Therefore, God Exists

What Is Election? (1st Rebuttal)

Frank Della Torre — Mon, 20 May 2013 16:05:51 +0000

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

I am encouraged to hear that my opponent Richard acknowledges that Calvinists are known to be well-read in the Scriptures. I think that this reveals a valuable indication about the entire theological system of Reformed Soteriology. Frankly, nobody is born a Calvinist. No person is born with the inherent knowledge that “God unconditionally elects certain individuals to eternal life.” No person could reason to that conclusion on the basis of philosophical argumentation. The truth of unconditional election is something that is revealed by God in Scripture. And only with rigorous study can a person, by God’s grace, heed this most beautiful doctrine. No one believes in Calvinistic doctrine because it solves all of the intellectual inquiries. Men are Calvinists because they sincerely believe, as I do, that it is the most faithful understanding of God’s revelation in His Word.

What is Free Will?

Put simply, man is free to choose that which he desires. Man is held accountable for his choices if, at the moment of his decision, he chose that which he most desired. In short, a person’s nature determines his desire. Jesus taught this same concept, “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Why? –Because the nature of the tree determines the value of the fruit. Christ also taught that “out of the heart come[s] evil thoughts, murder, adultery…” (Matt. 15:19). Moreover, Proverbs 4:23 says that you must “guard your heart” because “everything you do flows from it.” This is the biblical definition of human freedom.

My opponent Richard admits that there is “one distinct reference in the Bible of this type of free will.” I appreciate his generosity in admitting that it is found in at least one place in the Scriptures. However, he is frankly mistaken. Truthfully, the biblical concept of Compatibilism can be found in countless places (Gen. 50:19-20; 2 Samuel 24; Isaiah 10:5-19; John 3:1-16; 6:37-40; Phil. 2:12-13; Acts 18:9-10; etc.). I encourage the reader to study these passages.

Two Wills in God?

Three of Richard’s objections are basically the same—if God desires all people to be saved (as is clear from Scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Ez. 18:23), and at the same time He elects certain individuals unconditionally, God seems to become a divine schizophrenic, wishing for what can only be given by Him. So we must ask, is Unconditional Election incompatible with God’s desire for all men to be saved? I do not think it is. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist believe that God desires all to be saved. But, in reality, not all persons will be saved. So what does this mean? It implies that there are at least two wills in God. Both Arminian and Calvinistic theologies concede this fact; indeed, it is impossible to do otherwise. The Arminian says that God desires something more than for all people to be saved; namely, that man’s self-governing autonomy be upheld. The Calvinist too says that God desires something more than for all people to be saved; namely, as Paul too argued, that God desires “to show His wrath and to make known His power” on His “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom. 9:22-23). In other words, God’s glorious grace will shine brighter if it does so in light of the backdrop of God’s wrath—just as the light from stars shine brightly in the pitch black darkness of the cosmos.

Moreover, this coexistence is found throughout Scripture. One such example is Christ’s purpose in using parables. In Mark 4:11-12, Christ said to His disciples, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Here God wills that they turn and be forgiven (cf. Mark 1:15), but He acts in a way to restrict the fulfillment of that will. There are other examples, but time does not permit us to go further. Needless to say, this objection is, at best, unconvincing.

Is God the Author of Sin?

There are two mistakes that a person can make when thinking about God’s relationship with evil. 1) Some suppose that God does not stand in any sense behind evil and (2) others think that God stands behind good and evil in exactly the same way. In the first case, God is so removed from evil that it is outside of His control. In such a view, there is another power, outside God’s sovereign domain, that challenges Him. In philosophy, such a viewpoint is called dualism. In such a universe, it is hard to tell which side, good or evil, will ultimately win. In the second case, God stands behind good and evil in exactly the same way; what God ordains takes place, what He does not ordain does not takes place. If good and evil take place, it is because God ordains them.

Contrary to both of these views, I submit that God stands behind good and evil asymmetrically. He stands behind good in such a way that good can ultimately be credited to Him; He stands behind evil in such a way that evil is ultimately credited to secondary agents and their malignant effects. Evil cannot escape His way, in exactly the same way that Satan has no power over Job without God’s sanction; yet God remains mysteriously distant from evil itself.

One example of God’s using evil secondary agents to accomplish His purposes is in 1 Samuel 19:9 when Scriptures states, “Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul.” In 2 Samuel 24:1, Scripture declares, “again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” But elsewhere, in 1 Chron. 21:1, the same historical event is described, except Scripture says that “Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” This seems like a big problem. Is God tempting David or Saul to do evil here? More to the point, who in the world incited David to disobey God’s clear command not to take a census? The texts are as clear as day. There are a plethora of others throughout the Scriptures as well.

Now, I hope that I have made it clear that God’s sovereignty over evil isn’t simply a logical deduction of sorts. Not at all! Rather, it is rooted in Scripture. And I submit that God can decree evil, and yet He is not to blame, for anytime these concepts are revealed in Scripture, evil is always attributed to second causes. God is mysteriously and sovereignly in control. “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Is. 45:7).

The post What Is Election? (1st Rebuttal) appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

What Is Election? (First Rebuttal)

Richard Bushey — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:53:35 +0000

As my worthy debate opponent Franklin Della Torre pointed out in his introductory post, men do have a desire to be free. I admit it, and this is not a note of shame for conditional election or libertarian free will, as a biblical doctrine. Men have a desire to be free. However, as a cause of the doctrine of conditional election, this seems curious. Our desire for autonomy presupposes that we want to do whatever we want; not what God has willed us to do.

But on Christian theology, our goal is to shed our free will and to do the will of the Father. I therefore do not think it will suffice to say that because we have a desire to be free, we created this doctrine, because it is not the case that Christians have a desire to be free. Christians have a desire to do the will of the Father.

However I do not think it is profitable to hypothesize where these doctrines came from, because at its’ core, this is a debate about scriptural theology, as Frank pointed out in his introductory post. But, if Calvinism is true, how could we harmonize it with what is seen plainly? When the Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth, or a rising and setting sun, we take what we see plainly into account and say that the earth is round and the sun sets; these are cases of phenomenal language.

