christ is the Son of B. Christ is the Son of GodGod

C. The Resurrection is an Act of C. The Resurrection is an Act of GodGod

D. Salvation is the Work of D. Salvation is the Work of GodGod

Note:Note: Little wonder the Bible begins-- Little wonder the Bible begins--

““In the beginning In the beginning GodGod….”….” (Gen. 1:1) (Gen. 1:1)

If this verse is true, then everything else in the Bible If this verse is true, then everything else in the Bible is credible.is credible.

If it is not true, then nothing else is credible.If it is not true, then nothing else is credible.

II. The Definition of God’s II. The Definition of God’s ExistenceExistence


Which God?Which God? Theism:Theism: God created AllGod created All Deism:Deism: God is beyond the world but not God is beyond the world but not in in

itit Finite Godism:Finite Godism: God is beyond world but God is beyond world but

is limited in power and/or perfectionis limited in power and/or perfection Atheism:Atheism: No God at All No God at All Pantheism:Pantheism: God is AllGod is All Panentheism:Panentheism: God is in AllGod is in All Polytheism:Polytheism: There are many finite godsThere are many finite gods. .

Which God?Which God? Theism:Theism: God created AllGod created All Deism:Deism: God is beyond the world but not God is beyond the world but not in in

itit Finite Godism:Finite Godism: God is beyond world but God is beyond world but

is limited in power and/or perfectionis limited in power and/or perfection Atheism:Atheism: No God at All No God at All Pantheism:Pantheism: God is AllGod is All Panentheism:Panentheism: God is in AllGod is in All Polytheism:Polytheism: There are many finite godsThere are many finite gods. .

Theism:Theism: God created God created AllAll

Theism:Theism: God created God created AllAll

Deism:Deism: God is beyond God is beyond the World but not in the World but not in

itit

Deism:Deism: God is beyond God is beyond the World but not in the World but not in

itit

Finite Godism:Finite Godism: GodGod is is beyond world but is beyond world but is

limitedlimited in power and/or in power and/or perfectionperfection

Finite Godism:Finite Godism: GodGod is is beyond world but is beyond world but is

limitedlimited in power and/or in power and/or perfectionperfection

Atheism:Atheism: No God at No God at AllAll

Atheism:Atheism: No God at No God at AllAll

Pantheism:Pantheism: God is God is AllAll

Pantheism:Pantheism: God is God is AllAll

Panentheism:Panentheism: God is in God is in AllAll

Panentheism:Panentheism: God is in God is in AllAll

Polytheism:Polytheism: There There are many finite are many finite

gods.gods.

Polytheism:Polytheism: There There are many finite are many finite

gods.gods.


ExistenceExistence


III. The Evidence for God’s III. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceExistence



III. The Evidence for God’s III. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceExistence

I. Cosmological ArgumentI. Cosmological Argument A. Horizontal Form (A. Horizontal Form (KalamKalam Argument)— Argument)— (Every chain has a first link)(Every chain has a first link)

– 1. Avicenna (Muslim)1. Avicenna (Muslim)– 2. Boniventure (Christian)2. Boniventure (Christian)



B. Vertical FormB. Vertical Form (Every pile of blocks has a bottom (Every pile of blocks has a bottom

block)block)– 1. Thomas Aquinas1. Thomas Aquinas– 2. Stuart Hackett2. Stuart Hackett



B. Vertical FormB. Vertical Form (Every pile of blocks has a bottom block)(Every pile of blocks has a bottom block)

– 1. Thomas Aquinas1. Thomas Aquinas– 2. Stuart Hackett2. Stuart Hackett

– Horizontal Cause Vertical CauseHorizontal Cause Vertical Cause– Coming to be Continuing to beComing to be Continuing to be– Originating cause Sustaining cause Originating cause Sustaining cause – Cause back then Cause right now Cause back then Cause right now –

A. Horizontal FormA. Horizontal Form 1. Everything that begins had a cause.1. Everything that begins had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning.2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe had a Cause.3. Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

2. The Universe had a 2. The Universe had a beginningbeginning

A. Scientific evidenceA. Scientific evidence– SSecond Law of Thermodynamicsecond Law of Thermodynamics– UUniverse is Expanding niverse is Expanding – RRadiation Echoadiation Echo– GGeneral Relativityeneral Relativity– EEnergy Mass at Edge of Universenergy Mass at Edge of Universe

SSecond Law of econd Law of ThermodynamicsThermodynamicsSSecond Law of econd Law of ThermodynamicsThermodynamics

““Once hydrogen has been burned Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller”in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, (Jastrow, God and the God and the AstronomersAstronomers, , 15-1615-16).).

““Once hydrogen has been burned Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller”in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, (Jastrow, God and the God and the AstronomersAstronomers, , 15-1615-16).).

UNUSABLEENERGY

Agnostic AstronomerAgnostic Astronomer Robert JastrowRobert Jastrow: : ““Now we see how the astronomical Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy"time, in a flash of light and energy" ((God and the AstronomersGod and the Astronomers, 14)., 14).

Agnostic AstronomerAgnostic Astronomer Robert JastrowRobert Jastrow: : ““Now we see how the astronomical Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy"time, in a flash of light and energy" ((God and the AstronomersGod and the Astronomers, 14)., 14).

Science Ends with a Science Ends with a BeginningBeginningScience Ends with a Science Ends with a BeginningBeginning "The scientists pursuit of the "The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the always accepted the word of the Bible: Ìn the beginning God Bible: Ìn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115115).).

"The scientists pursuit of the "The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the always accepted the word of the Bible: Ìn the beginning God Bible: Ìn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115115).).

A Supernatural A Supernatural CreatorCreator

A Supernatural A Supernatural CreatorCreator

"That there are what "That there are what I or anyone would I or anyone would call supernatural call supernatural forces at work is forces at work is now, I think, a now, I think, a scientifically scientifically proven fact" proven fact" (Christianity (Christianity Today,8-6-83, p. Today,8-6-83, p. 15). 15).

