Hi, I think a very compelling case for “why the Christian God” has already been made by many writers. Here’s one I found quite striking by J. Warner Wallace (bear with me, it’s a long read). Please discuss: Stepping Toward God With a Wallet and a Dollar I’ve been talking to my dad about the existence of God for several years. He describes himself as an agnostic who leans toward atheism, but it’s clear from our discussions he’s as far from theism as anyone could be. He’s also an evidentialist who worked as a police officer and detective for nearly 30 years. We tend to think a lot alike (I was also an atheist detective until the age of 35), and I can relate to his skepticism. Many years ago, while waiting for my kids to finish a ride at a local water park, we had perhaps our best and most extended conversation on the reasonable nature of Christian theism. Our conversation began as we were talking about the beauty of the universe. Sitting by the edge of a large swimming pool, I began to look for a way to illustrate some of the foundational problems philosophical naturalism has in attempting to describe the nature and origin of life the cosmos. If we had been sitting on the beach, I would have drawn some ideas in the sand, but in the moment, as we were waiting in a crowded amusement park, I tried to think of a quick alternative. I decided to use my wallet to make a case for what I believe as a theist. I pulled my wallet from my pocket and opened the money section. I showed him the single dollar bill in the billfold (I seldom carry cash when an ATM card will suffice), and simply asked him to help me understand how the money got there. Clearly, the dollar bill is an amazing object. It contains so much detail; specific numbers and drawings and words are inked on the paper. It is clearly the result of a design process. “So, Dad, how did the dollar bill get in the wallet?” He gave me the most obvious and reasonable explanation: he said I put the bill in the wallet. Actually, anyone could have placed the bill in the wallet, but since he saw me take the wallet from my pocket, he reasonably inferred I was the person who placed the dollar there. His answer made sense in light of the physical evidence. I asked him, however, to limit his answer to wallet’s interior. I encouraged him to explain how the bill got in the wallet, but to provide an answer from inside the billfold exclusively. I can’t be the answer, given this new limitation, as I exist outside the wallet. At first he resisted. The limitation seemed unreasonable. How could the dollar get in the wallet if it wasn’t placed in there by someone or something outside the wallet? I asked him to play along with my thought experiment, however, and when he was unable to think of how the dollar got there, I offered him two creative explanations: (1) perhaps the dollar was always in the wallet. Maybe it is as old as the wallet and has always been there, or (2) perhaps the dollar formed over time from much more primitive materials in the wallet. Neither answer seemed reasonable to my father. “You see”, I told my dad, “with this simple illustration I’ve described the problem philosophical naturalists and materialists have when they try to explain how life began in the universe.” How does matter come from non-matter? How does life come from non-life? If only natural forces are in play, we simply cannot go outside the physical realm for an answer. In essence, we cannot go outside the wallet. Life in this universe is either infinitely old, or it has evolved over time. But of course, these two explanations have inherent problems exposed by the fields of philosophy and science. The scientific study of the universe is replete with evidence the universe had a beginning. In addition, the idea the universe and life within the universe is infinitely old suffers from an infinite regress problem. In addition, if time had no beginning, it would be impossible for us to get to today. And any discussion of evolution as a solution to our dollar bill problem still requires us to explain how the base material for the dollar got in the wallet in the first place. If life evolved from primal matter, how did this primal matter come into existence? We’ve simply pushed our dilemma back one level. Naturalism must explain how the pieces required for the formation of the dollar got in the wallet in the first place. Clearly the most satisfying answer for how a highly designed object appears within the wallet is to conclude someone placed the object in the wallet. When we force ourselves to limit our answers to sources inside the wallet, we create an unreasonable (and biased) restriction. The most unbiased approach would at least allow us to consider explanations exterior to the wallet. In a similar way, it seems to me the most unbiased science would also respect the reasonable inference the supernatural might be in play. I used this illustration to help my dad understand why I am not satisfied with a naturalistic answer related to life within the universe, and to explain the reason why I think supernatural theism is the only reasonable inference. But let’s face it, this approach, at best, simply illustrates the reasonableness of theism. It does nothing to bring me to the conclusion that Christianity is true. I needed to take two more small steps with him. I’ll describe these steps in my next two posts.
