A Big Bang Needs a Big Banger

It's accepted by most scientists that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning.  There are other theories but those are largely unsupported by the science and evidence available.  The beginning of the universe is referred to as the Big Bang.  All of nature didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.  There was no time, no space, no matter.  Some people have argued that the Big Bang is proof that God didn't create the universe and therefore does not exist.  However, the Big Bang actually strengths the argument for a Big Banger.  I wish I could take credit for the title of the post but I borrowed it from Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason.

The argument for a Big Banger is commonly called the Cosmological Argument and goes like this:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

The conclusion is valid if the first two premises are true.  Looking at the first premise is it true that everything that has a beginning has a cause?  What things that have begun to exist didn't have a cause?  Let's suppose you are walking along and see a watch laying on the sidewalk.  Is your first thought that it appeared out of nowhere without a cause or without being dropped by someone?  No, in fact we know that the probable cause is someone left it there either by accident or on purpose but we know it didn't pop out of nothing.  Nothing comes to be with a cause.  This is the law causality and to deny that law causality is to deny science.  Science is the study of effects and to determine their causes.

The objection that follows this is "Who created God?".  The premise is that everything that began to exist had a cause not that everything has a cause.  God is eternal and doesn't need a cause because he's always existed.  But then the person might say "Well if God doesn't need a cause neither does the universe."  While it might be logically possible that the universe is eternal, based on the science it doesn't seem that it's actually possible.  To say the universe is eternal is to deny Einstein's theory of relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, and many other pieces of evidence.

That leads into the second premise that the universe had a beginning.  It's unanimously accepted that the universe had a beginning.  The universe is expanding from a single point in the far distance past.  The Big Bang happened and the universe came into existence.  In the moment right before the Big Bang nothing in the universe existed, no time, no nature.  Things don't create themselves and nature is no exception.  Things also don't come from nothing.  The universe had a cause and that's referred to as the First Cause. 

What sort of characteristics would the First Cause have?

• It would have to be outside time (timeless), space (non spacial) , and matter (immaterial) because it caused time, space, and matter.
• It would have to be unimaginably powerful to create the universe.
• It would have to be extremely intelligent to create all the laws of physics, the universe, and the conditions for complex life.
• It would have to be personal to make a choice to create.  Impersonal forces (i.e. nature) can't make choices.

These are all the attributes theists ascribe to God.  The Cosmological Argument is just one of several powerful arguments for the existence of God.  It shows that it's not only reasonable to believe in a creator but given the evidence I believe it's the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Resources
William Lane Craig has developed the Cosmological Argument in depth and does a great job of defending it.  He's debated several times on the subject and always does more than hold his own.  Below are some resources that develop and explain the argument well.

Books


Website: Stand To Reason

Remembering Aunt Georgia and Steve Jobs

A couple weeks ago my aunt Georgia passed away.  She was 90 years old and lived in Wyoming on several acres still living life to the fullest.  My uncle passed away 27 years ago so she had been a widow since then.  She was my dad's sister and the oldest of 9 kids with her being the only girl.  She lived a life that if you told most people they wouldn't believe it. 

She was raised in the depression era in a large family.  My grandparents had nearly nothing and raised their kids in a small cabin my grandpa built on land they squated on.  No indoor plumbing, no electricity, none of the comforts we all enjoy today.  Even hearing the stories of growing up my dad and uncles tell and seeing pictures it's still hard for me to imagine growing up like that.  That was just the generation before me and it's hard to believe how much things have changed since that time.  Not just for me but for all of my uncles and my aunt.

As I sat there and listened to the pastor tell the story of my aunt's life I certainly felt a sense of loss and sadness for the family she left behind.  But what I felt more was a measure of joy that she'd lived a great life and impacted those people around her in a positve way.  I can't picture her any other way than with a smile on her face.  The other thing I remember about her was selflessness.  She had 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl.  Her daughter was born with a severe handicap and up until about a year ago my aunt took care of her by herself.  I've heard my dad and several of my uncles say she was like a mother to them.  Why?  Because she took care of them.  She impacted those around her in a very relational and meaningful way.