"That there are what "That there are what I or anyone would I or anyone would call supernatural call supernatural forces at work is forces at work is now, I think, a now, I think, a scientifically scientifically proven fact" proven fact" (Christianity (Christianity Today,8-6-83, p. Today,8-6-83, p. 15). 15).

AstronomerAstronomer Victor J. Victor J. StengerStenger

AstronomerAstronomer Victor J. Victor J. StengerStenger

"The universe exploded out "The universe exploded out of nothingness" of nothingness" ((Free Free InquiryInquiry, , Winter,Winter, 1992-93, 13). 1992-93, 13).

Note:Note: “Nothing comes from “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever nothing; nothing ever could!”could!”

"The universe exploded out "The universe exploded out of nothingness" of nothingness" ((Free Free InquiryInquiry, , Winter,Winter, 1992-93, 13). 1992-93, 13).

Note:Note: “Nothing comes from “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever nothing; nothing ever could!”could!”

Atheist’s ResponseAtheist’s ResponseAtheist’s ResponseAtheist’s Response

"A proponent of [the big "A proponent of [the big bang] theory, at least if bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must he is an atheist, must believe that the matter believe that the matter of the universe came form of the universe came form nothing and by nothing"nothing and by nothing" ((Anthony Kenny,Anthony Kenny, Five WaysFive Ways, 66)., 66).

"A proponent of [the big "A proponent of [the big bang] theory, at least if bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must he is an atheist, must believe that the matter believe that the matter of the universe came form of the universe came form nothing and by nothing"nothing and by nothing" ((Anthony Kenny,Anthony Kenny, Five WaysFive Ways, 66)., 66).

2. The Universe had a 2. The Universe had a beginningbeginning

A. Scientific evidenceA. Scientific evidence– Second Law of ThermodynamicsSecond Law of Thermodynamics– UUniverse is Expanding niverse is Expanding – RRadiation Echoadiation Echo– GGeneral Relativityeneral Relativity– EEnergy Mass at Edge of Universenergy Mass at Edge of Universe

B. Philosophical argumentB. Philosophical argument– 1) An infinite number of moments has no end. 1) An infinite number of moments has no end. – 2) But this moment is the end of all moments 2) But this moment is the end of all moments

before it.before it.– 3) Hence, time had a beginning (and a Cause).3) Hence, time had a beginning (and a Cause).

Objection:Objection: There can be an infinite number of There can be an infinite number of moments before today (just like there are an moments before today (just like there are an infinite number of points between any places in infinite number of points between any places in space).space).

Answer:Answer: This confuses an abstract infinite series This confuses an abstract infinite series (which is possible) with a concrete one (which is not (which is possible) with a concrete one (which is not possible). possible).

Problem:Problem: As such, it does not prove God exists now As such, it does not prove God exists now but only back then (like Deism).but only back then (like Deism).

Remedy: Remedy: Show that the First Cause is not Show that the First Cause is not contingent (i.e., it is necessary). At this point the contingent (i.e., it is necessary). At this point the argument merges with a vertical cosmological argument merges with a vertical cosmological argument.argument.

A. Horizontal FormA. Horizontal Form 1. Everything that begins had a cause.1. Everything that begins had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning 2. The universe had a beginning

(SURGE).(SURGE). 3. Therefore, the universe had a Cause.3. Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

B. Vertical FormB. Vertical Form 1. Every contingent beings is caused.1. Every contingent beings is caused. 2. The universe is contingent.2. The universe is contingent. 3. Hence, the universe is caused.3. Hence, the universe is caused. Or--Or-- 1. Every part of the universe has a cause.1. Every part of the universe has a cause. 2. Therefore, the whole universe has a 2. Therefore, the whole universe has a

cause.cause.

B. Vertical FormB. Vertical Form 1. Every contingent beings is caused.1. Every contingent beings is caused. 2. The universe is contingent (dependent).2. The universe is contingent (dependent). 3. Hence, the universe is caused.3. Hence, the universe is caused. Or--Or-- 1. Every part of the universe has a cause.1. Every part of the universe has a cause. 2. Therefore, the whole universe has a cause.2. Therefore, the whole universe has a cause.

– Problem:Problem: This is this the fallacy of This is this the fallacy of composition (viz., composition (viz., whole is same as parts).whole is same as parts).

– Answer:Answer: No, it is not (cf. a wooden table or a larger No, it is not (cf. a wooden table or a larger ball).ball).

The Atheist’s DilemmaThe Atheist’s Dilemma 1. Either the universe is more than its parts 1. Either the universe is more than its parts

or else it is equal to its parts.or else it is equal to its parts. 2. If it is equal to its parts, then it needs a 2. If it is equal to its parts, then it needs a

cause (since every part needs a cause).cause (since every part needs a cause). 3. If it is more than its parts, then it is, 3. If it is more than its parts, then it is,

independent of all the parts, uncaused, independent of all the parts, uncaused, eternal, and the Cause on which all the eternal, and the Cause on which all the parts parts depend.depend.

4. But this is what is meant by a theistic God.4. But this is what is meant by a theistic God. 5. Therefore, a theistic God exists. 5. Therefore, a theistic God exists.

Another Cosmological Another Cosmological ArgumentArgument

(From Jonathan Edwards)(From Jonathan Edwards) 1. Something exists (e.g., I do).1. Something exists (e.g., I do). 2. But nothing cannot cause something.2. But nothing cannot cause something. 3. Hence, something exists eternally and 3. Hence, something exists eternally and necessarily.necessarily. a. It must be eternal since if ever there were a. It must be eternal since if ever there were

even nothing, there would always be nothing.even nothing, there would always be nothing. b. It must be necessary (independent) since b. It must be necessary (independent) since

everything cannot be contingent (dependent).everything cannot be contingent (dependent).

Problem:Problem: This does not disprove Pantheism. This does not disprove Pantheism. Remedy:Remedy: Show I am a contingent being (i.e., I am Show I am a contingent being (i.e., I am not not

God because I change). God because I change).