We inevitably harmonize what we see plainly, because the natural world is, essentially, a book that God himself authored. But an awkward silence seems to be the protocol when applying the most basic method of doing theology to Calvinist doctrines that reject free will.

However I do think the Bible is the ultimate authority, and Franklin raised three biblical arguments in his introductory post.

Total Depravity

The doctrine of total depravity is essential that man is depraved and cannot do good. He argues that from this it follows that man cannot choose to do good in and of himself, he cannot choose God, and therefore libertarian free will would be the ultimate condemnation for all people. I will just say this: I agree with total depravity; I believe that man is radically depraved, and in and of himself, does not choose God.

However, I argue that God gives grace to all men sufficient to render him neutral, and freely able to choose God. This is known as prevenient grace, and Jesus himself told us about it when he said that he will draw all people to himself (John 12:32, 16:8).

This is reflected also in the universal call of the gospel; the gospel is for all people and all nations (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, John 3:16).

The Teachings Of Jesus Christ

Franklin argues here from John 6 and John 10 where Jesus uses very strong language about the nature of the Father’s drawing. He teaches that men do not understand because they are not his sheep, that they do not come because the Father does not draw them. I think I would basically agree with his interpretation of this passage.

But I would reconcile this position by appealing to dispensationalism, namely that God has related to his people in different ways throughout the eras, and this seems obvious to me. After the ascension of Christ, God related to his people in such a way that the gospel was for everybody, as I pointed out in my last section, and this was because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out on the world (Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17, John 14:26) and therefore God’s method of drawing men into himself was notably different.

The Teachings Of Paul And The Apostles

When it is said that God predestinated a person to be saved, this is not inconsistent with conditional election as I have so defined it. It simply means that God has predestinated them based on the knowledge that he already had. To this I may be accused of reading into the text, but I think it is justified because it is a doctrine that is taught in other places, and scripture does not contradict itself.

When I say that God predestinated based on the knowledge that he already had, I mean that he had a series of possible worlds before him (this is of course a bit of anthropomorphism), and he chose the one that produces the highest amount of creatures coming into a loving relationship with himself freely.

But how can I reconcile this view with Romans 9:11-12? Does it give the death blow to conditional election? I do not think so; quite frankly, I do not think Paul was even referring to salvation. Instead he was referring to the same thing that the writer of Genesis 27 and Hebrews 11:20 was referring to, namely, the blessing that Jacob was to receive.

This interpretation flows smoothly in Paul’s letter; Jacob received God’s blessing based solely on the will of God, and Paul goes on to give another example in the Pharaoh: (verse 17) “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Referring to raising the Pharaoh up, God hardened whom he wishes, and in regard to Jacob and Esau, God blessed whom he wishes. But it does not seem to me that either of these cases reflect salvation by God’s choosing.

The post What Is Election? (First Rebuttal) appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

What Is Election? (Debate: Introduction)

Frank Della Torre — Sun, 19 May 2013 02:13:31 +0000

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

Man has an obsession with freedom. We demand that we make our own decisions, choose our own paths, and determine our own destinies. We stand on guard, vigilant, ready to attack any system of thought that calls into question our right—and we insist that it is our God-given right—for autonomy. Even the thought of being controlled by any power, no matter how omnibenevolent, is a direct assault on our liberty. Within Christian theology, this debate climaxes in the form of a question, “Why is one person saved, and another not?” In other words, “Who is the elect? And how were they elected?” There are two mainstream evangelical views that attempt to answer this question:

Conditional Election: God, in eternity past, looked down the corridors of time, and foreknew who would, by faith, accept the Gospel invitation and persevere to the end, and thus, off of His foresight of an individual’s choice and persistence in obedience, He elected such persons to eternal life. Those who God foreknew would reject the Gospel invitation are reprobated to an eternal damnation.

Unconditional Election: This view asserts that God, from eternity past, has elected, out of the mass of sinful, undeserving, depraved men, those whom He will bring to Himself, not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; but rather, His choice of such individuals is unconditionally grounded in His mercy and grace alone. Those who God allows to remain in their sinful state are reprobated to eternal damnation, and thus receive the just punishment for which they are due.

I will be arguing that the Bible presents a God that unconditionally elects individuals to salvation. This theological system is commonly known as Calvinism or Reformed theology. The opposing view point is known as Arminianism. Before I begin, I would like to preface by saying that, apart from what many will say, this debate is, and always will be, a debate over Scripture. As those who are seeking to rightly handle the word of truth, ultimately, we must bow our knees before the authority of God’s Word. I stand with St. Thomas Aquinas when I say that doctrines which are taught by Scripture that are neither demonstrably provable nor empirically evident must be accepted by faith on the authority of Scripture. Any supposed philosophical issue taken with God’s revelation in the Scriptures must be subject to the all-sufficiency of God’s infallible Word.

The Total Inability of Man

The Bible presents man as being corrupted by sin. In himself, man is totally unable to pursue the things of God; every part of man—his mind, will, emotions, and flesh—have been infected by this disease. God looks upon the earth and sees that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). Jeremiah confesses that the heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9). Isaiah describes that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). David cries out to God, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5; cf. Ps. 58:3). Jesus taught that man is held captive by a love for sin and darkness (John 3:19; 8:34). Paul observes that “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:10-11). And because man is totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to him (Proverbs 14:12).

In one of the most explicit passages in all of Scripture, Paul says of man’s depravity, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:1-3). Furthermore, the Bible says that the “natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). To natural man, the Gospel of Christ is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). Man’s mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7).

The Arminian presupposes that mankind has the moral and spiritual capacity to be in-tune with the things of God. But Scripture cries out in protest! Indeed, man is totally unresponsive to the things of God. The saving lies in God’s court. Man’s will is in bondage to sin. As Scripture declares, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,” so that “they may come to their senses” and thus “escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25-26). Salvation is from God, beginning to end; man is spiritually dead. From this truth follows the inference that God’s election must be unconditional. If it is not, all men will remain dead in sin, and will thus receive punishment in hell. This doctrine is indeed repulsive to many, but it is nonetheless taught in the very Word of God, and therefore must be heeded. Due to man’s disease, nothing short of a spiritual transformation is necessary (John 3:1-8).

