Do you really believe that But sanctify the

Do you really believe that? But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense [apologia] to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear [or “gentleness and respect”]; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. – 1 Peter 3: 15 -16 (NKJV)

Being Ready to Give a Defense �Apologetics is the rational defense of the Christian Faith. �The word comes from the NT Greek apologia, meaning: ◦ 1) verbal defense, speech in defense ◦ 2) a reasoned statement or argument (Thayer)

Do you really believe that? �Plan for the Seminar: ◦ Session 1: Does God really exist? ◦ Session 2: Who is Jesus of Nazareth? ◦ Session 3: Q & A

Session 1: Does God really exist? �The Cosmological Argument �The Teleological Argument 1 – Design in the Universe to Allow for Life �The Teleological Argument 2 – Design in Life Itself �The Moral Argument �The Argument from Conscience �The Argument from Desire �Pascal’s Wager

The Cosmological Argument �Cosmological means: “pertaining to the branch of astronomy dealing with the origin and history and structure and dynamics of the universe” (http: //wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn? s=cosmological) �Note: There actually a number of Cosmological Arguments, rather than just one.

The Cosmological Argmument �Here is a cosmological argument in perhaps the most basic form: �P 1 Everything has a cause. �P 2 Nothing is its own cause. �P 3 A chain of causes cannot be infinite. �P 4 There must be a first cause. �C This is God.

The Cosmological Argument Here is a slightly more elaborate version: �Things exist. �It is possible for those things to not exist. �Whatever has the possibility of nonexistence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. ◦ In other words, something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to

The Cosmological Argument �There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. ◦ An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. ◦ The universe (space, time, matter, energy) began to exist, therefore, it must have a cause. �Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. �This uncaused cause is God. (Adapted from: http: //carm. org/cosmological-argument )

The Teleological Argument �Teleology is a philosophical term meaning “the study of evidences of design in nature ” (http: //www. merriamwebster. com/dictionary/teleology) �There at least two levels on which we can study the evidences of design: ◦ 1: Evidences of Design, or Fine-Tuning, in the Universe to Allow for Life ◦ 2: Evidences of Design in Life Itself

Teleological Argument 1: Design in the Universe �Following are the first 10 of 93 different characteristics of the universe that must be finely tuned to allow life to exist – from a list by astronomer Hugh Ross. �The list of 93 is actually partial and the number is constantly increasing. � The complete list can be found here: (http: //www. reasons. org/fine-tuning-life-universe)

Teleological Argument 1: Design in the Universe 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Strong nuclear force constant Weak nuclear force constant Gravitational force constant Electromagnetic force constant Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

Teleological Argument 1: Design in the Universe Ratio of proton to electron mass 7) Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons 8) Ratio of proton to electron charge 9) Expansion rate of the universe 10) Mass density of the universe 6)

Teleological Argument 2: Design in Life �This case has been made consistently and strongly by the Intelligent Design movement. �Two main lines of evidence are: ◦ Irreducible Complexity, for example, the complexity found in the cell. ◦ Specified Complexity, such as the information stored in DNA. �The following quotation is from Scientific American, Volume 0002 Issue 48 (August 21, 1847)

Teleological Argument 2: Design in Life “There is no principle of human nature more powerful than the desire for knowledge: universal experience attests this fact. Pleasures of an exalted and refined character are the invariable accompaniment of intellectual pursuits – in the original constitution of the mind we find a capacity for high intellectual attainments.

Teleological Argument 2: Design in Life “If then, its great Author intended that it should be susceptible of indefinite expansion and improvement, we cannot doubt that the same benificent Being has supplied a fountain pure and inexhaustible from which to satisfy the desire of knowledge which is implanted in us. And where must we look for this fountain but to the great store-house of nature – the innumerable and diversified objects there presented to our view give evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation to each other and to the nature of man. ”

Teleological Argument 2: Design in Life �As to the discussion of what role evolution by means of natural selection may or may not have played in the development of the various species, Darwin said it well: “… I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question…” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, Project Gutenberg Ebook, 2009, Introduction, p. 5)

The Moral Argument �This line of reasoning begins with the observation that objective morals exist. �We will concede that disagreements exist as to which moral rules are valid and binding. �Some conclude from this disagreement that morality itself is relative and not objective. �Yet, at the very bottom, there are some things about which we can find complete or nearly complete agreement.