The Problem with The Problem with Pantheism Pantheism

Pantheist’s Claim:Pantheist’s Claim:1. I am God.1. I am God.2. God does not change.2. God does not change.3. But I change because:3. But I change because:

I came to realize that I am God (by I came to realize that I am God (by enlightenment).enlightenment).

So, I changed from not being conscious that I am So, I changed from not being conscious that I am God to being conscious that I am God.God to being conscious that I am God.

4. Hence, I am not God because:4. Hence, I am not God because: God does not change and—God does not change and— He was always conscious that He was God.He was always conscious that He was God. And I was not. And I was not.

Even iEven in this New Agen this New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear: Even iEven in this New Agen this New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear:

Even iEven in this New Agen this New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear: Even iEven in this New Agen this New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear:

1. There is a God.1. There is a God.2. You are not Him!2. You are not Him! 1. There is a God.1. There is a God.2. You are not Him!2. You are not Him!

Still Another Cosmological Still Another Cosmological ArgumentArgument

(from Thomas Aquinas)(from Thomas Aquinas) 1. Things change (i.e., change is real).1. Things change (i.e., change is real). 2. Things that change have the 2. Things that change have the

potentiality potentiality for that change. for that change. 3. But no potentiality can change itself.3. But no potentiality can change itself. 4. Therefore, there must be a Pure 4. Therefore, there must be a Pure

Actuality Actuality which causes the change which causes the change in changing in changing things.things.

Substantial change—is in what we Substantial change—is in what we areare Accidental change—is in what we Accidental change—is in what we havehave

The Ontological The Ontological Argument(s)Argument(s)

The First Argument:The First Argument: 1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect Being.1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect Being. 2. But an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack any 2. But an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack any

perfection including existence (If it did, then it perfection including existence (If it did, then it would would not be absolutely perfect).not be absolutely perfect).

3. Therefore, an absolutely perfect Being must exist.3. Therefore, an absolutely perfect Being must exist. Objection:Objection: Existence is not a perfection; it is only an Existence is not a perfection; it is only an

instance of some perfections. An ideal dollar has all the instance of some perfections. An ideal dollar has all the characteristics of a real one. Further, no characteristics of a real one. Further, no realreal things can be things can be proven from merely an proven from merely an ideaidea of it. What is more, a perfect of it. What is more, a perfect Island may exist in my mind but not in reality.Island may exist in my mind but not in reality.

The Ontological The Ontological Argument(s)Argument(s)

The Second Argument:The Second Argument: 1. God is by definition a Necessary Being.1. God is by definition a Necessary Being. 2. But a Necessary Being must necessarily be 2. But a Necessary Being must necessarily be

(exist), otherwise it would not be a Necessary (exist), otherwise it would not be a Necessary Being.Being. 3. Therefore, God (a Necessary Being) exists.3. Therefore, God (a Necessary Being) exists. Objection: Objection: This does not prove God exists but only thatThis does not prove God exists but only that if if

a Necessary Being exists, then it must exists necessarily. a Necessary Being exists, then it must exists necessarily. Likewise, Likewise, ifif a triangle exists, then it must have three a triangle exists, then it must have three sides. But this does not mean that any triangle actually sides. But this does not mean that any triangle actually exists.exists.

II. Teleological ArgumentII. Teleological Argument A. From Astronomy (Anthropic A. From Astronomy (Anthropic

Principle)Principle)– 1. Anticipatory design shows an 1. Anticipatory design shows an

intelligent intelligent Designer. Designer.– 2. Human life shows anticipatory 2. Human life shows anticipatory

design. design. – 3. Hence, human life shows an 3. Hence, human life shows an

intelligent intelligent Designer. Designer.

Every Design has a DesignerEvery Design has a Designer

““It is not to be conceived that It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and dominion of an intelligent and

powerful Being."powerful Being." ("Scholium," 369) ("Scholium," 369)

““It is not to be conceived that It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and dominion of an intelligent and

powerful Being."powerful Being." ("Scholium," 369) ("Scholium," 369)

Sir Isaac Newton (1642‑1727):Sir Isaac Newton (1642‑1727):

The Anthropic PrincipleThe Anthropic PrincipleThe Anthropic PrincipleThe Anthropic Principle "The anthropic principle is the "The anthropic principle is the

most interesting development next most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" theistic result" ((JastrowJastrow, Christianity , Christianity Today [1982], 17).Today [1982], 17).

"The anthropic principle is the "The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" theistic result" ((JastrowJastrow, Christianity , Christianity Today [1982], 17).Today [1982], 17).

Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human LifeLife Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human LifeLife1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life. 7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together. 8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of 10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is space) is minutely right for matter to exist.minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life. 7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together. 8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of 10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is space) is minutely right for matter to exist.minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

Who Designed it That Who Designed it That Way?Way?

II. Teleological ArgumentII. Teleological Argument A. From Astronomy (Anthropic Principle)A. From Astronomy (Anthropic Principle)

– 1. Anticipatory design shows an intelligent 1. Anticipatory design shows an intelligent Designer.Designer.

– 2. Human life shows anticipatory design. 2. Human life shows anticipatory design. – 3. Hence, human life shows an intelligent 3. Hence, human life shows an intelligent

Designer.Designer. B. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)B. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)

– 1. 1. Specified complexitySpecified complexity has an Intelligent has an Intelligent designer. designer.– 2. First life had specified complexity.2. First life had specified complexity.– 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent

Designer.Designer.

II. Teleological ArgumentII. Teleological Argument C. From Micro Biology (Argument C. From Micro Biology (Argument

2)2)– 1. 1. Irreducible complexityIrreducible complexity has an has an

intelligent intelligent designer. designer.– 2. First life had irreducible 2. First life had irreducible

complexity.complexity.– 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent

Designer Designer

It Made Darwin ShudderIt Made Darwin ShudderIt Made Darwin ShudderIt Made Darwin Shudder

Irreducibly Complex:Irreducibly Complex:All Parts Needed to WorkAll Parts Needed to WorkIrreducibly Complex:Irreducibly Complex:

All Parts Needed to WorkAll Parts Needed to Work

Microbiologist Michael Microbiologist Michael Behe:Behe:Microbiologist Michael Microbiologist Michael Behe:Behe:

"No one at Harvard University, no one at the "No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." He adds, "Other examples of irreducible He adds, "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of DNA complexity abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more"regulation, and more" (Behe, (Behe, Darwin’s Black BoxDarwin’s Black Box,, 187, 160187, 160).).

