Sunday, April 20, 2008

Movie Review, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

With all the hype going on regarding Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" I was surprised there was such a small turn out, no more then 30 or so in the entire theater, when I saw it yesterday.

I'd done a great deal of reading about people calling it "propaganda" and so forth, and I must say I don't think any of the criticisms I heard regarding the movie were justified. Some claimed the movie provided different definitions of intelligent design, was grossly unfair, and so forth. However, the people who say such things are only justifying the overriding principle of the movie; that scientists and academics who think God might possibly have had a role in bringing the universe into existence are unfairly treated as illogical "ignorant or insane" (Richard Dawkins).

Thus I feel inclined to take a fair look at the movie, and in doing so I'll articulate my opinion on the controversy regarding it. According to the movie's definition, intelligent design is the theory that certain scientific phenomena are best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer. Now this is not a sectarian religious claim, for as a Christian I'm in agreement with Muslims, Jews, and people of other religions in regards to the fact that God (or a god) created the universe.

This is not Young Earth Creationism, for though I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), I consider the debate between myself and evolutionists as secondary to the question of whether or not God is the original cause of the universe's existence. Thus the movie does not attempt to disprove or discredit evolutionary theory (even YECs such as myself believe in some evolution), but deals with whether evolution can answer such questions as "where did we come from originally?

Essentially the answer is no, by the National Academy of Science's own definition science is the study of natural processes, causes, and effects. Whereas God is not a natural process, cause, or effect it is beyond science to make a verdict on this issue. This is not to say religion and science are enemies, nor is it to say that they don't over-lap, but there are certain mutually exclusive territories regarding religion and science.

What Ben Stein proposes is there are certain members of the scientific community who are taking evolution and using it to justify an atheistic world view, thus making science and religion enemies. I don't know how anyone can deny this fact when Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers admit to this openly on camera. However it becomes apparent that the claims of these people stem not from science, but from their contempt and disdain for anything God.

The heart of the issue is not Creation V. Evolution, the heart of the issue is can you be a rationally thinking person and believe in God? Any of my frequent readers will know that I answer that question with an emphatic YES! I do believe God created the universe and I don't believe science in any way contradicts the rationality of that belief, I believe that there is a place where science can't go further and based on what we've learned by it we must come to some conclusions.

So what is this place? This is where intelligent design comes in, now some say "that's not science", fine! Let me say then that it is a philosophy rooted in scientific evidence. Saying intelligent design isn't science in no way diminishes what it proposes, here's why.

The ultimate question, as we've mentioned, is not one regarding creation or evolution, it's one regarding the existence of God. And what Ben Stein does is asks point blank "where did we come from", "how did matter begin to exist in the first place" etc... These are questions asked point blank in the movie, and one man dodges it, but Richard Dawkins did answer. Dawkins says (paraphrased) that perhaps some advanced life form, that itself developed through evolutionary processes, seeded a living cell on the earth.

Ok, Dawkins big conclusion that every atheist in the world hails as scientific is we came from aliens. I should like to ask, how is that conclusion any more scientific then the hypothesis of God? I'd also like to ask what caused those aliens to exist?

You see what I'm saying? Science searches for facts, but this is something that science isn't able to approach. What I propose is the Kalam argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (that must necessarily be uncaused and never began to exist but always was, this I say, is God).

My argument is rooted in science, in that it's easily proved everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. The logical conclusion is not "natural" and therefore not scientific, but it does not contradict science. I will happily pose this hypothesis against Dawkins aliens.

So I'll end with a challenge, prove me wrong. I'll debate anyone, anytime, anywhere, unashamedly. The hypothesis of God that so many atheists have tried to suppress falsely in the name of science is certainly no less logical then Dawkins aliens (that fall short in that they still need a cause).

God bless!
Joey

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The End of The World As We Know It

In response to my most recent post (The Interview) I've received a request to further explain my views on the end times. Eschatology is a deep, highly debated subject. I don't intend to examine every verse dealing with the subject, nor do I intend to provide a detailed analysis of everything that will happen from the Second Coming through the 7 year tribulation.