The Moral Argument �For example: ◦ It is simply better to nurture a newborn baby than to torture it for fun. ◦ A man deceives a poor old woman out of her Social Security check and uses the money to get drunk with his friends. This is wrong. ◦ Hitler, Stalin & Mao were each responsible for the senseless slaughter of millions. Mother Teresa lived a better life than they did. ◦ No one, other than perhaps a criminal, ever seriously proposes that we eliminate the police force. Why? Because sometimes people do bad things and all agree they should be stopped.

The Moral Argument �Some Examples of Formal Moral Arguments: (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Argument I: �It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists. �The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God. �Therefore God exists.

The Moral Argument �Some Examples of Formal Moral Arguments: (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Argument II: �Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules. �Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority. �The only appropriate moral authority is God. �Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.

The Moral Argument �Some Examples of Formal Moral Arguments: (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Argument III: �Moral norms have authority. �If they have authority, there must be a reliable motive for human beings to be moral. �No such motive could exist, unless there was an omniscient, omnipresent, wholly just agent to attach sanctions to behavior under moral norms. �There is a God.

The Moral Argument �An important clarification: �The moral argument does not prove or even claim to prove that people who believe in God are better or more moral than people who don’t. �The opposite may be true in many cases. �The argument only shows that God’s existence provides a good reason for the moral norms that we observe in people, whether those people believe in God or not.

The Argument from Conscience �This is related to the Moral Argument. �The difference is that moral norms are things that seem to exist outside of us. �Conscience, on the other hand is our internal sense of right and wrong. �Moral subjectivism is popular today, so this can be very persuasive – it reveals a subjective and personal standard within each person.

The Argument from Conscience �The following is adapted from the website of Peter Kreeft: (http: //www. peterkreeft. com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence. htm#15) �Isn't it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? �Even if different people's consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience.

The Argument from Conscience �Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: ◦ ◦ From something less than me (nature) From me (individual) From others equal to me (society) From something above me (God)

The Argument from Conscience �Let's consider each of these possibilities in order. ◦ How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct? If this is the only source of my conscience it doesn’t really obligate me at all. ◦ How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself?

The Argument from Conscience ◦ How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is "society" God? ◦ The only source of genuine obligation left is something superior to me. ◦ This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

The Argument from Conscience �Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. �Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul. �The Ten Commandments are ten divine footprints in our psychic sand.

The Argument from Desire This line of thinking is probably best expressed by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity: “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exist. 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.

The Argument from Desire “If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage.

The Argument from Desire “I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find until after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same. ” (Lewis, C. S. ; Mere Christianity, Book 3, Chapter 10, Harper Collins e-book p. 125)

Pascal’s Wager �This final point originates with Blaise Pascal, the French philosopher and mathematician of the 17 th Century �It comes from his Pensées (literally, "thoughts"), published in 1670. �His point is, whether God exists or not, it’s worth the risk to believe in God, because the risk of not believing is so much greater.

Pascal’s Wager �We might represent Pascal’s Wager something like this: (from Mc. Clennan 1994, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Wager for God Wager against God exists God does not exist Gain all Status quo Misery Status quo

Pascal’s Wager �The martyr Jim Elliot (1927 -1956), missionary to the Auca people in Ecuador, said about the same thing: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. ” �As Jim Elliot really did lose his life in the course of his ministry, his words become that much more meaningful. We might say, “He won the bet. ”

End of Session 1: Does God really exist?