In July, we talked about the potential of a new CCC ministry at Georgian Ct University. We are thrilled to announce that we are now up and running, with awesome women as our president and faculty advisor (thanks Katy & Carol!).
We were blessed to host a table at the club fair a few weeks ago, and were overwhelmed by the response: over 90 people filled out surveys, 67 indicating a desire to attend a Bible study, and one young woman prayed to ask Jesus to be her savior and lord!** When people heard we were with Campus Crusade, we got responses like “It’s been a long time coming!” and “Thank goodness you guys are here.” We are so excited that God has blessed this ministry and gotten things off to an amazing start!
**Please pray for Monique, who put her faith in Christ after Karen shared the gospel with her. She has been attending our Bible study and already seems passionate about reaching others for Christ. Pray that she will grow in her faith and be a strong witness for Jesus!
For more news about our ministry, visit http://grantministry.wikidot.com/.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Saturday, December 8, 2007
"Arguments for God's Existence?" ~Voltaire
I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire, but I also do not accept things blindly. Do you have any well-reasoned arguments for the existence of God?
a. Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God says that God must exist by His own definition. Anselm defines God as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” and so would possess all the best qualities including true existence over being simply imagined.
b. Kant’s Transcendental argument says that “every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God”. The clearest demonstration of this is found in morality. I have yet to see a satisfactory source for morality apart from a moral God.
c. Plato’s Cosmological argument follows this line of reasoning, “Every finite/contingent being has a cause + Nothing contingent can cause itself + A causal chain cannot be of infinite length = There must be a first cause (or necessary being).” Anselm would say it is greater to be a “necessary” being than a “contingent” one, so God must be a necessary being by definition. The infinite recurrence theory obviously takes issue with the 3rd statement and I believe the string theory takes issue with the 2nd.
d. Aquinas’s Teleological argument comes from Romans 1:20, which Paul says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This is the primary basis for the Intelligent Design movement, which follows an “inference to the best explanation” that an information rich system necessitates design. William Dembski’s Design Inference explains how science approaches the question of whether or not a thing was designed. He cites “improbability” and “specificity” as the two major variables. This is how they avoid the tendency to read design into something.
e. Lee Strobel wrote his book The Case for Christ based on the legal evidence that Jesus Christ existed, claimed to be God, and demonstrated His claims to be true. John 1:18 says that we can see God through His son Jesus. Believers and non-believers alike reported His miracles, He fulfilled almost 200 prophecies and was witnessed by over 500 people as risen from the dead, many of whom died rather than recant this testimony. Strobel puts it well when he says, “people may be willing to die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, but no one would die for something they know to be UNtrue.” For more on that, I suggest reading his book or at least viewing the website.
f. My theory of “Emotional Denial” is based partially on Paul, who states in Romans 1:18-19 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” I believe that all humans inherently know that God exists (somewhat similar to Jung’s archetypes). However, before this truth can truly reach our consciousness, it passes through our emotions (which battle between honesty, selfishness, etc). Jesus said that anyone who truly wants to find God will (Matthew 7:7). I believe that atheism and all false religions are a result of human reasoning seeking to find a way to deny God without feeling guilty. I am, however, open to criticism J
g. Though I think each of these has validity, I don’t believe that any of them truly change a person’s mind. The Bible says that it is only God who can truly change a heart, and it is personal experience of God’s presence in my life that convinces me more than anything. There’s a camp song that says “don’t try to tell me that God is dead, I spoke with Him this morning.” Though no one has seen God any more than they can see gravity or honesty, we can see how He affects things, and we can understand His qualities. I will gladly share more on this if you ask, but this email is long enough already.
You say “I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire”, and I appreciate that, but I want to point out that the helpfulness of religion is not the point, but only a side-effect. There was a time when the best defense for Christianity we could present to hard evolutionists was “the Bible makes promises that I have experienced to be fulfilled in my life.” However, these days the helpfulness of religion can be a major distraction from the central point of whether or not it is true. CS Lewis said that if Christianity is true, then we all need to follow it whether it is helpful or not, and if it is false then we need to know that as well and stop living a lie even if it’s a nice one. That being said, I can’t see a basis for morality apart from God, and I can’t see a purpose to life apart from the mission of God on this earth, but I’d cherish your perspective on this.