The first thing I'd like to address is the Second Coming. Now if you'll examine Matthew 24 there are signs given that will precede Christ's Second Coming. Wars and rumors of wars, the earth quaking in various places, famines, persecution and so forth will all be transpiring before Christ returns for the saints. There is one thing regarding this that causes much confusion, and that is in fact the actual return.

When people say "The Second Coming" they often refer either to 1. The Rapture, and 2. Christ coming, judging the nations, the Thousand Year reign and so forth. So many are confused as to what will happen when. However, this is easily understood by realizing there are two phases in the Second Coming, in phase 1 Christ comes for the Saints (the Rapture), and in phase 2 Christ comes with the Saints. Essentially phase 1 happens, we have the seven year tribulation, and then phase 2 of the Second Coming. I Thessalonians 4:16-17, Luke 21:20-33, and Matthew 25:31-46 help explain why I'm saying this. For one event is visible by all, and obvious (the 2nd phase); the other is unexpected and involves the Church being caught to meet Christ in the air (1st phase). See http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/rapt2com.htm for more details.

Rest assured I'm giving only a brief synopsis of these events. There are many other details, passages, arguments, and views regarding this.

Now after the Rapture, I believe there will be a 7 year period of tribulation. I believe most of the book of Revelation deals with this time period and what will transpire then. This is the time that will see the anti-Christ, the plagues, great judgment on nations, and so forth. There are specific prophecies regarding the anti-Christ and other end-time events found in the books of the major and minor prophets in the Old Testament (Isaiah, Daniel, Joel, etc...).

Immediately prior to this tribulation the Church has been taken (raptured). At the end of this tribulation we will see Armageddon, and the return of Christ with the Saints. This will lead to the 1000 year reign of Christ.

Now to get to the point, we don't honestly know exactly when Christ will return. At any rate there is no reason He could not return before you finish reading this post; and on the other hand He might not return for another 50 to a hundred (or more) years. It is my personal opinion that it will be sooner rather then later.

Either way, we should realize that life is a vapor (James 4:14). We need to live for Christ every moment of the day and every day of the week. Whether He's coming today, or next year, or 1000 years from now should have no impact on how we live; because we ought to live a life pleasing to God all the time!

Philippians 3:12-16 (God's Word Translation) sums up how we ought to live:
"It's not that I've already reached the goal or have already completed the course. But I run to win that which Jesus Christ has already won for me. Brothers and sisters, I can't consider myself a winner yet. This is what I do: I don't look back, I lengthen my stride, and I run straight toward the goal to win the prize that God's heavenly call offers in Christ Jesus. Whoever has a mature faith should think this way. And if you think differently, God will show you how to think. However, we should be guided by what we have learned so far."
(Emphasis Mine)

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Interview

I just did this interview, I thought it was pretty interesting so I'll share and see what you all think (my answers in italics):