Stepping Toward a Personal God With A Wallet and a Dollar Yesterday I described a simple illustration I used with my father to make the case for theism using a wallet and a dollar (you’ll probably need to read that article to make sense of today’s blog). The point of the object lesson was to establish the inadequacy of naturalism in describing the origin of matter and life in the universe. But this first step in the illustration simply made the case for theism. The first argument I offered with the wallet and the dollar could easily apply to any number of theistic worldviews, however, including pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism or monotheism. Even if we are convinced that the first appearance of life in the universe is best explained as the result of a ‘First Cause” Creator God from outside the natural realm, this still leaves us several options as to the nature of this God. Is this God personal? Isn’t it possible that the God who formed matter from non-matter and life from non-life may simply be some kind of impersonal force? After all, many world religions would suggest this is the case. I wanted to extend the illustration for my father to explain why I believed in a personal God. I told him I believe this creator God is a personal God based on His ability to decide. I asked my dad to examine the wallet again. What happens, I asked, if I simply let go of the wallet? What forces are felt by the wallet? I let go of the wallet and it immediately dropped to the ground. Why did that happen? Why didn’t it just float for a minute and then drop to the ground when gravity decided to act on it? Why don’t we ever see that happen? You and I already know the answer: gravity does not decide when to act. Gravity is an impersonal force, and the effect of an impersonal force is felt the minute the force enters into the environment. If we were floating around in a zero gravity environment (an imaginary room, for example) and we then inserted the force of gravity into this room, we would all immediately be pulled to the floor. The effect of the gravity is felt the minute gravity enters the room. That’s the way impersonal forces work. They can’t decide whether or not they will activate their effect. Their impact is felt immediately; the minute the force enters the room. Gravity doesn’t enter the room and say, “Not yet, not yet, not yet… OK, now!” Gravity cannot decide when its effect will be felt. It cannot decide when it will act. The ability to decide whether to act is a characteristic of personhood. The ability to move and act freely as a result of a conscious independent decision is a characteristic of free agency. It is a characteristic common to persons, not impersonal forces. What does this tell us about the force responsible for creating the universe? Well, if it’s an impersonal force, it can only be as old as the universe. In other words, the minute the impersonal force existed, its creative power was felt, and all space, time and matter also began. Remember our gravity example: the minute gravity appears, you feel its power. In a similar way, the minute an impersonal creative force appears, we would then observe its power in the creation of the universe. This means the impersonal force would only be as old as the universe created as a result of its existence. But if that is true, we have a dilemma. If the creative cause of the universe is only as old as the universe itself, then we must ask the obvious question: “What caused that force to exist?” Whatever caused the cause of the universe; this would then be the more powerful cause we would want to identify. Do you see the problem here? A true and singular first cause must be eternal by definition. In a very real sense, we innately know the cause of this “caused universe” must be some kind of eternal, uncaused, first cause with the ability to decide. Whatever caused this universe, it did so as a decision, and this ability to decide gives away the fact the first cause of the universe is a personal force. I told my dad I believe personal theism is true because the first, uncaused cause of the universe was able to decide as a personal agent. About eight minutes into the conversation, I was able to make a case for theism and personal theism, but this still left us with a number of theistic options. My father, a committed atheist my entire life, married his second wife over forty years ago. She became a Mormon and together they had six children all raised in the LDS Church. The argument I made so far with the wallet and the dollar could also be used to make a case for the god(s) of Mormonism. It was important, therefore, for me to take one more step with my illustration to explain why I believed the personal God who created everything in the universe was, in fact, the Christian God described in the New Testament. I’ll describe this last step in tomorrow’s post.