"No one at Harvard University, no one at the "No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." He adds, "Other examples of irreducible He adds, "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of DNA complexity abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more"regulation, and more" (Behe, (Behe, Darwin’s Black BoxDarwin’s Black Box,, 187, 160187, 160).).

Intelligent Design from Intelligent Design from an Intelligent Being! (Mom)an Intelligent Being! (Mom)

TT KK EE OO UU

HH GG RRBB

MM

TT

TT EE EE

AA

AA AAGG

OO MM__

{GC Cytosine Guanine

3

Who Designed the Genetic Code?

Sugar &Phosphate Molecules

Base Pairs

TAAdenine Thymine

A

T

G

C

A

G

T

A

C

T

1 2

4

One Ameba =One Ameba = 1,000 sets of an1,000 sets of an EncyclopediaEncyclopedia

One Ameba =One Ameba = 1,000 sets of an1,000 sets of an EncyclopediaEncyclopedia

Intelligent Intelligent DesignDesign:: Intelligent Intelligent DesignDesign::

Thus, Thus, "The conclusion of intelligent "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic that requires no new principles of logic or science"or science" (Behe, ibid., 193). (Behe, ibid., 193).

"Life on earth at its most fundamental "Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity"is the product of intelligent activity" (ibid.).(ibid.).

Thus, Thus, "The conclusion of intelligent "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic that requires no new principles of logic or science"or science" (Behe, ibid., 193). (Behe, ibid., 193).

"Life on earth at its most fundamental "Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity"is the product of intelligent activity" (ibid.).(ibid.).

Human Brain = 20 Human Brain = 20 million volumes of million volumes of

information !information !

Human Brain = 20 Human Brain = 20 million volumes of million volumes of

information !information !

20 million = 1000 20 million = 1000 volumes volumes

on each seat!on each seat!

20 million = 1000 20 million = 1000 volumes volumes

on each seat!on each seat!

III. Moral ArgumentIII. Moral Argument A. Every law has a law giver.A. Every law has a law giver.

– 1. Every prescription has a prescriber.1. Every prescription has a prescriber.– 2. Every legislation has a legislator.2. Every legislation has a legislator.

B. There is an absolute moral law.B. There is an absolute moral law. C. There must be an Absolute Moral C. There must be an Absolute Moral

Law Law Giver.Giver.

III. Moral ArgumentIII. Moral Argument A. Every law has a law giver.A. Every law has a law giver.

– 1. Every prescription has a prescriber.1. Every prescription has a prescriber.– 2. Every legislation has a legislator.2. Every legislation has a legislator.

B. There is an absolute moral law.B. There is an absolute moral law. C. There must be an Absolute Moral Law C. There must be an Absolute Moral Law

Giver.Giver.

““B” is the crucial premise. There are many B” is the crucial premise. There are many arguments in support of it:arguments in support of it:

[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

Straight Line = Absolute Standard

1. We can’t know what is in-just

unless we know what is Just. 1. We can’t know what is in-just

unless we know what is Just.

C.S. LewisMere Christianity, 45.

2. Absolutes are 2. Absolutes are undeniable.undeniable.

I am I am absolutely absolutely

sure there are sure there are no absolutes!no absolutes!

You You should should

never say never say ‘never’!‘never’!

The Father of Situational The Father of Situational EthicsEthics

The Father of Situational The Father of Situational EthicsEthics

He declared that He declared that we should:we should:

1. Always avoid 1. Always avoid using“always.”using“always.”

2. Never use “never.”2. Never use “never.”

3. Absolutely avoid 3. Absolutely avoid absolutes.absolutes.

((Situation EthicsSituation Ethics, 43), 43)

He declared that He declared that we should:we should:

1. Always avoid 1. Always avoid using“always.”using“always.”

2. Never use “never.”2. Never use “never.”

3. Absolutely avoid 3. Absolutely avoid absolutes.absolutes.

((Situation EthicsSituation Ethics, 43), 43)

Joseph FletcherJoseph Fletcher

3. Moral comparisons 3. Moral comparisons demanddemand

an objective moral standard. an objective moral standard.

3. Moral comparisons 3. Moral comparisons demanddemand

an objective moral standard. an objective moral standard.

=Mother Teresa is better than HitlerMother Teresa is better than Hitler

4. True progress (or 4. True progress (or regress) demands an regress) demands an absolute absolute standardstandard..

4. True progress (or 4. True progress (or regress) demands an regress) demands an absolute absolute standardstandard..

We can’t know the world is We can’t know the world is gettinggetting betterbetter (or worse) (or worse) unless we know what is unless we know what is BestBest

5. Everything can’t be 5. Everything can’t be relative?relative?5. Everything can’t be 5. Everything can’t be relative?relative?

It can’t be It can’t be relative to the relative to the relative, etc!relative, etc!

It must be It must be relative to relative to

what is NOT what is NOT relative!relative!

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. C.S. Lewis

Mere Christianity, 25.

6. Moral disputes call for an objective

standard outside the dispute.

6. Moral disputes call for an objective

standard outside the dispute.

7. We don’t invent the moral 7. We don’t invent the moral law law any more than we any more than we invent invent mathematical or mathematical or physical laws.physical laws.

7. We don’t invent the moral 7. We don’t invent the moral law law any more than we any more than we invent invent mathematical or mathematical or physical laws.physical laws.

No one invented No one invented the laws of math--the laws of math--

and Newton did and Newton did not invent gravity.not invent gravity.

Like moral laws, Like moral laws, they were they were discovered!discovered!

8. Universal moral guilt 8. Universal moral guilt shows shows there is a universal there is a universal moral law.moral law.

8. Universal moral guilt 8. Universal moral guilt shows shows there is a universal there is a universal moral law.moral law.

