Nothing exploded

English: A cross close to the church in Grense Jakobselv, Norway. Suomi: Risti kirkon lähellä Vuoremijoella, Norjassa. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Christians have a lot of faith. They stupidly believe in some guy who lives in the sky, definitely Caucasian, definitely with a white beard, probably holding a staff or a lightning bolt or something like that, who created everything, then sneakily hid proof of evolution in it all so that the cleverest humans would be led astray, leaving the stupid ones to get into heaven because of their faith.

Well, judging by the way the new atheists talk I think that’s what they believe anyway. The fact that I’m a Christian and believe none of that paragraph (except maybe the bit about him creating everything) seems to make no difference; why address real-life Christians when imaginary ones are so much easier to get angry and aggro about!

I’m not convinced that Christians have any more faith than atheists do. Let me tell you what I can see at the moment:

• a whole bunch of electronic stuff
• chocolate biscuits
• furniture
• buildings
• statues
• trees

All of those, with the exception of the last one, have a clear creator or creators; humans. But the last one, according to atheists, needs faith to believe in a creator. Odd.

Ok, so the tree grew ‘naturally’ out of a seed, but where did the seed come from? Another tree? But that doesn’t go back forever…atheists would have us believe that everything came into existence out of nothing on its own.

Is it just me, or is that absolutely ridiculous? In what other situation would we see something and conclude that it came into being when there was nothing there before, not even its various parts?

Atheists: you demonstrate more faith than I feel I can muster up I’m afraid!

Related articles

• Christmas in an Anti-Christian Age (flyoverpress.wordpress.com)
• Room for Debate: Is Atheism a Religion? (nytimes.com)
• Cold-Case Christianity (challies.com)

Half of what I believe is probably a plain lie

Check this out. The following stories I was taught in History class are actually lies, made up by various people to make the heroes out to be more important than they were:

Christopher Columbus never ‘proved that the world was round’. At the time he sailed west it had already been mathematically proven. In fact, everyone educated knew that the world was larger than Columbus thought it was, but he was so stubborn he just called the people he met Indians anyway. Good work, great historical figure.

Sir Walter Raleigh wasn’t nearly as chivalrous as the books tell us – he pretty much definitely didn’t cover a puddle with his coat, and introducing the potato to Europe had happened ages before he went off on his merry journies.

There are more (a bit more relevant to American readers) over here, but there’s something oh-so-slightly concerning that I was taught these as fact, and have just blindly believed them ever since. Surely the best way we could know that what we believe about history is true would be if:

1. we had direct access to texts actually written at the time
2. the copies we had access to were as close to the originals as possible
3. other texts from the same period in history don’t disagree with them

Agreed? Sounds logical to me.

Turns out that using the above criteria, the New Testament is the best record of historical facts we have, by about 25,000%.

Simple evidence proving God exists

Image by FlickrDelusions via Flickr

This is nothing new, but it’s logical and a good reminder of the truth.

If I have a desire for something (let’s call it Nid for the moment), it shows that Nid must exist. I’m hungry, therefore I know something exists to satisfy that desire; food. I’m tired, therefore I know something exists to satisfy that desire; sleep. These are natural, inbuilt desires that we don’t need telling about – a newborn baby simply wants food, love, and sleep.

There are other desires that are artificial to a certain extent. I have a desire for the latest Xbox game, a new car, to be able to fly like Superman, and to travel to Oz…the simple difference between these two desires is that the first can be genuinely satisfied but the second cannot. I can stop being hungry, and I can stop being tired…but my desire for ‘more stuff’ simply won’t go away. Just look at the wealthy people we see every day in the news – broken marriages, depression, alcoholism, yet they have a whole bunch of stuff we desire. It doesn’t add up…

But the desire still exists, and there is not a single case of an innate desire for something that does not exist. Something inside us all simply knows that infinite joy, peace, and beauty is desirable…but it’s certainly never going to happen on this earth. Here’s C.S. Lewis’ useful summary:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

A good, more detailed look at this is over here, together with answers to common objections.