A few days after returning from Wyoming I was sitting in a restaurant with my family and saw the news on the wall mounted TV that Steve Jobs had died.  I felt sadness for his family and for their loss.  He also impacted people but in a different way.  He did it through the products Apple developed.  I've seen all sorts of tributes but these were not people he impacted in a personal and relational way.  I felt a sadness for his family and those close to him.  I felt no sense of joy though.  My thoughts immediately went to the billions he'd amassed and now for him it was just gone.  As they say you can't take it [wealth] with you.

As I thought about both deaths the contrast between their lives was obvious.  I knew immediately why I had a sense of joy when thinking about my aunt and a sense of sorrow when thinking about Jobs.  I had  joy when thinking about my aunt because I can feel confident in her eternity.  The pastor said at the age of 13 she accepted Jesus as her savior.  I don't know how or who she was with but there it was plain and clear.  Jesus promises we'll know God and see heaven through him and only him and she's there now waiting for those of us that are Jesus followers.  My joy is knowing I'll see her again when I join her in heaven.

The lack of joy and my sorrow for Steve Jobs and his family is because of the uncertainity of where his eternal resting place is.  From everything I've ever read about Jobs he was zen Buddhist which is an atheistic believe system.  Now I'm not going to say where Jobs is at right now because God is the judge of our hearts.  He may very well have accepted Jesus at some point before he died and I may get to met him in heaven.

My point isn't 'Jobs is in hell', so don't let that be the take away.  I liked the guy too and own an Apple product or two myself.  My point is I don't know and it makes me sad.  However, I have good certainty where my aunt is and in that case I feel joy.  My family knows I'm a Jesus follower and when I die they can have certainty of where I'm at and how they can join me when they die.  I'm glad my family and friends can have that same sense of joy that I have for my aunt Georgia and those she left behind.   I'm even more thankful they won't have any sense of doubt about what's happened to me like I have about Jobs.  I'm not sure if you'll get to meet Steve Jobs if you follow Jesus but I know you'll get to meet my aunt Georgia.  Meeting my aunt Georgia is a good thing.

Head vs Will

Lee Strobel was an atheist who became a believer after he investigated the evidence for Jesus and the Bible.  As a result of that investigation he wrote the book, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.  It's the book that got me introduced to the evidence for God, Jesus, and the Bible as a very new believer and started my study and defense of the evidence for Christianity.  I've read dozens of books by different authors since then on various different topics and this book still stands out as one of the very best.  It walks you through Lee's path as an atheist in his examination of the evidence.  It's written in a way that makes sense to the everyday person.  I remember reading it for the first time and being a little bit angry that I'd never been told some of these things before because if they had I'd have been a believer much sooner than I was.

As I reflect on the impact that apologetics has had on my life and faith I can't help but think about those who see the evidence and still don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.  There are also those that have heard there is evidence but don't bother to give it a look and complain about God in some way.  I think it really comes down to a matter of will.  For me a big part of the reason I didn't want to commit to Christianity was that I didn't want to give up my lifestyle.  I gave lots of other external reasons including: hypocritical Christians, how can you really know which religion is right, I'm a good person because I'm not as bad as Ted Bundy or whoever.  But internally what it really came down to is that I still wanted to swear, I wanted to have pre-marital sex, I wanted to drink excessively, I didn't want to be a Bible thumper,  I didn't want to be one of those weird religious people, and the list went on.  It's not that I don't struggle with some of those things from time to time now because I do.  Some of those things I don't do at all anymore while others are certainly much, much less frequent than they used to be and I'm still working on others.  The important thing is that immortality no longer controls me like it did before my belief in Jesus.

When I was living apart from God (which is what I was doing by not committing to Jesus) sin controlled me and now I am free of the hold it had on me.  That's not to say I don't still sin, because we all do, it's just that my bondage to it has been broken and the penalty has been paid for me.  I think differently about my sin now than I did before.  I'm remorseful and I turn from it even if I have to do it over and over again.  The other thing I've noticed is that I see others sin differently too.  I see it in light of the struggles I have had in the past and the struggles I still have.  It helps me to have compassion for others when they stumble.
What I've learned is that evidence is very helpful but for most people becoming a believer is not a matter of the head but a matter of the will.  Several years ago I exchanged private messages with an atheist who I had met in an atheist online forum.  I asked what it would take for him to believe in God.  His answer was that even if God appeared before him and he knew it was God appearing before him he would never worship Him.  Which stunned me a little bit quite honestly.  I asked him why and he said because he couldn't worship anyone who was as cruel as God was (see Paul Copan's book below for answers to this objection).  It really illustrated the point to me about believing (or not believing) being a matter of will for many people and not just a matter of reason and evidence. 