The Teachings of Jesus Christ

In His infamous teaching in which Jesus calls Himself “the bread of life” (John 6), He says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (6:37). Jesus indicates that those who “come” to Him are responding to the Father’s “giving.” Subsequently, those who “come,” Jesus will never drive away. The Arminian must interpret this statement to mean essentially the opposite of what it says. For it says that God’s giving precedes man’s coming; it does not say that God looks down the corridors of time and reacts to the choice that man makes. Shortly following this, Jesus continues, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [helkuo] him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:44, 65). This word “draw” is used to describe a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (John 21:6, 11). God’s elective prerogative triggers the human decision, not the other way around.

Jesus also said to the unbelieving crowds, “I told you, and you do not believe… you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (John 10:26). This is fascinating. Jesus unequivocally says that the unbelieving do not believe because they are not of His sheep. Again, the Arminian must feel squirmy hearing Jesus. For the text does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” Indeed, it says the exact opposite! Any interpretation that contradicts the Words of Christ must be rejected.

The Teachings of Paul and the Apostles

Paul the apostle was a predestinarian in the highest sense of the word. Indeed, there are numerous passages in the NT that we could touch on that explicitly deal with election (Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:1-14; 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; Galatians 1:15-16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 1:4; etc.), however we will deal with one that is of immense contribution to this discussion. In Romans 9-11, Paul deals with the issue of Israel’s rejection of the Gospel, and in his master exposition he traces an “elect remnant” (Rom. 11:5) throughout history. He says that “it is the children of promise” who are the children of God. But who are the children of promise? Paul gives the example of Jacob and Esau. “Though they were not yet born [Jacob and Esau] and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Rom. 9:11-12).

“Before they were born? Before they had done anything good or bad? Paul, you can’t be serious.” Paul responds, “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (vv. 14-15). Paul continues, “So then it depends not on human [free] will or exertion but on God, who has mercy” (v. 16).

“Paul, if God has predestined people to salvation, then why does he still hold them accountable? For who can resist His will?” Paul responds, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (vv. 20-23).

Is it not ironic that the exact same objections raised today against the doctrines of Calvinism are the exact same objections that Paul refutes? Frankly, if we are on the side that Paul is arguing against, we may want to rethink our theological system. In words that are similar to God’s powerful negation against Job, Paul obliterates man’s insistence that we are the determiner of our own destinies. God is the determiner of each individual’s salvation. He is the sovereign Yahweh. “None can stay His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35).

The post What Is Election? (Debate: Introduction) appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

What Is Election?

Richard Bushey — Sat, 18 May 2013 04:21:31 +0000

When approached with the question of why God allows evil and suffering in the world, the most frequent Christian response is that God created creatures who could come into a loving relationship with him freely, of their own will and their own accord. But a consequence of this is that man often does not freely choose God, he freely chooses to do evil. This conception of free will is known as libertarian free will, or conditional election. Unknown to many Christians, there is an alternative doctrine out there, which rejects free will and asserts that men are essentially robots; we are saved because God elected us to be saved. We are damned because God predestinated us as such. This alternative doctrine is known as unconditional election. Now there is an election, but is it conditional (based on our free will) or unconditional (based solely on the sovereign choice of God). What is election?

The former, that the election is conditioned upon the free will of man is described as Arminianism, and the latter is described as Calvinism. I often find that most people who adhere to traditional Arminian theology do not even know that they are Arminians. They do not know why they believe in their conception of election and free will, they simply know that they believe it. It is what they were taught and what makes sense to them, but typically I think we fail to actually dissect this issue. Therefore when the Calvinists come along, they are able to steamroll the Arminians because they have studied the topic and know how to defend their stance. That, in my opinion, is why we see so many intelligent Calvinists. The Arminian position is so poorly represented.

Despite that, I think that there are good reasons for us to believe the Arminian position, that man freely chooses God, who then saves man by grace through faith.

Compatibilism Of The Cross

Something that I found surprising was that people who believe that men are puppets to the will of God actually believe in free will. Obviously, how could they reject it, considering the amount of scripture which refers to it? They just sort of redefine free will, so that it no longer means, freely choosing God. Instead, they force it to mean, freely choosing what God has already chosen for us. So when they see a passage about free will, they will just reply that man does have free will – the free will to choose what has already been chosen for them by God. But I ask, who could possibly interpret free will like that?

However there is one distinct reference in the Bible to this type of free will. This was the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. God predestinated men and used them like puppets to crucify Christ. Despite this, they freely chose to do it in their own hatred. Free will and unconditional election, in this case, were compatible, and there are very explicit scriptures suggesting this, such as Acts 4:23-28, Acts 2:23-25, Ephesians 1:3-6 and Isaiah 53:10.

So there is explicit language suggesting compatibilism in one particular case. But since such explicit language is required to establish this view, then why do we not have comparably explicit language supporting general compatibilism? Just think about it: if it appeared in one case, why not in every other? Instead we find something radically different in regard to the general salvation of man, such as the following verse.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

If compatibilism is true, why did not Jesus say, “but I was unwilling,” rather than “and you were not willing.”?

The Problem Of The Unsaved

God has love for the backslidden and there is a spiritual struggle wherein he desperately tries to draw them into repentance with his love. In Jeremiah 2, God is described as mourning over those who abandoned him, and he reveals later that it was not his desire that they, or anybody else should perish (2 Peter 3:9). But of course, they do; the way is broad that leads to destruction. So how can the Calvinist reconcile this?

Typically they reply that there is a difference between God’s will, and God’s desires. He wants all of us to come into repentance and be saved, but he is still not powerful enough to get what he wants. He is meticulously sovereign over every human being, every action, every salvation. He is in absolute control, and yet he still does not get what he wants.

So the question I would pose is this: if God is in absolute control of our salvation, and he wants everybody to be saved, then why is everybody not saved?

The Parable Of The Great Banquet

From Reformed Memes Daily facebook fan page

I will not bore anybody with lists of scriptures describing free will. I suspect the rebuttal to them will be similar to the rebuttal of the prayer for Jerusalem that Jesus made which I submitted above. Rather I will appeal to the this parable, which I think is quite an obstacle for anybody who rejects the concept of libertarian free will.