Wow, Richard Dawkins just has no idea

Do you want to experience a nice big, belly chuckle? Ok, you talked me into it. Have a watch of this video, in which Richard Dawkins actually suggests that the reason why scientific evidence points towards intelligent design is that a superior being created all life…but that of course that superior, higher power must have evolved. Right…

 

Islam: a cult?

Let me start by saying this: if you’re a Muslim, I have a great deal of respect for you. Seriously. The logic behind a lot of your thinking is very different to mine, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong (even though I think your conclusions are wrong). This is just the output of a conversation I’ve had with a number of different Muslims over the years. Please feel free to comment and correct me.

I think that if something is true, it will stand up to questioning, however tough the questions are. Whenever I’ve asked Muslims why they believe in God, however, I’ve been met with the same answer: there is no evidence, there is only faith, and it’s important that it is that way.

So, I have tried to understand what Muslims believe. They believe that Jews had it right but that the prophet Jesus came to correct and supercede that which had come before. Then, the prophet Muhammad came and corrected and superceded everything that had come before, including Jesus’ ministry. Fair enough.

So I’ve asked the question, when will the next correction come? The answer: there cannot be another correction. One of the things Muhammad corrected was stating that he was to have the last word.

Oh yes, and when I pointed out a couple of mistakes in the Koran my Muslim friends have all refused to look into them, because the worst possible sin is to question Muhammad.

Ok…

So I’ve asked the question, what in particular did Muhammad correct? And the answer: everything in the Bible (containing both Jewish and Christian holy books) has become corrupt and changed over time, so nothing in them can be relied upon.

So…

We’re in a situation where one man has:

1. proclaimed himself to be a prophet
2. declared that everything everyone else said is wrong
3. warned that questioning him is punishable by an eternity in hell
4. underlined that nothing anyone else ever says can override what he says

Without wanting to sound unnecessarily skeptical, if I said any of those things I’d probably declare myself a wannabe cult leader!

If…if…Islam is a false religion, it would be Satan’s perfect plan, wouldn’t it?

And if…if…it’s true, surely it would withstand questioning anyway?

Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life.

The Jesus Inquest: the Case For and Against the Resurrection of Christ by Charles Foster

This book is a well-researched court case investigating the claim that Jesus Christ rose again from death. It takes the form of two lawyers, X and Y, who take it in turns to claim that Jesus was, and was not, resurrected.

The book’s quite technical in its language so if you’re looking for a light read I wouldn’t go for this one, but it certainly is compelling. The arguments against the resurrection are not as well put-together as those in favour of the resurrection, but I think that is unavoidable, as it is clear from this book that the evidence is too convincing.

I’d encourage Christians to certainly read this. It’s good for us to question our faith and be encouraged that the Truth can stand up to questioning. But I’d also encourage non-Christians to read this. I doubt that any unbelievers I know could pull together their arguments as well as Foster does, and it’s very difficult to question his logic and reasoning.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.

The Bible says Jesus is God

I was in a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness a bit ago who told me that Jesus is not God, and that the Bible never even hints that he is. Well, here are some reasons why the Bible does, in fact, say that Jesus is God.

1. WORDING

The same descriptions are used of God and Jesus. For example, here’s Philippians 4:20:

To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.

And here’s Hebrews 13:21:

…through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

That’s one example – there are many more.

2. TITLE

The title given to Jesus throughout the New Testament is ‘Lord’, which is translated from the Ancient Greek word kyrios. In the Ancient Greek Old Testament, the word kyrios was the translation of the Hebrew name of God, Yahweh. That’s why in our English Bibles today we see God referred to as LORD throughout.

3. WORSHIP

Worship is only appropriate when it’s to God, but the New Testament encourages us to worship Jesus. When a blind man is healed we’re told in John 9:38:

He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

There is no rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ.

4. HE’S CALLED GOD

When Doubting Thomas sees the spear and nail wounds he answered ‘My Lord and my God!’ in John 20:28. Jesus’ response is revealing. Again, he does not rebuke Thomas for calling him God when he isn’t:

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Those of us who have not met Jesus face-to-face as Thomas did are blessed because we have believed.