Stepping Toward the Christian God With A Wallet and a Dollar I’ve been writing about an object lesson I used with my father several years ago to describe why God’s existence is reasonable. I used this illustration while I was waiting with him at a waterpark (my kids were little in those days), and I was limited to what I had on hand: my wallet and a dollar bill. I began with an argument for theism, then moved toward an argument for personal theism. In the final step of my object lesson, I made an argument for Christian theism (you may want to visit the links to catch up with the first two steps). While these simple object lessons are obviously less than perfect, I do think they capture the essence of our arguments and they certainly started a conversation related to the existence and nature of God. Today, I’d like to share the final step in my object lesson as I made a case for the God of Christianity. If there is a God who is all-powerful and personal, it certainly makes sense He might be concerned for the welfare of His personal creations. If He doesn’t care about us, why would he create us in the first place? If He had the choice not to create us (He could have decided otherwise), the fact He chose to create us should give us good reason to think He actually cares about us. Even the atheist has to explain why there is something here when there could easily be nothing. It is reasonable to infer a God who creates (when He doesn’t have to) would care about the condition of His creation. A God like this would want to guide His created beings toward true moral goodness, the kind of goodness that would reflect His own character. After all, a Being with this kind of incredible power (the power to decide to create the entire universe) would also have the power to eliminate imperfection, including moral imperfection. A God like this would be a perfect being. It makes sense a personal creator God would want his personal creations to understand and strive for the very values that reflect His nature. It’s reasonable to assume a personal God might present us with guidelines for living and then encourage us to live by these guidelines. And this is where we need to take some time to think about the nature of God. Let’s think about how God might reasonably expect us to live a truly moral life. Our human instinct is to create rules we can follow so we can measure our success and judge how close we are to being Godly, but does a system of rules actually create a Godly person? Take a look at my wallet. It’s still on the ground from the last step in my object lesson. Imagine I have a really bad back and I’m unable to bend over to pick up the wallet. I might ask you to pick it up for me, and if you did, this generous action on your part might be viewed as a morally good act. I might then find myself wanting to reward you by giving you the dollar that started this whole conversation. But what if you knew in advance that I would give you the dollar as a reward if you would help me pick up the wallet? What if you only picked up the wallet because you wanted that dollar? Would your actions still be seen as morally good, or would your greedy motive ruin the nature of the action? If you and I are only being good so we can earn a prize, are we being truly good? If all my good actions were driven by my desire to get something in return, would we still call my actions good? It seems to me rule-based and work-based religious systems don’t actually produce good people. They instead produce people who look good. True goodness is a heart condition. It’s a reflection of who we are when no one is looking. It’s a reflection of our desire to do what’s right, even when there is nothing in it for us. It’s one thing to experience joy or satisfaction for doing what you know you ought to do; it’s another thing to do something only because you are hoping to gain a prize. If we are only performing because we are hoping to get the reward of Salvation, we’re merely trying to serve ourselves by earning a prize. On the other hand, if our hearts are so changed we desire to behave morally even when the carrot of Salvation is not dangling in front of us, then we can say that we truly are good people. If you are looking for a spiritual worldview in which truly good people are even possible, you are going to have to look for one that does not require good works. Now what religious worldview teaches Salvation is not the result of anything you can do, but is instead the result of something already done for you by God Himself? There is only one: it is called Christianity. The Christian worldview teaches Jesus came to pay the price for every less than perfect thing you ever did; every sin and crime you’ve ever committed. God doesn’t judge us based on any good deed we might do, because our good deeds aren’t all that impressive if you really think about it. Instead, God accepts us on the basis of who Jesus is and the price He paid for us, if we will only believe in Him and trust Him instead of ourselves. Good works are not required for Salvation, even though they are typically the result of our transformation. True moral goodness comes when we live and love in response to what has already been done for us, and not because we are hoping to win a prize. I believe that Christian theism is true because it best accounts for God’s desire to enable and encourage true moral behavior. So, in the end, I think there are some really good reasons to believe what I believe about God and the nature of His message to us. I am a Christian because: (1) I believe theism best accounts for the appearance of our universe, (2) I believe that personal theism best accounts for the nature of the first cause of the universe and the fact this cause had the ability to decide to begin the universe, and (3) I believe Christian theism best accounts for the possibility of true moral goodness (something a personal God would desire for his creation). The Christian Worldview best accounts for the reality we see in our universe and in our lives as moral beings. Could more be said about Christianity? Of course; this primitive object lesson only began the conversation with my dad. But in three short steps I hoped to place Christianity in a position of rational consideration.