This parable is found in Luke 14:15-24, and in it, there is a great feast, which is being had in the Kingdom of God. A certain man (God) prepared the banquet, and he invited many guests (the Jews). At the time, his servant (Jesus) went to tell those who had been invited. But those who were invited made excuses and did not join the banquet. The certain man (God) became angry, and sent his servant (Jesus) into the streets and the alleys to gather together the blind and the crippled and the lame (the Gentiles) and invite them to the banquet in the place of those who were originally invited.

So God made a place for many people in the Kingdom Of God, but they did not show up. They freely chose to reject God’s plan. But instead, those who God did not make a place for were invited. Those who were not predestinated; the dogs, were given the reward that the Jews could have had if they chose to!

The Author Of Temptation

If God is in control of every little thing in the world, then just think about what that leads to. It would be very difficult for us to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church for statements such as “God sent the shooter!” or “God killed your kids!” because indeed, if this view is correct, how can we avoid the conclusion that God is the author of the evil events in the world?

This is not an assertion that I would like God to be different, but rather it is the claim this conception of God is unscriptural. As James 1:13 tells us, he does not tempt men to do evil or succumb to the flesh. But if God is meticulously sovereign, then he does tempt men to do evil.

Nature Reveals God

The Bible tells us in Romans 1 that nature reveals who God is through what is seen plainly. But what is seen plainly? I ask: can anybody really believe that free will is an illusion? If it is the case that free will is an illusion, then there is nobody in rebellion against God. There is nobody who God has won over with his love, or pursues with his love. Is just a game that God is playing, like a chess match, against himself.

God has placed us on this chess board with an illusion of free will. Why would he do such a thing is there is no free will? We can see animals, guided by instinct, contrasted against ourselves, as we make decisions based on more than instinct. Why not just make us like animals, guided by instinct with no illusion of autonomy? Why did God even bother to give man the illusion of free will?

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold the position that we can trust what is plain to us. God has not authored evil, nor confusion (in giving an illusion of a non-reality). Calvinism is held by so many sophisticated theologians simply because most Arminians do not defend their position. Libertarian free will makes sense of the scriptures and correlates best to the world that surrounds us. Regarding that last point, I think even most Calvinists would agree with me.

But I think that poses a major difficulty for the Calvinist, because God has essentially created a world which we cannot make sense of, nor can we even trust our basic beliefs. If we cannot trust our basic beliefs, then how in the world can we trust ourselves to read and interpret the scripture?

If you would like to discuss this further, come join our Theology Discussion Group

The post What Is Election? appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

Does The Bible Say That The Earth Is 6000 Years Old?

Richard Bushey — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:20:04 +0000

Since the 17th century theologian James Ussher declared that God created the entire known universe on the evening preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC, the view known as young earth creationism has taken off, and has invaded even the contemporary Anglo-American culture, with even academic institutions teaching the view that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This movement is known as the young earth creationist movement, and in fact, many of its’ adherents condemn all other Christians, including one of their leading scholars, Ken Ham, who published an article explaining that to deny young earth creationism is to deny the Son of God, singling out Doctor William Lane Craig as somebody who is guilty of this. But what this really comes down to is what the Bible says, so, does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old?

Strictly speaking, no, we will not find that view plainly illustrated anywhere in the Bible. Instead what leads men like James Ussher and Ken Ham to their conclusion that the earth is 6000 years is the listed genealogy report from Adam to Jesus and their interpretation of Genesis 1, namely, a 144 hour creation week. I will look at the Genesis account in this article

However I would like to point out that I am not advocating that Genesis is a myth or a metaphor. I take Genesis just as literally as Ken Ham, and in the words of the Christian astronomer and old earth creationist Doctor Hugh Ross, “I would rather die than compromise or harm the word of God.” So I am not advocating an abandonment of the Genesis account, as I hold firmly to the actual existence of Adam being made of the dust on the ground, and Eve being made from the rib of Adam, and the serpent of Eden. These are biblical truths. I take Genesis 1-11 as literal and historical accounts.

So how do I get around the view that the earth is 6000 years old? I am not appealing to modern science, nor am I influenced by it. I am solely appealing to bibliology to defend the view that the earth is not only 6000 years old. So, to what what bibliology do I refer?

How Long Is Genesis 1?

I think on a superficial level, I can understand the young earth creationist view that Genesis 1 describes a period of 144 hours. When we hear the word “day,” we immediately think of a 24 hour cycle. But that is not the only usage of this word, even in English. One of my textbooks is called Theology For Today. Do my young earth creationist friends think that tomorrow, somebody is going to come take that textbook from me, explaining the 24 hour definition of the word “day”?

Similarly, when we say things like “This is the day the Lord has made,” or an old geiser might say, “Back in my day,” and so on. We often use “day” in a manner that is not referring to a 24 hour period. So the same in Hebrew. The Hebrew word to which we refer to “yom,” and it has multiple definitions (found in any Hebrew Lexicon), namely, 1 – 24 hour period, 2 – 12 hour period. 3 – Long but finite period of time.

Since Hebrew has only 4000 words (while English has billions), it is often the case that in Hebrew literature we find that we think there must be a better word usage. In Genesis 1, if the author wanted to express a long, but finite period of time, surely he would have a less confusing word, right? But as I said, Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, and at the time of the writing of Genesis 1, there was nothing more appropriate to express a long, but finite period of time than “yom”. To distinguish between these definitions, we have to look at the context in which they are used.

Context Clues
This is often a point of the young earth creationist, wherein they will point to the phrase Evening passed, and then morning came… as a context clue. But again, this may seem powerful on a superficial level, but with an understanding of Hebrew literature, it actually supports the third definition of “yom” better than the first. In Hebrew literature, when authors wanted to express a 24 hour period, they would use phrases such as “morning to morning” or “evening to evening.” But this passage applied “evening to morning,” and this period of time, it says, constituted the entire day. “Evening to morning” was the entire day. But obviously, there is more to a day than the time between evening and morning. This seems to me to be a strong indicator that they are not referring to a 24 hour period.