There’s loads more reasons that the Bible says Jesus is God, but I’m running out of energy here. Add your own in the comments if you like!

Evil proves that you believe in God

We’ve talked on this blog before about how atheists suppose that the existence of evil disproves God. I’m going to say again that it’s a completely illogical statement.

There is evil in the world, and there is also good. If there is good and evil then there must be a moral law, which must have originated from somewhere. That somewhere, for Christians, is God.

Atheists may say that God is undermining his own laws to allow evil but all that means is that the atheist is choosing which bits of the Bible to believe…which is inconsistent and illogical.

Prominent atheists agree with me on this – Kai Nielson said:

Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

J. L. Mackie agreed, saying:

[The ideas of good and evil] are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all powerful God to create them.

The only plausible atheistic argument is that good and evil are non-existent, which is what Richard Dawkins says:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

But atheists don’t actually believe this. Dawkins has a daughter (I think), and if she were raped I sincerely doubt that he could possibly say that the rapist should not be held accountable for his actions because he was just dancing to his DNA.

But even without this (subjective) argument there’s still a problem – is the belief in God just a DNA dance? Dawkins says yes, that it’s a virus that we need to eradicate. And morality is called in again here – what makes faith ‘bad’ and naturalism ‘good’?

Dawkins is not really an atheist, he simply believes that he is god himself. He genuinely believes that he has the power to determine good and evil for himself and others.

Please, if you’re an atheist, stop kidding yourself. Think through your logic logically.

Beyond Opinion by Ravi Zacharias (ed)

A collection of the finest and most respected apologists on the planet combined their skill and knowledge to bring this work to my bookshelf. By looking at a vast range of situations and audiences the book aims to inspire the reader to take apologetics beyond opinion to changed lives based on truth.

The key message for this book is that it’s not an apologetics book itself. I expected it to be full of convincing arguments to build my faith, but that’s not its purpose so if that’s what you’re looking for you’ll be disappointed, despite the list of authors!

In my opinion the last chapter is the best, in which Zacharias pushes home the importance of a radically changed life, the church community, and the development of apologetics into more than a debate. If I’d read this chapter first, the rest of the book would have made much more sense.

On the whole the book’s very strong. The authors are knowledgeable and give a good background about all of the topics covered. But there’s a problem in the wide range of topics – covering all Eastern and New Age religions in one short chapter doesn’t really do them justice and just leaves you asking more questions than you started with.

If you’re into apologetics I’d encourage you to read this book because it will get your priorities right, but don’t expect to receive a bunch of new arguments because it doesn’t do that.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze. I’m not required to give a positive review.

Let’s talk probability

I’m sure many readers of this blog have heard about the argument against evolution referred to as ‘fine tuning’. The fact is that the universe exists in its current habitable state due to a high number of constants which are set. If even one of these shifted even the smallest amount, the universe could not exist in its present state.

For example, Paul Davies tells us in God and the New Physics tells us that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by one part in 10 to the power 16, no stars could have been formed at all.

Now, 10 to the power 16 means one with 16 zeroes behind it: 10,000,000,000,000,000 – that is a bigger number than you or I can possibly comprehend so the probability that stars even exist is astronomically tiny.

Add this into the mix: to shift the ratio by even 1 in 10 to the power 40(!!) and we’d have either all small, or all large stars – and we need both to create the elements (in large stars) and support life (small stars). This is just silly – I can’t really imagine 1 million, or 1 million million, or 1 million million million, and 10 to the power 40 is many, many times larger than that!

But let’s cut to the chase. The level of entropy in the universe, supported by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is only possible if it started off accurate to one part in 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. That’s not a typo.

So that’s one in a number starting with 1, with as many zeroes after it as would add up to the number which starts with 1 and has 123 zeroes – this number is impossible to write out in decimal because even if you wrote a zero on every particle in the entire universe there aren’t enough.

Chance that nothing became everything by random mutation: small to none.