I hope you find this helpful, or at least somewhat coherent. I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I’m nowhere near as well read on these issues as some others, but I hope you have seen that I have not accepted this blindly. It’s a big deal to commit your life to something you can only believe to be true. Hebrews 11:1 calls faith “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Ultimately, I believe there will never be irrefutable proof either way while we are on this earth. Evidence can only get you to the point where it is reasonable. The Bible is God saying “I’ll catch you,” but we can’t be sure until we jump.
Please feel free to respond (positively or negatively) and if you need someone closer to the research or to the article you mentioned, I will try to connect you that way.
Your cojourner in the quest for truth,
Jeff Grant
a. Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God says that God must exist by His own definition. Anselm defines God as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” and so would possess all the best qualities including true existence over being simply imagined.
b. Kant’s Transcendental argument says that “every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God”. The clearest demonstration of this is found in morality. I have yet to see a satisfactory source for morality apart from a moral God.
c. Plato’s Cosmological argument follows this line of reasoning, “Every finite/contingent being has a cause + Nothing contingent can cause itself + A causal chain cannot be of infinite length = There must be a first cause (or necessary being).” Anselm would say it is greater to be a “necessary” being than a “contingent” one, so God must be a necessary being by definition. The infinite recurrence theory obviously takes issue with the 3rd statement and I believe the string theory takes issue with the 2nd.
d. Aquinas’s Teleological argument comes from Romans 1:20, which Paul says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This is the primary basis for the Intelligent Design movement, which follows an “inference to the best explanation” that an information rich system necessitates design. William Dembski’s Design Inference explains how science approaches the question of whether or not a thing was designed. He cites “improbability” and “specificity” as the two major variables. This is how they avoid the tendency to read design into something.
e. Lee Strobel wrote his book The Case for Christ based on the legal evidence that Jesus Christ existed, claimed to be God, and demonstrated His claims to be true. John 1:18 says that we can see God through His son Jesus. Believers and non-believers alike reported His miracles, He fulfilled almost 200 prophecies and was witnessed by over 500 people as risen from the dead, many of whom died rather than recant this testimony. Strobel puts it well when he says, “people may be willing to die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, but no one would die for something they know to be UNtrue.” For more on that, I suggest reading his book or at least viewing the website.
f. My theory of “Emotional Denial” is based partially on Paul, who states in Romans 1:18-19 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” I believe that all humans inherently know that God exists (somewhat similar to Jung’s archetypes). However, before this truth can truly reach our consciousness, it passes through our emotions (which battle between honesty, selfishness, etc). Jesus said that anyone who truly wants to find God will (Matthew 7:7). I believe that atheism and all false religions are a result of human reasoning seeking to find a way to deny God without feeling guilty. I am, however, open to criticism J
g. Though I think each of these has validity, I don’t believe that any of them truly change a person’s mind. The Bible says that it is only God who can truly change a heart, and it is personal experience of God’s presence in my life that convinces me more than anything. There’s a camp song that says “don’t try to tell me that God is dead, I spoke with Him this morning.” Though no one has seen God any more than they can see gravity or honesty, we can see how He affects things, and we can understand His qualities. I will gladly share more on this if you ask, but this email is long enough already.
You say “I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire”, and I appreciate that, but I want to point out that the helpfulness of religion is not the point, but only a side-effect. There was a time when the best defense for Christianity we could present to hard evolutionists was “the Bible makes promises that I have experienced to be fulfilled in my life.” However, these days the helpfulness of religion can be a major distraction from the central point of whether or not it is true. CS Lewis said that if Christianity is true, then we all need to follow it whether it is helpful or not, and if it is false then we need to know that as well and stop living a lie even if it’s a nice one. That being said, I can’t see a basis for morality apart from God, and I can’t see a purpose to life apart from the mission of God on this earth, but I’d cherish your perspective on this.