However that aligns perfectly with the old earth interpretation of the seventh day, because in the Genesis account, there is no close of the seventh day. Evening and morning never passed. This is because, as Hebrews 4:3 and Psalm 95:11 tell us, God is still at rest. The author did not mistakenly exclude the closing of the seventh day. The closing of the seventh day was excluded because it never closed, we are still in the seventh day. If the seventh day of the creation week was a long, but finite period of time, it is quite peculiar that the first six are not long, but finite periods of time.

In fact there are clues within the text that the first six days are like the seventh in that they, too, are long but finite periods of time. Our concept of a day is based on the rotation of the earth around the sun. But the sun was created in the middle of the creation week. It would be quite unusual for God to confine himself to the concept of a day which he has not even created yet.

Does This Correlate With The Rest Of The Bible?

Something we must remember is that when forming a scriptural theology, we must take all of the scriptures into account. We cannot just say that Genesis 1 is sole reference point, because it is not. There are many accounts of creation in the Bible, including Genesis 2.

In Genesis 2:4, the entire creation week is referred to as a day. If we are to be consistent in our literal understanding of Genesis, it is difficult to maintain an understanding of a 24 hour period being applied to the word day.

We must take the Genesis account literally, but we must also be consistent in our interpretation of it and our interpretation of the rest of the Bible. Genesis is not meant to be an exhaustive account, it is really more of an overview. But when we look to other parts of the Bible, we find additional details. For example, Genesis 1 tells us that the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water. However, Psalms 104 adds to this that there was not water always there; it was laid down.

You Heretic!

As I pointed out in my introduction, I find it incredible to call somebody a heretic over such a disagreement. This is not the view that Genesis is a myth, nor is it the view that the creation week is a metaphor. Old earth creationists are often just as adamant about biblical compromise as young earth creationists. This is a matter of different scriptural interpretation, and nothing more.

We must not so concentrate on secondary differences that we forget that our Christianity is centralized by our relationship with Jesus Christ. When the jailer asked Paul how to be saved, Paul replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved!” Those who trust in him shall be saved, even if they interpret Genesis differently.

If you would like to discuss this further, come join our Theology Discussion Group

The post Does The Bible Say That The Earth Is 6000 Years Old? appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

How Could Heaven Be Perfect If Others Are In Hell?

Richard Bushey — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:40:50 +0000

When confronted with certain doctrines, we will often attempt to judge them within a naturalistic backdrop. Such an attempt to criticize or reconcile a biblical doctrine will often lead to confusion or inadequate answers. So the same in our reasoning about the afterlife, as is even reflected in the gospels when the Pharisees asked Jesus who a woman that was widowed multiple times would be married with the afterlife. Today we see a similar sort of objection from those who reject the gospel, as they raise questions such as How could Heaven be perfect if others are in Hell?

Just think about it: suppose you are in some sort of utopia, and you know that there are others who are in Hell being tormenting, and there is no escape for them. Our conscious may cry out for us to want to rescue them on a superficial level. However, on a superficial level, I also sometimes feel pity for prisoners when I see them crying about their future in prison. The question of how could Heaven be perfect if others are in Hell? seems to me to be similar to asking, how can we enjoy freedom, knowing that people are in prison?

Although I think it is a question that deserves an answer. When we conceive of Heaven, we often conceive of being unburdened by our physical disabilities, amazing family reunions and so forth. But then we are confronted with questions such as whether we will feel pain relative to the passions of our human life, as some of those passions may continue on and the existence of Hell will also continue on.

So how can we resolve this problem? Do we merely say that it is not our problem, coldly turning a blind eye the innocents who did not pray the right prayer or get as lucky as we did? I should think not.

Who Deserves To Go To Hell?

There is a common misconception among people that only child molesters, terrorists and the very immoral people of the world go to Hell. Those of us who lived a pretty decent life and always met their personal moral obligations and boundaries will go to heaven. That is not scriptural at all.

Instead, God would be just to send me to Hell. He could have offered no plan on salvation to men and abandoned all of them to perish, drinking the cup of his wrath, and he would still be just and good. God could have brought his wrath upon me, and because of my sin, he would be just in doing so. But instead he took his wrath out on his only begotten Son, so that those of who put our trust in him are no longer subject to his wrath.

So when we go to heaven, we go knowing that we deserved to abide in eternal destruction. Everybody who goes to Hell is there because they deserve to be there, and that is independent of how we feel about it. We trust in God, who is more righteous than we are, and since he is more righteous than we are, it follows that our judgments upon him are irrelevant.

The question is not how God can justify himself to use for sending people to Hell. The question is rather whether we trust him to do what is right. Those who go to Heaven do trust God to do what is right, so that in Heaven, there is nobody fighting against God, questioning his judgments which are more righteous than ours.

Therefore the answer to the question is that those who are in Heaven trust in God to do what is right. As Daniel 4 reminds us, there is nobody who can hold back God’s hand or say “what have you done?” His judgments are righteous judgments. How then can we dare rebel against a righteous judgment? It is something like rebelling against the superior courts’ righteous judgment to convict a guilty criminal.

If you would like to discuss this further, come join our Theology Discussion Group

The post How Could Heaven Be Perfect If Others Are In Hell? appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

Is The Universe A Design? (Second Rebuttal)

Richard Bushey — Mon, 13 May 2013 21:31:25 +0000

This is a long awaited continuation of my debate with the atheist lawyer, Martin. Please read the first parts of this debate before continuing if you would like to understand the context of what is being said.

My Introduction (Martin’s introduction is in the comments)
My First Rebuttal (Martin’s first rebuttal is in the comments)

Are the cosmos an example of specified complexity?

Martin argued that a good deal of the cosmos cannot be shown to be specified complexity; that in fact, they would be unfriendly to intelligent life. I do not dispute this. However I do dispute the idea that therefore, there is no specified complexity at all. I think his basic point is that this part of the universe cannot be shown to be a design.