> What does Spiritual warfare mean to you?
Spiritual warfare, in simplest terms, is the enemy attempting to keep us out of relationship with God in way one or another. There are numerous "strategies" but the goal of all of them is the same.
>
> What do you believe to be your purpose in life?
> There is much confusion about this, but ultimately life's purpose is not about something or somewhere, but someone. I believe life's greatest purpose is intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. Occupations/talents/gifts are secondary to this.
>
> What Bible passage is your favorite?
> As far as we can have "favorites" I'd say Hebrews 12:1-3
>
> Who is your favorite Bible character apart from Jesus?
> Apollos
>
> Other than Biblical figures, who have been your heroes
> of the faith?
> Jim Whittaker, Mark Carter, D.S., John Ervin, my father to name a few
>
> In your mind what event has had the greatest effect
> upon the moral degradation of America?
> The Church abandoning the Gospel of Christ for political power.
>
> In a nutshell. what are your end times views?
> I'm a pre-tribulationist with a futuristic interpretation of Revelation
>
> What role(s) do you believe that Holy Spirit plays in
> our lives as Christians?
> I don't know is if I can provide an exhaustive list; but He fills us, empowering us for righteous living and ministry, He makes intercession for us, convicts of sin, and guides us in our relationship with Christ, as well as speaking to us individually in regards to various things (like I said, not exhaustive, but a start).
>
> To what degree are you responsible for your own
> sanctification?
> Essentially, since it is the Spirit that empowers us to live righteously, our only role is in following Him as He leads us in living God's Word (both written and spoken). This is not to say we have a passive role though, for we must follow and I don't think God is going to stop moving.
>
> What does baptism mean to you?
> Baptism represents dieing to sin (going under) and being made alive in Christ (resurrected/coming up)
>
> How do you feel about the death penalty?
> I feel it is not preferable, but may be necessary. In regards to the political aspect I think it is a state issue and should not be handled by the federal government.
>
> How do you feel about physical war?
> It is certainly not desirable, but is sometimes unavoidable.
>
> What is your take on the Iraqi war?
> At the time the decision was made to go to war we had legitimate reasons to do it. However, the war has been badly mis-managed. We need to set practical goals for the stabilization of Iraq, reach those goals, and get out ASAP.
>
> What do believe about the New World Order conspiracy?
> It's not a conspiracy, it's a reality. Governments have tried many times in the last century to create similar bodies and I believe with the European Union we are closer then we've ever been.
>
> How do you feel about the Patriot Act?
> 100% un-Constitutional, it needs to be repealed and done away with immediately.
>
> What are your thoughts on the 2008 presidential
> election?
> We are not going to get a great president. At present I lean towards John McCain, though not very strongly. I'd vote for Ron Paul on a 3rd party ticket.

> In your opinion, which political system is most
> compatible with Christian spirituality?
> In terms of freedom to practice Christianity I'd say a Constitutional Democratic Republic. However, not political system should hinder a sincere believer from practicing, look at Paul and Peter in the Roman Empire.
>
> Can Christians truly be tolerant?
> Absolutely, in fact I think we as Christians should lead in the community of tolerance. That is not to say we must agree with or support everything, I certainly don't support same-sex marriage or abortion, but that is not to say I'm intolerant of people who do. I disagree with them, and I'll debate anyone anytime, unashamedly, but Christ was never intolerent, rather He left us an example of moral love and concern.
>
> What is your favorite movie?
> Amazing Grace
>
> Which 5 posts from your blog(s) do believe to be most
> significant? (post the links here)

> "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" -http://checkmate101.blogspot.com/2007/03/lost-tomb-of-jesus.html

"Time for Some Apologetics" -http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=100094885&blogID=191321525&Mytoken=B548B418-1A26-4C1A-9A711BEDBE0C03EA45853326
"
Family of God"
-http://checkmate101.blogspot.com/2007/01/family-of-god.html

"A Generation in Chaos" -http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=100094885&blogID=267622753&Mytoken=0FF1EC58-45B8-4D5A-B6D895422AD2AF07841630

"When God Crashes a New Years Party"- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=100094885&blogID=343924866&Mytoken=91AF15D5-1EBE-49C9-98EE9CAD074D6C0E46678973

>
> What other blogger(s) would you like to see
> interviewed?
> N/A

Saturday, April 05, 2008

A Brief Response to Biblical Critics and an Examination of the Kalam Argument

The following are two related pieces I wrote in the last few days:

Part 1
Today I had the opportunity to discuss the meaning of Easter with various people; and in the midst of that someone told me they think there are lies in the Bible. Being the philosopher that I am I had to ask "why?" (nearly all philosophies attempt to answer that question in regards to something).

The response was (basically) "Well, it uses fear tactics... do this or you’ll go to hell, there’s no way to prove it". Now how often do we hear that? People are "scared" into religion, that accusation is thrown around a lot. Though I did not have the opportunity to discuss this at length with that individual, I do hope I got them thinking. However, I’d like to deal with it more in depth here.