I hope you find this helpful, or at least somewhat coherent. I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I’m nowhere near as well read on these issues as some others, but I hope you have seen that I have not accepted this blindly. It’s a big deal to commit your life to something you can only believe to be true. Hebrews 11:1 calls faith “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Ultimately, I believe there will never be irrefutable proof either way while we are on this earth. Evidence can only get you to the point where it is reasonable. The Bible is God saying “I’ll catch you,” but we can’t be sure until we jump.
Please feel free to respond (positively or negatively) and if you need someone closer to the research or to the article you mentioned, I will try to connect you that way.
Your cojourner in the quest for truth,
Jeff Grant
"Evolution vs. Design" ~Voltaire
In response to the EveryStudent essay,
The theory of evolution has been developed over the centuries and is currently supported by millions of examples both from artificial experiments and in the natural world. Analogizing the human eye to a bag of screws is ridiculous. You write that evolution proposes that "the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere". Evolution is not a random process that just takes a really long time. It is not at all like shaking a bag of screws in the hope of getting a watch. Evolution selects the best adaptations for an environment, gradually producing greater and greater complexity. The eye, for instance, did not just appear in a puff of smoke; rather, it originated as a small patch of photoreceptors in a primitive invertebrate, eventually developing an optic nerve, rods and cones, and so on. This process took billions of years and was completely non-random.
However, the larger argument--how the universe itself originated without the help of an intelligent designer--has not yet been resolved as intuitively as Darwin's. Scientists have come up with a number of possible solutions, from string theory to multiverse, but all are supported more by discrete mathematics than by intuition. The deepest questions, I find, rarely have easy answers. The problem with your deceptively easy solution is this: The universe may be miraculous and improbable--but whoever designed it must be even more miraculous and thus more improbable! Who designed the Designer? Religion is no solution to the paradox of infinite regress.
The theory of evolution is often oversimplified, but true or not it fails to replace theism as an explanation for the origin of life:
a. I agree that there are plenty of examples of MICRO-evolution (adaptation), but I am completely unconvinced by any evidence of MACRO or cross-species evolution that I've seen so far. If you have any such evidence, please direct me to it.
b. If natural selection breeds out the less helpful qualities, why do species that are many levels “less evolved” still exist?
c. Evolution cannot handle systems that irreducibly complex (“a single system… wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”). The eye may be a poor example of this, but there have been plenty of better ones (ex. Bacterial flagellum). In order for evolution to work, it must make tiny steps that can be common mutations, but even the eye requires huge leaps to get from a patch of photoreceptors to an optic nerve.
d. Even if macro-evolution could be proven, it fails to explain how life began or how circumstances could be lined up to allow life to begin. You do talk about solutions that they are developing (string theory to a multiverse) and I’d be very interested in hearing more about these along with the “discrete mathematics” that support them.
e. You state that “the deepest questions rarely have easy answers”, but the commonly accepted theory of Ockham’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one”) leans against you there. I did not accept Christianity as true simply based on proof, but I have been continually convinced that the ad hoc responses from Atheists require more faith than an intelligent designer. I also disagree about the increased complexity of a designer. An infinite regress is unarguably more complicated and unimaginable than an unmoved mover. In these days of Quantum physics, we’re seeing how thought and immaterial truth has more grounding in reality than the physical world itself. These ideas reach popular expression in films like “The Matrix” that illustrate how our senses can no longer be trusted completely, sending us down the path of Descartes which lead to certainty of God’s existence as well.
The theory of evolution has been developed over the centuries and is currently supported by millions of examples both from artificial experiments and in the natural world. Analogizing the human eye to a bag of screws is ridiculous. You write that evolution proposes that "the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere". Evolution is not a random process that just takes a really long time. It is not at all like shaking a bag of screws in the hope of getting a watch. Evolution selects the best adaptations for an environment, gradually producing greater and greater complexity. The eye, for instance, did not just appear in a puff of smoke; rather, it originated as a small patch of photoreceptors in a primitive invertebrate, eventually developing an optic nerve, rods and cones, and so on. This process took billions of years and was completely non-random.