Making Excuses for our Making Excuses for our FaultsFaults

It seems then we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. First, human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. Second, they do not in fact behave in that way. The truth is, we believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.

It seems then we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. First, human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. Second, they do not in fact behave in that way. The truth is, we believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. C. S. Lewis

Mere Christianity, 21

9. We sometimes choose duty over instinct.

9. We sometimes choose duty over instinct.

10. We all find some things evil (e.g., genocide, racism &

bigotry)

10. We all find some things evil (e.g., genocide, racism &

bigotry)

11. There are many things 11. There are many things we we don’t want others don’t want others to do to to do to us (e.g., lie, us (e.g., lie, cheat, abuse, cheat, abuse, and kill).and kill).

“Do unto others what you “Do unto others what you would have others do would have others do to you”to you”

--The Golden Rule --The Golden Rule

11. There are many things 11. There are many things we we don’t want others don’t want others to do to to do to us (e.g., lie, us (e.g., lie, cheat, abuse, cheat, abuse, and kill).and kill).

“Do unto others what you “Do unto others what you would have others do would have others do to you”to you”

--The Golden Rule --The Golden Rule

12. The same basic moral 12. The same basic moral codes arecodes are found in all found in all major culturesmajor cultures

12. The same basic moral 12. The same basic moral codes arecodes are found in all found in all major culturesmajor cultures

Lewis shows that prohibitions against disrespect for parents, lying, stealing, and killing are found in all major cultures of the world (see Appendix)

Lewis shows that prohibitions against disrespect for parents, lying, stealing, and killing are found in all major cultures of the world (see Appendix)

Other Arguments for GodOther Arguments for God The Argument from Religions ExperienceThe Argument from Religions Experience 1. Billions of people claim to have 1. Billions of people claim to have

experienced experienced God.God. 2. If even one is right, then there is a God.2. If even one is right, then there is a God. 3. It is highly unlikely that all are wrong 3. It is highly unlikely that all are wrong

including including numerous scientists, philosophers, numerous scientists, philosophers, and self-and self- critical people like Moses, Isaiah, critical people like Moses, Isaiah, St. Paul, St. Paul, Pascal, and even Jesus Himself.Pascal, and even Jesus Himself.

4. Therefore, it is highly likely there is a 4. Therefore, it is highly likely there is a GodGod..

The Argument from Religious NeedThe Argument from Religious Need 1. All persons need God.1. All persons need God. 2. What we really need, really exists.2. What we really need, really exists. 3. Therefore, God really exists.3. Therefore, God really exists. The Aesthetic ArgumentThe Aesthetic Argument 1. Nature is beautiful.1. Nature is beautiful. 2. Nature’s beauty is not purely 2. Nature’s beauty is not purely

subjective.subjective. 3. All objective beauty has an intelligent 3. All objective beauty has an intelligent

creator. creator. 4. Therefore, there is a Creator of the 4. Therefore, there is a Creator of the

beauty in beauty in Nature. Nature.

The Combined ArgumentsThe Combined Arguments God is—God is— 1. 1. Infinitely powerfulInfinitely powerful—Cosmological Argument—Cosmological Argument 2. 2. Infinitely intelligentInfinitely intelligent—Teleological Argument—Teleological Argument 3. 3. Absolutely PerfectAbsolutely Perfect—Moral Argument —Moral Argument 4. 4. Absolutely Unique (One)Absolutely Unique (One) because: because: 1. There cannot be two infinite Beings.1. There cannot be two infinite Beings. 2. There cannot be two perfect Beings.2. There cannot be two perfect Beings. 3. There is only one Mind behind the universe as 3. There is only one Mind behind the universe as is is

indicated by—indicated by— a. The anthropic principle; a. The anthropic principle; b. The universality of physical and b. The universality of physical and

mathematical laws. mathematical laws.


ExistenceExistence








In View of the In View of the Evidence,Evidence,

Why Do Some Reject Why Do Some Reject God?God?

In View of the In View of the Evidence,Evidence,

Why Do Some Reject Why Do Some Reject God?God?

You Can Lead a Horse You Can Lead a Horse to to the Water, the Water, but….but….

You Can Lead a Horse You Can Lead a Horse to to the Water, the Water, but….but….

The ReactionsThe Reactions of Some of Some Scientist’sScientist’sThe ReactionsThe Reactions of Some of Some Scientist’sScientist’s

Arthur Eddington:Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically, the "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to find a genuine loophole"find a genuine loophole" (in Heeren, (in Heeren, Show Me Show Me GodGod, 81). , 81).

Einstein:Einstein: ““This circumstance [of an expanding This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"what exists" (in Jastrow,(in Jastrow, God and the AstronomersGod and the Astronomers, , 2828).).

Arthur Eddington:Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically, the "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to find a genuine loophole"find a genuine loophole" (in Heeren, (in Heeren, Show Me Show Me GodGod, 81). , 81).

Einstein:Einstein: ““This circumstance [of an expanding This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"what exists" (in Jastrow,(in Jastrow, God and the AstronomersGod and the Astronomers, , 2828).).

Robert JastrowRobert Jastrow.--"There is a kind of .--"There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control" (scientist has lost control" (GA 113-114). GA 113-114).

Robert JastrowRobert Jastrow.--"There is a kind of .--"There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control" (scientist has lost control" (GA 113-114). GA 113-114).

Other ReactionsOther Reactions Other ReactionsOther Reactions Julian Huxley:Julian Huxley: "For my own part, the sense "For my own part, the sense of of spiritual reliefspiritual relief which comes from which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous..."supernatural being is enormous..." (Huxley, (Huxley, Religion without RevelationReligion without Revelation, 32). , 32).

Friedrich Nietzsche:Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one were to prove "If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in should be even less able to believe in him"him" ((AntichristAntichrist, 627)., 627).

Julian Huxley:Julian Huxley: "For my own part, the sense "For my own part, the sense of of spiritual reliefspiritual relief which comes from which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous..."supernatural being is enormous..." (Huxley, (Huxley, Religion without RevelationReligion without Revelation, 32). , 32).