I don't have time to do the whole thing, so I'll just tackle one part for now - the post about the uncaused cause. The first thing to say is that forces such as gravity aren't necessarily just on or off. The force of gravity manifests itself in different ways depending on the conditions prevalent at the time. In fact, this is true of all the fundamental physical forces. We know that at high energies, such as existed at the big bang, all of the fundamental forces had the same strength - they were unified. And then, as things cooled down, differences 'froze out' bit by bit. Physicists think that gravity was initially repulsive, for example, causing inflation of the universe. Later, it became attractive. garbonzo asks the question 'What caused that force to exist?' But the answer 'God did it' relies on the presumption that 'impersonal forces' require pre-existing causes in the first place. The argument is a common one that takes this form: 1. Everything that exists has a cause. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. This can be attacked on a number of levels, but a major problem is that even if each step of the argument is true, there's no reason to posit a personal God as the relevant cause. Why not an impersonal physical cause due to processes in some larger multiverse, for example? Gravity might be only as old as the universe, but why couldn't whatever caused gravity be older than the universe - perhaps even eternal? If there was a pre=existing cause of the universe, then one argument might be that it couldn't be eternal; it must itself have a cause. But if the argument is that nothing can be eternal, then why can God be eternal? If, on the other hand, everything must have a cause (as we appear to have accepted by accepting premiss (1), above), then it seems that God must be caused, too. What then was the cause of God? And if God doesn't need a cause after all (so that He is the 'uncaused cause'), then why not say that the universe doesn't need a cause instead? Wouldn't that be more parsimonious? Why introduce a supernatural being into the discussion? It's not clear to me why any posited 'eternal cause' for the universe must be personal or have the ability to decide anything. Maybe the eternal cause is a set of overarching physical laws that create universes willy-nilly, and we just happen to live in one of the ones that is suitable for life. Also, why must the cause of the universe be 'more powerful' than the universe? Who knows? It might be quite easy to create a universe. Perhaps every black hole creates a universe at the other end. We don't know.
Doesn't make any sense, garbonzo, but hey, what do you expect from someone who doesn't understand the first thing about science.
I'm sorry but around here if you talk about something and want others to believe you it is YOU that must provide FACTS to prove what you say is true, not others.
Let me tackle the first post now. The wallet is a flawed analogy. A wallet doesn't ordinarily contain everything that is necessary to build a dollar bill from scratch. In contrast, the universe clearly does contain everything needed to build life from scratch. It's not clear to me why we should rule out infinite regression as untenable. Perhaps you can explain. As for the statement that we couldn't get here from there, compare the natural numbers. There is an infinite number of integers. They have no 'beginning'. Therefore, by the argument being put here, it is impossible for us to count from 1 to 10. We can never 'get to' the number 1. And if your own answer is 'God put the pieces there', then you've simply pushed the dilemma back another level. Theists must then explain how God got there in the first place. Science is the study of the natural world. If - and only if - science fails to provide an explanation, then we might need to invoke the supernatural and toss science out the window. But in actual fact, science has some pretty good ideas about where the universe came from - even if they aren't yet verified.
Clearly the bible is conflicted. It preaches hate, and it preaches love of all, the later being the passive truth. We are all equal.
The OP presents us with yet another version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy As Paley's watchmaker original is so much tighter and better reasoned, why not use it instead of such a wordy and unpersuasive version? We have it on good authority that Paley's original is a fine piece of reasoning: Or, if you really want to dig in, the roots of the thing in Western philosophy: https://archive.org/details/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft That predates the monotheistic amendments, but those are superficial wrinkles on the structure anyway.