However, the larger argument--how the universe itself originated without the help of an intelligent designer--has not yet been resolved as intuitively as Darwin's. Scientists have come up with a number of possible solutions, from string theory to multiverse, but all are supported more by discrete mathematics than by intuition. The deepest questions, I find, rarely have easy answers. The problem with your deceptively easy solution is this: The universe may be miraculous and improbable--but whoever designed it must be even more miraculous and thus more improbable! Who designed the Designer? Religion is no solution to the paradox of infinite regress.
The theory of evolution is often oversimplified, but true or not it fails to replace theism as an explanation for the origin of life:
a. I agree that there are plenty of examples of MICRO-evolution (adaptation), but I am completely unconvinced by any evidence of MACRO or cross-species evolution that I've seen so far. If you have any such evidence, please direct me to it.
b. If natural selection breeds out the less helpful qualities, why do species that are many levels “less evolved” still exist?
c. Evolution cannot handle systems that irreducibly complex (“a single system… wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”). The eye may be a poor example of this, but there have been plenty of better ones (ex. Bacterial flagellum). In order for evolution to work, it must make tiny steps that can be common mutations, but even the eye requires huge leaps to get from a patch of photoreceptors to an optic nerve.
d. Even if macro-evolution could be proven, it fails to explain how life began or how circumstances could be lined up to allow life to begin. You do talk about solutions that they are developing (string theory to a multiverse) and I’d be very interested in hearing more about these along with the “discrete mathematics” that support them.
e. You state that “the deepest questions rarely have easy answers”, but the commonly accepted theory of Ockham’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one”) leans against you there. I did not accept Christianity as true simply based on proof, but I have been continually convinced that the ad hoc responses from Atheists require more faith than an intelligent designer. I also disagree about the increased complexity of a designer. An infinite regress is unarguably more complicated and unimaginable than an unmoved mover. In these days of Quantum physics, we’re seeing how thought and immaterial truth has more grounding in reality than the physical world itself. These ideas reach popular expression in films like “The Matrix” that illustrate how our senses can no longer be trusted completely, sending us down the path of Descartes which lead to certainty of God’s existence as well.
"Do we see design where there is none?" ~Voltaire
Humans have a natural psychological tendency to see design in natural things. Our brain takes a short-cut: if we see a tiger, we don't waste time analyzing its neural impulses; we assume it's designed to eat us. Our ability to find patterns in the world is unparalleled; it's the reason why, in spite of the fact that I am small and weak and hairless, I can type this message to you at all. Unfortunately, it also leads us astray, making us find patterns in what may be a purely random universe.
You are certainly right that it can taint our objectivity, and that's a danger we all must seek to avoid. We must recognize also, however, that there are many such tendencies that can lead to error in the opposite direction. At the route of all humans is an undeniable source of pride and independence that says, “I’m in charge of my life.” Though it would take some time to cite them properly, I have read many atheist scientists as saying “I don’t believe that God exists because I’m afraid that He does.” Living in NJ, it is easy to see thousands of examples of how people always long to deny God simply so that they are not held accountable to a higher authority. In fact, all other religions offer ultimate control over your life to you. If you make it to the end of this email, I’ll explain more on that, but there’s no use denying that no one can be trusted with objectivity even in scientific research. We look to prove what we wish to be true (whether in the way we do research or the way we interpret results).
You are certainly right that it can taint our objectivity, and that's a danger we all must seek to avoid. We must recognize also, however, that there are many such tendencies that can lead to error in the opposite direction. At the route of all humans is an undeniable source of pride and independence that says, “I’m in charge of my life.” Though it would take some time to cite them properly, I have read many atheist scientists as saying “I don’t believe that God exists because I’m afraid that He does.” Living in NJ, it is easy to see thousands of examples of how people always long to deny God simply so that they are not held accountable to a higher authority. In fact, all other religions offer ultimate control over your life to you. If you make it to the end of this email, I’ll explain more on that, but there’s no use denying that no one can be trusted with objectivity even in scientific research. We look to prove what we wish to be true (whether in the way we do research or the way we interpret results).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)