Friedrich Nietzsche:Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one were to prove "If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in should be even less able to believe in him"him" ((AntichristAntichrist, 627)., 627).

St. Paul’s St. Paul’s DeclarationDeclaration::

St. Paul’s St. Paul’s DeclarationDeclaration::

He speaks of those who “…suppress the He speaks of those who “…suppress the truth by their wickedness because what truth by their wickedness because what may be known about God is plain to may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (are without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20Rom. 1:18-20).).

He speaks of those who “…suppress the He speaks of those who “…suppress the truth by their wickedness because what truth by their wickedness because what may be known about God is plain to may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (are without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20Rom. 1:18-20).).

Harvard’s Richard Harvard’s Richard LewontinLewontin

Harvard’s Richard Harvard’s Richard LewontinLewontin

““We take the side of science in spite of the We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to because we have a prior commitment to materialismmaterialism. It is not that the methods and . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we we are forced by our a priori adherence to material are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes….causes…. Moreover that Moreover that materialism is absolute materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” ((New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).

““We take the side of science in spite of the We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to because we have a prior commitment to materialismmaterialism. It is not that the methods and . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we we are forced by our a priori adherence to material are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes….causes…. Moreover that Moreover that materialism is absolute materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” ((New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).

Outline:Outline:Outline:Outline:I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceI. The Importance of God’s Existence




V. Objections AnsweredV. Objections Answered

I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceI. The Importance of God’s Existence




V. Objections AnsweredV. Objections Answered

Objections to Teleological Objections to Teleological ArgumentArgument

Objection 1:Objection 1: Things could have happened by chance, not by design.Things could have happened by chance, not by design. Answer:Answer: First, the chances are virtually zero. Second, science is First, the chances are virtually zero. Second, science is

not based on chance but on regularity which demands an not based on chance but on regularity which demands an intelligent cause of life. Third, chance is not a cause. The only intelligent cause of life. Third, chance is not a cause. The only causes are natural forces or intelligent ones. And life needs an causes are natural forces or intelligent ones. And life needs an intelligent cause.intelligent cause.

Objection 2:Objection 2: Natural selection could have caused first life to Natural selection could have caused first life to emerge.emerge.

Answer: Answer: First, there is no natural selection on the pre-biotic level. First, there is no natural selection on the pre-biotic level. Second, natural selection only explains the survival of the old, not Second, natural selection only explains the survival of the old, not the arrival of the new. Third, natural selection has never been the arrival of the new. Third, natural selection has never been observed to produce life from chemicals.observed to produce life from chemicals.

Objection 3:Objection 3: There is lack of design in nature—things which There is lack of design in nature—things which have no purpose.have no purpose.

Answer:Answer: First, no known purpose does not mean no purpose. First, no known purpose does not mean no purpose. Second, we now know a purpose for many things we did not. Second, we now know a purpose for many things we did not. Third, we may yet find a purpose for the rest. Fourth, even Third, we may yet find a purpose for the rest. Fourth, even randomness has a purpose (cf. breath). Fifth, even empty randomness has a purpose (cf. breath). Fifth, even empty space is needed for life here on earth. space is needed for life here on earth.

Objection 4:Objection 4: Some designs are not perfect. There is waste. Some designs are not perfect. There is waste. Organism’s break down. Mutations occur.Organism’s break down. Mutations occur.

Answer: Answer: First, even less than perfect designs still need a First, even less than perfect designs still need a designer. Second, there may be a purpose for less than a designer. Second, there may be a purpose for less than a perfect design. Third, the world’s imperfections may have a perfect design. Third, the world’s imperfections may have a moral cause. It may have been made perfect to begin with but moral cause. It may have been made perfect to begin with but only later became imperfect (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 8).only later became imperfect (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 8).

Objection 5: Objection 5: There could be There could be endless designers and no endless designers and no first first Designer.Designer.

Response:Response: First, e First, every very causecause does does not need a not need a cause; only everycause; only every effecteffect does. does.

Second, every Second, every designerdesigner does not does not need a cause; only every need a cause; only every designdesign does.does.

Objections to Cosmological Objections to Cosmological ArgumentArgument

Objection 1: Objection 1: The designer must be like designers we know, The designer must be like designers we know, namely, finite, multiple, male or female, imperfect, etc. namely, finite, multiple, male or female, imperfect, etc. But God is not like this. But God is not like this.

Answer:Answer: First, the principle of uniformity demands only First, the principle of uniformity demands only similaritysimilarity, not identity of causes in the past with those in , not identity of causes in the past with those in the present. Second, similarity of cause to effect means the present. Second, similarity of cause to effect means both like and different. Third, the Cause of the world must both like and different. Third, the Cause of the world must be different from the world it causes in many ways:be different from the world it causes in many ways:

The Cause of the World The WorldThe Cause of the World The World CreatorCreator The Creature The Creature No Beginning A beginningNo Beginning A beginning Infinite (unlimited) Finite (limited)Infinite (unlimited) Finite (limited) Pure Actuality Actuality and potentialityPure Actuality Actuality and potentiality Conclusion:Conclusion: The effect is like the cause in its actuality but The effect is like the cause in its actuality but

unlike it in its potentiality (limitations).unlike it in its potentiality (limitations).

Objection 2:Objection 2: Who made God?Who made God?Answer:Answer: No one. God is the unmade Maker and the No one. God is the unmade Maker and the

uncaused Cause. He never came to be but always was.uncaused Cause. He never came to be but always was.Answer:Answer: God needs not cause. Even atheists believe in an God needs not cause. Even atheists believe in an

uncaused universe. So, why not an uncaused God. If uncaused universe. So, why not an uncaused God. If there is anything, then something always was—either there is anything, then something always was—either the universe or God. And the universe had a beginning. the universe or God. And the universe had a beginning. Hence, it was caused. Hence, it was caused.

Objection 2:Objection 2: If everything needs a cause, then so does If everything needs a cause, then so does God.God.