But why should that matter? If it is being conceded that a small part of the universe is due to design, then I will be pleased. It is my goal to show that there is specified complexity in the universe, but not that every single part of the universe entails specified complexity. If only a fraction of the universe is a design, then it requires a designer.

Martin goes on to say that this universe is equally as improbable as any possible universe, but I would rebut this pointing again to the issue of specified complexity. We can conceive of a universe in which there is no specified complexity. But even if we could not, I cannot see how that matters. It would show only that these possible universes were also the product of design.

So why is the design argument so powerful? It is not merely improbability. It is improbability with a corresponding pattern. I explained this in my introduction by appealing to the example of asteroids crashing into the moon. I agree that improbability does not prove anything, and his example with the lottery shows that.

But let me adopt this lottery example and make an adjustment to it. Suppose there is a giant tub filled with one million black balls, and five white balls. You reach in, and grab a white ball. Written on that white ball you find the message, “Well done, Martin. Now get back to work, the jury has reached a verdict.”

Since that white ball referred to both Martin’s name and his occupation, he would obviously say that this was some sort of trick; that somebody contrived for him to find that particular ball. It would be irrational for him to say “Well any ball is just as improbable!”

Is the DNA molecule an example of specified complexity?

In my introduction, I argued that the DNA must be the product of design because of the information that it contains. But I also argued that this was independent of method which the designer used to bring forth this information; it may be the case that the designer took a very long time, and not a product of special creation. However this argument is not that because it is so complex it therefore must be designer; it is rather that because DNA contains information, it therefore is an example of specified complexity.

This argument can basically be summarized as follows: 1 – Messages only come from minds. 2 – DNA is a message. 3 – Therefore, DNA must be from a mind.

I think the premise that will be contested is premise two, that DNA is a message. But if we look at the nature of DNA, it seems to be a message. The reason I used the example of the library was not to show that DNA must be a product of special creation. In fact, the library was not an example of special creation. It was assembled piece by piece, sentence by sentence and slowly brought together over a long period of time. But because of the content, we know that there is an intelligence behind it.

So the same with the DNA molecule. As a consequence of the content, I argue that we know that there must be an intelligence behind it.

The post Is The Universe A Design? (Second Rebuttal) appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

Why Jews Should Believe In Jesus

Richard Bushey — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 03:30:21 +0000

The reason that the Jews rejected Jesus was not out of a thorough searching of the scriptures nor was it a consequence of a desire to serve the Lord. The Jews rejected Jesus out of jealousy and tradition, because the Messianic conception passed down in Jewish tradition was radically different from that which Jesus proposed. They believed that their Messiah would release them of the hold of the Roman authorities and establish Israel as a great nation. Despite that, I think there are good reasons why Jews should believe in Jesus.

But Jesus came meekly, born of a peasant, had no armies nor formal education nor any of the things that Jewish tradition proposed, for as he told them in Matthew 15:16, “Thus you nullify the scriptures for the sake of your tradition.” The type of salvation that Jesus offered differed from what the Jews expected. So they rejected him because his claims to divinity did not align with what they expected, and therefore he was labeled a blasphemer.

Within this backdrop: the Jews had an expectation based on tradition which was not supported by their scriptures. When the actual fulfillment of their prophecy unfolded, they could not recognize it because it was not what they taught.

This idea that the Messiah came and was hated rather than loved by the Jews, I do not think is too unlikely, for just consider what the Lord said of man in Genesis 6. The intents of mans’ heart and thoughts are only evil continually. This is reflected every time Israel turned away and gave themselves to idols abandoning the Lord, such as Jeremiah 2 when G-d weeps for the backslidden Israel, and Numbers 14, when the Jews angrily abandoned Moses and returned to Egypt; the country in which they were enslaved.

Indeed it is in the nature of man to reject the Lord, as Psalm 14:2-3 tells us, the Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek G-d. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Given the fallen nature of mankind and the behavior of the Jews in the past, it is hard to see any inconsistency with the idea that they slaughtered their own Messiah, as they even slaughtered their own prophets as Jeremiah 2:30 reminds us. However, admittedly, it is not enough to say that it is possible that the Jews killed their own Messiah, it is my task to show why it is likely. So why should Jews believe in Jesus?

The Lord’s Goodness And Mercy

Image From misconductinvirginiafamilycourts.blogspot.com

When we say that the Lord is good, we mean that he is morally perfect in every way, and I do not think that this is something that any Jew would object to, for as the scriptures say in Psalm 36:6, “your righteousness is like the highest mountains, your justice is like the great deep.” The Lord, so revealed by the prophets and the scriptures, is a righteous and a just Lord.

But as a just Lord, that raises a further question, namely, what does he do with us? As I pointed out above, upon examining our hearts, the Lord determined that man was only evil continually, and when he looked down on us to see if anybody sought after him, he saw that nobody did. So being righteous and just, what does he do with those who are unrighteous and unjust?

One would assume that as a righteous judge, we would be condemned to receive the sheer, unadulterated wrath of the Almighty. But this is where it becomes interesting. Rather than giving us this wrath, he tells us, “I have cast your sins as far as the east is from the west,” in Psalms 103. In Lamentations 3, he tells us that his mercies are new every morning. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abram trusted in the Lord, and was counted as righteous, (even before any animal sacrifice was made).

It seems to be the case that G-d simply pardons the sins of the wicked; he just lets them go free despite that they deserve justice. But how could a just judge do such a thing? Consider the court of law; if a man committed a sin, and the judge simply pardoned that man of their sin, that judge would no longer be a just judge, they would be regarded as corrupt and contemptible. But the Lord, who is an even more righteous judge pardons men of their sins? That cannot be so, because it would follow necessarily that the Lord was a corrupt and contemptible judge.

The Solution

This conundrum of mercy and justice has puzzled philosophers for centuries, in fact, I do believe that it refutes the existence of many of the conceptions of G-d so revealed by world religions. However it does not refute the existence of the Lord that revealed himself to the prophets. The infallible scriptures and revelation of YHWH our Lord is extraordinarily unique, in that YHWH does not merely pardon the wicked.