Is this you or someone you know?  That no matter what evidence you are presented you won't believe?  Can you look at the evidence objectively or is your will so hardened that you can't even give the evidence a fair look?  Do you think it's intellectually dishonest to believe in God?  Do you think there is no evidence and no matter what someone presents to you it won't even qualify as evidence?  If it is then no amount of evidence will probably convince you.  But if it's not and you have some questions you want answers to like: Why does God allow so much suffering and evil in the world?  How can there only be one God?  I've done some really bad things and hurt others, how can God forgive me or love me?  Or maybe it's something completely different.  If that's the case seek out the answers.  Read a book, ask someone else who may be able to help, look at a resource from this or another apologetics blog, or pick up the Bible and start with John's gospel.  Jesus said:

For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Matthew 7:8

It's promised to us that if we seek answers about God we will find them.  So I encourage you to objectively seek answers and based on what Jesus taught you will find them.

Books


Video
Lee Strobel's story

Blogs
Apologetics 315
Answers For Atheists
Reasons To Believe

Do all religions lead to God?

Here's a quick video (< 2 minutes) on an interview with Norm Geisler done by the One Minute Apologist.  He answers the question: Do all religions lead to God?

Christians Are Intolerant of Other Viewpoints

Christians are often accused of being intolerant.  The view comes from an incorrect view of what it means to be tolerant.  The view is that tolerance means accepting all other views as true. 

Tolerance

tol-er-ance

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.,  dictionary.com

We practice tolerance for that which we don't agree with or that which we believe is false.  Tolerance doesn't accept all views as true it involves practicing restraint towards views that are different.  If people accepted all views to be true there would be no need for tolerance.  Tolerance only needs to be practiced when people disagree.  Think about it, do you tolerate things you like? 

Being Accused of Intolerance
If you're accused of being intolerant the response might go something like this:

Bob: Christians are intolerant of other religions.  You all think you're right and they're wrong. John: Why are you being intolerant of my views? Bob: I'm not being intolerant you're the one that says other religions are wrong. John: But you're not being accepting of my views.  You think I'm wrong.  You are being intolerant.

The problem with this view of tolerance is that it says it accepts all views as being valid except for the view that all views aren't valid.  The statement doesn't even meet it's own view of tolerance.  It's very misunderstood view of what tolerance really is.

Tolerance is about respecting the other person you disagree with because they are made in the image of God the same as you are.  However, it doesn't require you to respect their held views. 

Intolerance of Tolerance
One of the books I've recommended in the past is I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.  One of the authors, Frank Turek, is right now experiencing the secular intolerance of tolerance.  Dr. Turek was just fired by Cisco Systems for his political and religious views even though his views were never expressed in the course of his work at Cisco.  The story is here.

Resources
True For You, But Not For Me by Paul Copan, Chapter 5
The Intolerance of Tolerance article by Gregory Koukl
Why Are Christians So Intolerant? article on PleaseConvinceMe.com
Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Tolerance blog post on Apologetics 315

Who Are You to Judge Others?

One of the complaints I had about Christians before I became one was that they were judgemental.  Then when I did become a Christian it was something I was accused of!  It's an accusation that is sometimes accurate though.  But judging and being judgmental are two different things. 

Judging vs Judgementalism
We all make judgements every day.  Being discerning and making decisions are something we all have to do and it's unavoidable and appropriate.  Judgementalism is a critical, smug, attitude of moral superiority.  Making right judgements is a virtue while being smug is not.  Judge but don't be judgemental.

Judging Judgementalism
The statement "Who are you to judge?" is again a self defeating statement.  The person is making a judgement that you are being judgemental.  They are doing the very thing they are accusing you of.  The conversation might go something this:

Bob: Who are you to judge others? John: Why are you judging me? Bob: What? John: Why are you judging me if it's wrong to judge others? Bob: I'm just saying that Christians aren't supposed to judge others. John: Hang on a second.  You just said it's wrong to judge.  Now you're judging me.  So why are you doing the very thing you say is wrong when I do it? Bob: I'm not judging you I'm just saying it's wrong to to judge. John: OK, then I'm not judging either I'm just simply saying you're wrong.