Answer:Answer: Everything does not need a cause. Only what Everything does not need a cause. Only what begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause. The begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause. The world is all of these, but God is none of these. Hence, world is all of these, but God is none of these. Hence, God does not need a cause, but the universe does.God does not need a cause, but the universe does.

Objection 3:Objection 3: Energy is eternal and uncreated. Energy is eternal and uncreated. Hence, the universe needs no cause. For the Hence, the universe needs no cause. For the First Law of Thermodynamics says: “Energy First Law of Thermodynamics says: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”can neither be created nor destroyed.”

Answer:Answer: This is a misstatement of this Law. It This is a misstatement of this Law. It should be stated: “The amount of actual should be stated: “The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.”energy in the universe remains constant.”

It says nothing about its origin or destiny. It says nothing about its origin or destiny. Science is based on observation, and the first Science is based on observation, and the first

statement is not based on observation. statement is not based on observation. Hence , it is not scientific but purely Hence , it is not scientific but purely speculative.speculative.

Objections AnsweredObjections Answered Objection 4:Objection 4: An infinite series (regress) of causes is An infinite series (regress) of causes is

possible. Hence, there is no First Cause.possible. Hence, there is no First Cause. Answer: Answer: An infinite regress is not possible since:An infinite regress is not possible since: 1. Any infinite series of actual things is not 1. Any infinite series of actual things is not possible possible

(since one more can always be added, but (since one more can always be added, but more than more than an infinite is not possible). an infinite is not possible).

2. An infinite number of causes is not possible since 2. An infinite number of causes is not possible since every one is being caused, and yet one is causing. every one is being caused, and yet one is causing. So, one is causing itself which is impossible.So, one is causing itself which is impossible.

Objection 5:Objection 5: Things can happen without a cause. Things can happen without a cause. Answer:Answer: This is absurd. Even the skeptic Hume said so. It This is absurd. Even the skeptic Hume said so. It

is contradictory to affirm that nothing can produce is contradictory to affirm that nothing can produce something. “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever something. “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.”could.”

Objections AnsweredObjections Answered Objection 6 Objection 6 According to Heissenberg, things in the According to Heissenberg, things in the

subatomic realm operate without a cause.subatomic realm operate without a cause. Answer:Answer: He never said this. He only said we cannot He never said this. He only said we cannot

predictpredict the exact course of a particle, not that it did not the exact course of a particle, not that it did not have a cause. Further, we can’t “see” the subatomic have a cause. Further, we can’t “see” the subatomic world without disturbing it. Also, the pattern produced world without disturbing it. Also, the pattern produced by particles is regular and predictable and, hence, it must by particles is regular and predictable and, hence, it must have a cause. have a cause.

Objection 7Objection 7: Believing there is a First Cause leads to : Believing there is a First Cause leads to antinomies or contradictions. For if everything needs a antinomies or contradictions. For if everything needs a cause, then there must be a First Cause. But if cause, then there must be a First Cause. But if everything needs a cause, then so does the First Cause. everything needs a cause, then so does the First Cause. Hence, the contradiction.Hence, the contradiction.

Answer:Answer: Everything does not need a cause. Only what Everything does not need a cause. Only what begins (is finite or contingent) needs a cause.begins (is finite or contingent) needs a cause.

Objections AnsweredObjections Answered Objection 8:Objection 8: Only a finite cause is needed to explain a finite Only a finite cause is needed to explain a finite

effect, not an infinite one.effect, not an infinite one. Answer:Answer: Not so. Since every finite needs a cause, then the First Not so. Since every finite needs a cause, then the First

Cause cannot be finite or else it would need a cause. Hence, the Cause cannot be finite or else it would need a cause. Hence, the First Cause must be not-finite, that is, infinite. Just as the First First Cause must be not-finite, that is, infinite. Just as the First Cause must be uncaused, so the First Cause cannot be finite, Cause must be uncaused, so the First Cause cannot be finite, contingent, or have a beginning. contingent, or have a beginning.

Objection 9:Objection 9: In all deductive arguments the conclusion cannot In all deductive arguments the conclusion cannot contain anything more than is already in the premises. But if God contain anything more than is already in the premises. But if God is already in the premises, then the argument begs the question is already in the premises, then the argument begs the question by assuming God.by assuming God.

Answer:Answer: FirstFirst, God is only there implicitly, not explicitly. He is an , God is only there implicitly, not explicitly. He is an inference from the premises. inference from the premises. SecondSecond, God is only there , God is only there hypothetically. That is, if the world has a beginning, then there is hypothetically. That is, if the world has a beginning, then there is a God. The world had a beginning. Hence, there really is a God.a God. The world had a beginning. Hence, there really is a God.

Third, Third, it can be formulated like a transcendental it can be formulated like a transcendental argument, namely, the necessary condition to argument, namely, the necessary condition to explaining the existence of the finite world is an explaining the existence of the finite world is an infinite Cause. This avoids any alleged infinite Cause. This avoids any alleged deductive fallacy.deductive fallacy.

Objection 10:Objection 10: The cosmological argument is The cosmological argument is based on the ontological argument which is based on the ontological argument which is invalid.invalid.

Answer:Answer: This is not true since the cosmological This is not true since the cosmological argument is based on something that argument is based on something that really really existsexists, but the ontological argument is based on , but the ontological argument is based on the mere ideathe mere idea (of a perfect or necessary Being). (of a perfect or necessary Being).

Other ObjectionsOther Objections Objection 1:Objection 1: The God of philosophy is not the God The God of philosophy is not the God

of of the Bible. the Bible. Answer:Answer: They must be the same since: They must be the same since: 1. They are both infinite Beings, and there 1. They are both infinite Beings, and there

cannot cannot be two infinite Beings. be two infinite Beings. 2. They are both absolutely perfect, and there 2. They are both absolutely perfect, and there

cannot be two absolutely perfect cannot be two absolutely perfect Beings. Beings.