He gives justice to the wicked, for as he told Adam in Genesis 2, if you sin, you will surely die. The wage of all sin is death. As Job 4:17 tells us, man is not more pure than his maker; the Lord knows, just as we do, that we deserve justice. But then, how can we justify ourselves before the Almighty? If we have all committed sins, and if we will surely die for that sin, what could relieve of us the wrath that we deserve? I submit that we can be justified by the sacrifice of G-d’s own Son, Jesus.

Jesus was, and is, the Messiah; (as Psalm 110 says he is at the right hand of the Father) and he came 2000 years ago and lived a life without ever committing a moral crime. He was sinless. He did this so that he could give this sinless record to us, so that when the Lord looks at us, He will see no sin that we need to be punished for. Instead of seeing our works that are no better than filthy rags (as Isaiah 64:6 says), He will see the record of Jesus Christ, sinless and blameless, as Romans 8:29 says, we will be conformed to the image of the Son.

You might ask, how is that possible? How can I have the record of somebody else? It is because when Jesus died on the cross, there was a legal transaction. For the crime of moral perfection, the world hated him. The religious leaders captured him, beat him, tortured him, nailed him to a cross, gambled for his clothes, and shoved a spear through his body (as indicated by the prophecy in Psalm 22). When this happened, Jesus became sin, and God destroyed him (Have you not read: it pleased the Lord to crush him! The prophecy in Isaiah 53).

Conclusion

I know what I ask of you, the severity of it. But this does not compromise Jewish theology, indeed, it fulfills it. If the Lord has so revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and the Jews persecuted and murdered him, is this not a truth that you would want to know?

Read the prophecy of Christ in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53. Study the Messianic prophecies and see how the historical Jesus fulfilled them all. As Acts 17 urges, study the scriptures, to see if what we are saying was not spoken of by the prophets of old. If the Christ has come and gone, and we miss that truth because of our tradition, I can conceive of no greater tragedy.

Jesus? Who Is This Jesus?

If you have any questions about this, come join our Theology Discussion Group

The post Why Jews Should Believe In Jesus appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

Is The Universe A Design? (First Rebuttal)

Richard Bushey — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:46:12 +0000

I have begun this discussing with my good friend, the atheist lawyer known as Martin. We are discussing the topic Is The Universe A Design? (First Rebuttal) Now it may be noticed that I did not use the word debate. That is because I have grown tired of debates. Debates are heated and hostile, they are two people defending their positions rather than looking at the data and reasoning to a conclusion. Perhaps I am looking too much into terminology, but my point is that I hope this can be more of a discussion, than a debate, as I have so defined it. I hope we can leave our intellectual presuppositions are the door and look to what is being said as we debate the topic, Is The Universe A Design? (First Rebuttal).

My introduction can be found here, and Martin’s introduction is in the comments section. This debate is also being mirrored at martinandrichard.blogspot.com.

Now, onto business.

Are the cosmos an example of specified complexity?

In my introductory post I argued that the fine-tuning of the cosmos for sentient life are an example of specified complexity. When I say sentient life, I mean any intelligent life in the universe. Many of these anthropic constants prohibit the existence of planets anywhere in the known universe, so I do not think this can be avoided by saying that there could be life aside from carbon based life.

So while the universe would be unfriendly to any life in the absence of these anthropic constants, Martin argues that the much of the universe is unfriendly to life forms, to which I would simply reply: so what? Suppose there was a painting filled with scribbles and paint splatter all over 90% of the paper, but in the center, there was a little drawing of a few people and a smiling sun wearing sunglasses. It would be irrational for us to say that the 90% negates the 10%. The reason that the rest of the universe does not contain specified complexity is that we were never intended to abide in that location.

The idea that there is specified complexity in one location is not negated by the the fact that there is not specified complexity in another.

Marin goes on to raise a further objection about the nature of the anthropic constants by appealing to what is known as a futuristic Theory Of Everything that may explain a way the specified complexity in the universe as a function of natural law. The problem with this is that the anthropic constants are independent of the laws of nature. In fact, string theory predicts that there exist 10×500 different possible universe which are consistent with natures’ laws. The idea that these constants are due to physical necessity is not supported by the science of the day.

It should also be noted that my good friend Martin did not even attempt to appeal to the idea that the anthropic constants just come to be by chance alone. Indeed his attempt to use a futuristic TOE to explain away the idea of the anthropic constants suggest to me that he does believe that it would be irrational to maintain that they just happened by chance, a point that I agree with.

I think in some cases, our childhood awe when we look to the universe is correct. It is my opinion that a design hypothesis cannot be avoided.

Is the DNA molecule an example of specified complexity?

In my introductory post, I argued that if there is a case of specified complexity in the universe, this would be a very strong indicator of a creation model, and as far as I can tell, my good friend Martin does not dispute this notion. So I argued that the DNA molecule is an example of specified complexity in that it contains more information than 1000 encyclopedias (according to Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, not The Blind Watchmaker as I said in my original post).

Martin contests the idea that the DNA molecule is not an example of specified complexity on the basis of the manner in which the specified complexity came to be. He said that DNA evolved from a series of very simple replicators. I do not dispute that. I am not arguing that DNA is necessarily irreducibly complex, nor am I arguing that it was necessarily the product of an ex nihilo special creation act, so I am not attacking a straw man; I am instead talking about the nature of the DNA molecule. I am arguing only that it is an example of specified complexity. The manner in which the designer brought that specified complexity to be is not relevant.

If one is to argue that it is not an example of specified complexity on the basis of the simplicity of the replicators, then one would be guilty of what is known as the Fallacy Of Composition, which is to say that because all of the parts, of a whole, have a particular trait, therefore the whole has a particular trait. For example, if we were to say that all parts of an elephant were light in weight, that therefore the whole of the elephant was light in weight, this would be an example of the fallacy of composition.

In the same way, if we are to argue that all of the parts of the DNA molecule are simple and lack specified complexity, that therefore the whole of the DNA molecule is simple and lacks specified complexity, this would be an example of the fallacy of composition, and I think that is what my debate opponent is guilty of.

The post Is The Universe A Design? (First Rebuttal) appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.

Is The Universe A Design?

Richard Bushey — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:07:11 +0000

Is The Universe A Design? In history when men have presented designer hypothesis, admittedly, they were often guilty of being what is known as God Of The Gaps, which is to say that we do not know how a certain phenomenon came to be, and therefore it must have been God. As far as I can tell, this is the case in William Paley’s watch argument, and I often cringe when I hear my fellow Christians reciting the words, “Picture a watch…”

Now I love evangelism and arguments from design and so forth, however, when posed with a question of the validity of the scriptures, and we appeal to the complexity of human beings, I think my brethren are often setting themselves up to be steam rolled. Even if we grant that human beings are so complex that they require a designer, God so revealed by the scriptures would not be a justified consequences of the argument.

In the same way, if the universe is proven to be a design, we cannot tell anything about the designer, aside from the fact that it is a designer. It may be the case that the designer of the universe is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the traits of such a creature would be unjustified given the data provided by design evidence. It may also be the case that this designer had a transcendent cause beyond itself. The question under consideration is not in regard to the attributes or traits of the designer. The question under consideration is whether there is a designer at all.

The traits of that designer, whether it had a cause beyond itself, whether it revealed itself in mankind, whether it is benevolent, are simply not relevant to whether the universe is a design. Such things can be left in open question for future inquiry, but in this dialogue, they are completely irrelevant.

Having said that, I think my debate partner, who I will address as Martin, will be relieved that I am beginning this discussion with a note of common ground, namely, I do not think that complexity logically entails design.

Complexity Does Not Entail Design

A good example, I think, may be what is known as the “man in the moon,” which is basically a series of craters in the moon that appear to be a human face when you can see the entire full moon. There is obviously a certain degree of complexity, but I would not argue that therefore, the designer of the cosmos imprinted his face in the moon. Instead, I acknowledge that it is just a coincidence. Complexity does not entail design.

In contrast, suppose there were a series of missiles colliding into the moon and they spelled out the words, “Hello, earthlings.” I think we would obviously all say that this was a design by a designer, presumably, alien life. It is not the level of complexity here that suggests design, though. There may be things more complex that we would not recognize as design. Rather, what suggests that it is design is the corresponding pattern.

In fact when NASA explores the universe for intelligent life, they look for very basic patterns, like a series of prime numbers. Patterns suggest intelligence.

The Cosmos
In the case of the cosmos, there is an extraordinary set of patterns, falling into a vastly small probability, which correspond with the existence of sentient life. They are what are known as Anthropic Constants. To explain Anthropic Constants I think I can take you back to the boyhood awe that I had. In third grade, I learned that the sun is placed just so, and if it were any different, life on earth would not exist. That is an Anthropic Constant.

This example by itself, could, of course, be dismissed as a coincidence. However there are 122 Anthropic Constants, and they apply not only to life on earth, but also to sentient life across the entire known universe. I will appeal to yet another example.

Suppose we had a ruler that stretched across the entire known universe, marked in inches. Gravity is on a particular inch mark (I know that gravity is not measured in inches or distance, this is a mathematically equivalent illustration). If gravity were moved to any other inch mark, there would be no sentient life in the universe. So the same with the expansion rate of the universe, the balance of matter and anti-matter, and so on.

Challenged by the discovery of the Anthropic Constants, the atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle remarked, A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.

The enormous pattern that corresponds with the very ability for any sentient life to exist has convinced multiple scientists such as Robert Jastrow, a former agnostic, as he explained in his book God And The Astronomers, and the former atheist Anthony Flew, as he explained in his book There Is A God. A design hypothesis is not something that is regarded as laughable by honest seekers given the available data. They are instead often regarded as very challenging given in the design in the cosmos.

Simplicity To Complexity?

Often a naturalistic account of how life came to be would entail an explanation of a grueling process of natural selection, including mutations, adaptation, and so forth, and this is how we can explain the complexity of human beings. Rather than looking to a human being and saying that we must have had a designer, we can look to a human being and say that we came from a lower primate, and eventually, if you follow our ancestral heritage, we will find a one-celled amoeba. Simplicity to complexity.

This may have made sense in the day of Charles Darwin, because a one-celled amoeba does not appear to be all that complex. But with the discovery of the DNA molecule, we find that a one-celled amoeba is extraordinarily complex, and not complex in the way that the man in the moon is complex. This is what we can regard as specified complexity (which is basically what I explained in the previous section, namely, complexity that has a corresponding pattern).

Note well that this is not an argument against macro-evolution. This is an argument for the specified complexity of DNA, which is consistent with macro-evolution. To explain what I mean, consider the illustration that I used above, that if a series of missiles spelled out a message, we would immediately assume that there was a mind behind that message. We would not think that space junk collided into the moon to coincidentally spell out “Hello, earthlings!”

Similarly, if you found a box of overturned alphabet cereal with a bunch of pieces spilled onto the table, and they spelled out the sentence, “Take out the garbage. – Your loving wife,” I do not think we would be compelled to say that the box randomly spelled out that phrase after being knocked over. Instead we would immediately recognize that this message came from an intelligent mind.

In the same way, the messages provided by the DNA molecule prove that there must be a mind behind it. DNA is like a language, the only difference is that it has 4 letters instead of 26, and as Richard Dawkins pointed out in his book The Blind Watchmaker, DNA has more information that 1000 encyclopedias combined. This is to say that if we were to take the four letters of the genetic alphabet and write out all of the information in DNA, we would have more information than 1000 encyclopedias.

In the words of Doctor Frank Turek, to suggest that this much information came to exist by natural forces is like suggesting that a library was the result of an explosion at a printing shop. There is no natural law that can produce specified complexity, as simple as the message “Hello, earthlings!” much less a natural law that can produce 1000 encyclopedias.

Conclusion

The specified complexity in the cosmos that permits any sentient life, and the specified complexity in all living organisms on earth suggest to me that the universe is a product of design. But I say again: the traits of this designer are not known by looking at this specified complexity. It may be the case that the designer had a transcendent cause, and it may be the case that the designer is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We can ask, “who is the designer?” as a further question, but we cannot ask who the designer is as an attempt to refute the notion that the universe is a design.

The post Is The Universe A Design? appeared first on Therefore, God Exists.