I’d like to start by addressing that specific argument, that the Bible uses fear tactics to get people to believe. I must say Christianity has mis-represented God and His Word if people believe that the main reason one should be/is a Christian is to avoid hell. Now Jesus didn’t make any bones about, He was abundantly clear in stating that there is a hell, and that it’s not a pleasant place; but truly that is poor motivation to accept Christ. God doesn’t want a relationship with us based on fear, He wants one with us based on love. I’m of the opinion that the only reason God doesn’t force everyone to accept Him is He wants us to love Him because we WANT TO, not because we HAVE TO.

Now it should also be noted that the argument that was presented is an emotional one, not a logical one. As such it should not be one that really needs addressing, but unfortunately there is just as much mis-understanding about this issue in the Church as there is among non-Christians.

The heart of this issue is not one of whether or not there is a hell, but whether or not God exists; and if He does it begs the question "can we know Him?", and "What is He like?". I feel the Church may have been led astray on this, so I must confront it (this should answering many questions of skeptics as well).

In answering the question of God’s existence I will use two brief arguments.
1. To say God does not exist is a logically indefensible position. For example; if I were to say that I’ve hidden three golden coins somewhere in Fairmont and then ask you to find them, you could report back saying 1 of 3 things. You could assert you’ve looked, did not find them, and so they do not exist; you could assert you looked, but could not find them, but they may exist somewhere you have not looked; or you could assert the coins do exist, and you’ve found them (and then show them to me).

Now obviously the last two assertions can be verified; but the first one can not. To assert the coins do not exist one must have looked in every corner, hallway, street, box, cabinet, closet, book, etc... anywhere a coin may fit in the entire city! That position can not be verified. The second one may be, for it is very possible you did not look everywhere so the coins are somewhere you’ve not yet looked; and of course the third one is verified by producing the coins and telling me where you found them. So in short, to say God does not exist, an atheist must have searched EVERY philosophy, every religion, every piece of evidence, every space in the universe, etc... And where as NO ONE has searched the entire universe they certainly can not make the assertion God does not exist.

However, being that I’m attempting to make assertion 3 (the coins exist, I found them; in this case God exists, here He is) I must provide some type of evidence or logical proposition that verifies His existence. I will start with just one simple three-point argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe MUST HAVE a cause.

This gets us half-way through assertion 3. However, how do I know for certain that Jesus Christ is the correct way? There are three major monotheistic religions, how do I know Christianity is the correct one?

Well by means of reasoning we can safely say that there can only be one God. For it is quite impossible for there to be two all-powerful or infinitely powerful beings. They would eventually collide and thus limit each other and so they would no longer be all powerful. If you’ve seen "The Year Without a Santa Clause" think of the Coldmiser and Heatmiser; one of them can control a geographic area, but they can not possibly both simultaneously control the same area peaceably when one would lower and the other raise the temperature.

So we know that there can only be one Creator (Ockham’s Razor also leads to this conclusion). How do we know whether Judaism, Islam, or Christianity is correct?

The easiest way to draw lines here is the person of Jesus Christ. As a Christian I hold He is God-made-flesh and the Savior of mankind. Jews generally hold unfavorable (at best) opinions of Him; and Islamists hold He was a great prophet and nothing more, nothing less.

Now the central tenant of the Christian faith (and the greatest verification that Christ is God-made-flesh) is the Resurrection of Christ, for Islam or Judaism to genuinely discredit Christianity they must discredit the Resurrection. However, in light of all the historical evidence there is no logical reason NOT to believe the Resurrection as recorded in the Gospels.

There are several theories that do attempt to explain the Resurrection as something else. Those of the Islamic faith hold Jesus was never actually crucified, but a criminal that looked just like Him was crucified in His stead and Christ was taken to be with Allah. The problem here is this story has NO historical backing or record, it is contradicted by accurate historical records, and it wasn’t even proposed until the 700-800’s A.D. so there are no witnesses and no way to verify this.