3. There is more than one way to approach 3. There is more than one way to approach the the same object (like a mountain peak). same object (like a mountain peak).

a. Objectively--philosophicallya. Objectively--philosophically b. Subjectively—religiouslyb. Subjectively—religiously

Objection 2:Objection 2: Philosophical arguments can’t be used Philosophical arguments can’t be used to to bring anyone to God.bring anyone to God.

Answer:Answer: This is not true because: This is not true because: 1. The Bible says they can (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15).1. The Bible says they can (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15). 2. It is unreasonable to believe the God of reason 2. It is unreasonable to believe the God of reason

will bypass it to reach reasonable creatures will bypass it to reach reasonable creatures (God does not bypass the mind on way to the (God does not bypass the mind on way to the heart). heart).

3. Many people testify to the use of reason 3. Many people testify to the use of reason and evidence to bring then to God (St. and evidence to bring then to God (St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Frank Morrison, C.S. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Frank Morrison, C.S. Lewis, Jay Budziszewski, and many others). Lewis, Jay Budziszewski, and many others).

Objection 3:Objection 3: Depraved men cannot understand the Depraved men cannot understand the truth truth about God (1 Cor. 2:14).about God (1 Cor. 2:14).

Answer: Answer: Yes they can because —Yes they can because — 1. This text says they don’t 1. This text says they don’t receive receive it, not that it, not that they they

can’t can’t perceiveperceive it. it. – 2. Otherwise God is wrong in condemning them 2. Otherwise God is wrong in condemning them to hell for to hell for

not responding to general not responding to general revelation in nature revelation in nature (Rom. 1:19-20).(Rom. 1:19-20).

3. The image of God is not erased but only 3. The image of God is not erased but only effaced in effaced in fallen man (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9).fallen man (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9).

4. They couldn’t suppress the truth unless they 4. They couldn’t suppress the truth unless they knew what knew what they were suppressing (Rom. they were suppressing (Rom. 1:18). Indeed, God said it 1:18). Indeed, God said it was “clear” and was “clear” and “evident” to them (Rom. 1:19-20). “evident” to them (Rom. 1:19-20).

Objections to the Moral Objections to the Moral ArgumentArgument

Objection 1:Objection 1: Moral Law is just herd instinct.Moral Law is just herd instinct. Answer:Answer: This is not so because: 1) If so, the stronger This is not so because: 1) If so, the stronger

instinct would always win, but it does not (since instinct would always win, but it does not (since moral duty sometimes sides with the weaker moral duty sometimes sides with the weaker instinct). 2) If so, we would always act from instinct, instinct). 2) If so, we would always act from instinct, not for it (to bolster it, as we sometimes do).not for it (to bolster it, as we sometimes do).

Objection 2:Objection 2: Moral Law is merely social conventionMoral Law is merely social convention.. Answer: Answer: First, what is learned First, what is learned throughthrough society (e.g., society (e.g.,

Math and Logic) is not Math and Logic) is not based onbased on society. Second, society. Second, judgment about society being better (or worse) only judgment about society being better (or worse) only make sense if they are independent of society. Third, make sense if they are independent of society. Third, most differences in judgment are over fact, not most differences in judgment are over fact, not values.values.

Objection 3: Objection 3: Moral Law is just the law of nature.Moral Law is just the law of nature. Answer: Answer: First, nature’s laws are descriptive, not First, nature’s laws are descriptive, not

prescriptive (as moral law is). Second, situations prescriptive (as moral law is). Second, situations factual more inconvenient are sometimes morally factual more inconvenient are sometimes morally desirable (and vice versa).desirable (and vice versa).

Third, things naturally more convenient are some- Third, things naturally more convenient are sometimes condemned by moral duty (e.g., betraying one’s times condemned by moral duty (e.g., betraying one’s friend for money).friend for money).

Fourth, even factual convenience for the whole race Fourth, even factual convenience for the whole race does not explain why I ought to do that when it is not does not explain why I ought to do that when it is not factually convenient to me.factually convenient to me.

Objection 4:Objection 4: The moral law is mere fancy. The moral law is mere fancy. Answer:Answer: It can’t be since we can’t get rid of it. Also, It can’t be since we can’t get rid of it. Also,

value judgments are meaningless without it. Further, I value judgments are meaningless without it. Further, I did not make it since it condemns me.did not make it since it condemns me.

Objection 5:Objection 5: People interpret the moral law People interpret the moral law differently. differently.

Answer:Answer: Scientists have interpreted nature Scientists have interpreted nature differently, but natural laws have not changed.differently, but natural laws have not changed.

Objection 6:Objection 6: We used to burn witches but no longer We used to burn witches but no longer do. So, values changedo. So, values change..

Objection 7: Objection 7: Practices vary from culture to culture. Practices vary from culture to culture. Answer:Answer: Moral law is not what people Moral law is not what people dodo but what but what they they oughtought to do. This we know by what we want to do. This we know by what we want people to do to us (not by what we do to them).people to do to us (not by what we do to them).

Objection 8:Objection 8: Even our understanding of virtues Even our understanding of virtues differ from culture to culture (e.g., Eskimos).differ from culture to culture (e.g., Eskimos).Answer:Answer: My understanding of love has changed My understanding of love has changed

over time but love has not changed.over time but love has not changed.

Objection 9:Objection 9: Political debates reveal a Political debates reveal a conflict of value (e.g., on war, poverty, conflict of value (e.g., on war, poverty, etc).etc).

Answer:Answer: These are largely debates over These are largely debates over means not ends (values).means not ends (values).

Objection 10:Objection 10: The abortion debate is a The abortion debate is a conflict of values.conflict of values.

Answer:Answer: Much of it over fact (of when life Much of it over fact (of when life begins), not over the value of life.begins), not over the value of life.

The conflict of values can be resolved by The conflict of values can be resolved by appealing to expectations, not actions.appealing to expectations, not actions.

In This New AgeIn This New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear:

In This New AgeIn This New AgeTwo things are crystal clear:Two things are crystal clear:

1. There is a God.1. There is a God. 2. I am not Him! 2. I am not Him!

Documents

Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True 1. Truth about reality is knowable. 2. The opposite of true is false. 3. It is true that the theistic God