This may take a little bit to sink in but you can see the double standard here.  The statement about judging just doesn't hold up to it's own standard.  What most people actually mean when they accuse you of judging is that you're not allowed to tell other people they're wrong.  But here we go again, they are telling you it's wrong to tell someone else they're wrong!  The relativist is now being an absolutist which is the very thing he's accusing you of.

Why is this important?  Because Christian's get attacked all the time for taking an absolute stand on issues and are trivialized for their views of exclusivity.  They are accused of being intolerant, judgemental, close-minded, and the list goes on.  Why?  Because they hold views in opposition to those making the accusations.  Most people making these statements practice the very thing they condemn.  So don't be afraid to stand up for yourself but do it with gentleness and respect for the other person even if they don't do the same for you.

Resources
"True For You, But Not For Me" by Paul Copan, Chapter 4
"Tactics" by Gregory Koukl

That's True For You But Not For Me

I've read a book by Paul Copan titled True for You, But Not for Me.  It looks at some of the common objections to Christianity and how to answer them.  I thought I'd start blogging on some of these objections raised in the book.  These objections are covered in many other great books, blogs, podcasts, and articles too so much of what I'll write will be based on this book as well as other great resources I've come across.

What is Truth?
The idea that we each define our own truth is prevalent in our society.  We all have our own opinions but opinions are not necessarily the same as the truth.  Truth is an idea or description that matches with how things really are.  Truth exists whether our opinion matches it or not.  Truth is something that we discover not something we create for ourselves.   For instance at one time it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and it was later discovered that wasn’t true.  No matter what was thought about the sun and earth’s orbit it was never true that that sun revolved around the earth.

Truth is Not Ice Cream
My favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla (yeah, I know pretty plain, but I love it).  Is it true that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream over all other flavors?  You may agree with me but we all know people who have a different favorite flavor or even, gasp, don’t like ice cream at all!  So is it true or false that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream?  It’s an odd question because this is truly subjective (relative) to the person answering the question.  In fact you might say it’s my opinion that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor but it’s not yours.  It’s a subjective claim because it’s dependent on the subject (me in this case).  Subjective claims are not true or false.

Taking another look at ice cream though what if I were to say, “Vanilla ice cream cures cancer.”  You probably wouldn’t agree with my statement and even if you did that wouldn’t make it true. Imagine if someone responded to me by saying, “Well, it might be true for you that vanilla ice cream cures cancer but it’s not true for me.”  You'd think both participants in the conversation were probably just a little off center.  Why?  Because we know objectively that vanilla ice cream does not cure cancer no matter what I might think.  Objective claims are either true or false.

Contradicting Statements
Suppose someone from New York said, “New Yorkers are all liars and you can’t trust them.”  The person claiming to tell the truth about New Yorkers is contradicting themselves.  They are saying what I say is true, I’m a liar.  Kind of like saying “Don’t believe a word I say.”  In the same way the relativist’s statement “That’s true for you but not for me” contradicts itself.  They are making an absolute truth statement that applies to everyone that no truth applies to everyone.   This statement self destructs under its own weight, which makes it a useless statement.  If claims are only true for each person then why should I accept the relativists view and not my own?  The question to ask then is, “Is that true?” or “Are you asking me to accept that statement as true for everyone or is that just your own view?”

Truth is important and truth can be objectively known.  Believing something that is not true can have small consequences like believing the sun revolves around the earth.  You might get embarrassed and be seen as a dope if you say that but you probably won’t die from believing this.  But believing that fire won’t burn you could have very real and devastating consequences including death.  So when someone says, “Christianity is true for you but not for me” it’s not a subjective (relative) claim that Christianity makes, it’s an objective (absolute) claim.  Objective claims can and should be backed up by evidence and reason.  Either Christianity is true or false but it’s not both because Biblical Christianity is not ice cream.

Other Resources
The "truth is not ice cream" is something developed by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.  He gives a good talk on it titled “Truth is Not Cream, Faith is not Wishing” available on STRs website on CD, MP3, or PDF.