Judaism typically tries to deal with the Resurrection by saying the disciples stole Jesus body from the tomb. Well, here’s the problems with that argument.
1. The tomb was guarded by a Roman guard; and it doesn’t follow logically that 11 (Judas Iscariot would not have been among them at this point) mostly unarmed disciples could defeat a company of the most well-trained soldiers in the world.
2. The Gospels record the origin of this argument as one made-up by the religious leaders in Jerusalem to silence talk about the Resurrection (Matthew 28:12-14).
3. The Disciples would not have died proclaiming Christ crucified, risen, and coming again if they knew the Resurrection was a lie.
4. This does not account for all the post-Resurrection witnesses of Christ.

So now I’d like to propose just a little bit of the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. There were, in fact, several eyewitnesses, including the 11 disciples, two disciples on the road to Emmaeus, the women and their company at the tomb, the apostle Paul, and over five-hundred cited by Paul most of which were alive at the time (See the last chapters of the Gospels, I Corinthians 15:4-8).

There was also reporting of the preaching of the Resurrection, and the life of Christ in secular writings such as those of Flavius Josephus, and Tacitus. Not to mention records of the early Church in early Jewish writings.

The fact is the Gospels are so well verified from an archeological, historical, philosophical, even medical perspective there is no significant reason to doubt the Resurrection of Christ. Here I’ve only presented a small sample of all the arguments and evidence in the apologetic world, hopefully I’ve left the door open for some debate and discussion.

Well, that seems enough to get the discussion going. God bless!
Joey

Part 2
For those of you that read my most recent note, you’ll find I used a three-point argument to briefly prove the existence of God.

For those of you who are familiar with Dr. William Lane Craig or Lee Strobel (individuals from whom I gather many of these arguments) the Kalam argument should ring a bell. For those of you not so engaged in apologetics I’ll re-cap it here:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause.

Now in my last note I discussed briefly why the cause must be God. In this note I’d like to get into some of the objections to this argument and a few of the finer points.

Now many atheists upon hearing this argument will say one of two things:
1. What caused God?
2. The cause of the universe: is a cosmic-vacuum, can be demonstrated by Hawking’s Oscillating Model, etc...

The first question is an absurdity and completely misunderstands the argument. Notice that ONLY things that BEGIN to exist have a cause. God never began to exist, He always existed. He is eternal; transcending time. It is not the case that God was around for an infinite number of years before He created the world; it is that years were not even in existence, time was not around.

Now the second argument, that the universe was caused by a cosmic vacuum, universe making machine, etc... does not eliminate the necessity of God. Why? Because that universe making machine would have had to begin to exist, and therefore it must have a cause. Based on the same reasons I previously stated that cause must be God I state this cause would have to be God.

No scholar will dispute the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, some do dispute that the universe began to exist. But, the universe is distinct from God as far as eternal existence goes. For we know that time does exist, and the universe must be finite. To say the universe has existed an infinite number of years is to commit a mathematical absurdity that can only be proved in theory with imaginary numbers.

The universe can not be infinitely old because that would lead to contradictory mathematical results. For example:
Infinity minus infinity= 0
Infinity minus infinity= infinity
Infinity minus infinity =1
To provide a concrete example, say I have an infinite number of dollars, and I give you all of my money, this would be case 1 (above).
If I give you half of my money, this would be case 2.
If I give you all but 1 dollar this would be case 3.

As you can see, these are mathematical contradictions, because infinity is simply a theoretical idea and does not truly exist.

Some would here say that "How did God exist for infinity?" to which I must reply God is eternal, infinity is a span we humans created. God transcends our measurements of time, power, wisdom, etc... God is unmeasurable, not infinitely measurable.

Therefore, the Kalam argument stands up to these various scrutinies.

(For more see: Dr. William Lane Craig, www.reasonablefaith.org, and Lee Strobel’s "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for a Creator").

Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory