defending your faithhendyamps.com/kingdomapologetics/resources/apologeticspowerpoint.pdf•...

Defending Your FaithAn Introduction

Why Apologetics?

Why Apologetics?

“The mentality which says that our seminaries should aim at producing pastors rather than scholars is ironic

because it is precisely our future pastors, not simply our scholars, who will have

need of this scholarly training.”

- William Lane Craig

Why Apologetics?

“...If Christian laymen don’t become intellectually engaged, then we are in

serious danger of losing our children. In high school and college Christian

teenagers are intellectually assaulted on every hand by a barrage of anti-

Christian philosophies and attitudes.”

- William Lane Craig

Why Apologetics?

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for

the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

- Soren Kierkegaard

Acts 17:16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.)

“Babbler” = Scavenger Bird, or Idea-Picker

“Resurrection” - The Greeks misunderstood Paul and thought that he was promoting two foreign deities

19 So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new. Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’

29 Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 At that point Paul left them. 34 But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

“The atheist’s only hope in debating William Lane Craig is to offer better arguments. Remember, Craig is defending the theory that an ancient Semitic sky god created the universe with his magical powers, let it evolve in violence and meaninglessness for billions of years, then intervened quite recently by sending a man-god to earth, who rose from the dead into a new body with superpowers

and now talks to you and grants you wishes as your invisible friend. That is literally what he has to defend, so one would think that even without equal

debating skills an atheist would stand a chance to defeat that theory.”

-Luke Muehlhauser

Our Reputation Among the World

What Is Apologetics?

-Apologetics – arguing in defense of something.

-In this context, apologetics will mean trying to:-A) Show that believing in the essential tenants of the Christian faith is fully reasonable -B) Show that unbelievers are mistaken in rejecting essential Christian beliefs

There are two different types of apologetics

1) Positive – giving arguments or reasons why a person should believe

2) Negative – providing answers to challenges to the Christian faith

These arguments will fall into one of two categories

1) Deductive – demonstrates that is its premises are true, then their conclusions

must necessarily be true

2) Inductive – demonstrates that if its premises are true, then the conclusion is

probably true

There are two different groups of traditional arguments for the existence of God

1) A Priori – the premises of the argument are known independently of

experience

2) A Posteriori– the premises of the argument are known based upon

experience

1) Metaphysics– the branch of philosophy that examines first things

2) Cosmology– the branch of metaphysics concerned with the origin, elements,

beings, and laws of the cosmos

3) Ontology– the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of ultimate

reality or substance

4) Epistemology– theory of knowledge

15

Negative Apologetics

Atheism

Atheism is the Default Position

• Anthony Flew believed that Atheism is the default position and the burden of proof is on the theist.

1) We have no proof that faeries and leprechauns do not exist.

2) Nearly every person would not then assume that they exist.

3) Thus the default position, in absence of evidence is non-belief.

___________________________________________ 4) In the same way, belief in God’s existence defaults into

the non-belief category – laying the burden of proof upon the theist.

Argument from the Existence of Evil

• William L. Rowe follows Pierre Bayle’s argument as follows.

1) God is omnibenevolent and would thus desire to eliminate evil.

2) God is omnipotent and thus could eliminate evil. 3) Evil exists ____________________________________________

4) Thus, God does not exist since evil exists.

Implications of this Argument

• Seemingly, the only way out of this argument is to accept that God is either not omnibenevolent, or not omnipotent.

• The only other option is to accept that there is no God, according to this reasoning.

An Inference from the Nature of the Mind

• Naturalists hold that all human and animal activity can be explained simply by appealing to physical phenomena.

1) If God exists, He would be spiritual, by nature, and thus there would be causal spiritual influences (forces outside the physical) upon the physical mind.

2) The minds of humans and animals are either purely physical in nature or else are causally dependent on something physical in nature.

___________________________________________________ 3) Therefore, since the mind is only physical, and/or only causally

influenced by the physical, there is no spiritual, and thus, no God.

An Argument from the Apparent Hiddenness of God

• Some argue that because God cannot be readily “proved,” he must not exist.

1) God, if He exists, would be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. 2) If God exists, it would be a very important truth. 3) The world could be tailored by God so that His existence would be

much more evident than it presently is. 4) Thus, if God exists, He is, to some extent, hiding from us, and thus,

depriving many people of a very important truth. _____________________________________________________

5) Thus, God does not exist since an omnibenevolent God would not wish to deny people a very important truth, and an omnipotent God could fix the situation to where that did not happen.

The Omni Contradiction 1

• Imperfections in nature rule out God’s design

1) If God (omnipotent and omnibenevolent) created the universe then imperfections would not exist.

2) Imperfections exist in the universe. ___________________________________________

3) Therefore, God does not exist.

The Omni Contradiction 2

• Contradictory nature of “Omnipotence.” 1) God is defined as Omnipotent. 2) Nothing can be defined as Omnipotent because the

concept is incoherent (Can God create a rock too heavy for himself to pick up? If he can, and/or if he can’t, he is not Omnipotent).

___________________________________________

3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Argument from Causality 1• Bertrand Russell, in “Why I Am not a Christian”

ask the question “Well, who created God?” 1) Everything needs a cause.

2) God is something.

___________________________________________

3) Therefore, God does not exist since He must have a cause, but by definition (omnipotent creator of all) He cannot.

Argument from Causality 2• Jean-Paul Sartre, in “Being and Nothingness” uses

the following reasoning to disprove God’s existence.

1) God is a self-caused being.

2) A self-caused being would have to exist prior to its existence in order to cause itself.

3) But it is impossible for a being to exist before existing.

___________________________________________

3) Therefore, God cannot exist.

Freud’s Argument from Human Nature

• Sigmund Freud believed that humanity’s belief in God is based upon wish fulfillment – seeking a Cosmic Comforter.

Hume’s Possibility of Atheism

• David Hume asked the question, “Why could the universe not have been the product of happy accident?”

• He took this reasoning further, stating that given an infinite amount of time, the possibility must have occurred, and so here we are.

Deism Explained• Deism rose to prominence in the 1500-1700’s, but since that

time, deism has splintered into a number of groups ranging from “Christian Deism” to “Skepticism.”

• Deism actually began by so-called Christians who were attempting to elevate Christianity, after the Reformation, to a new level.

• Elevating human reason and natural religion over faith and special revelation, deists attempted to reform the reformation that had “lost its way.” Enlighten Christianity to a higher form, and bring peace.

Common Tenants of Deism• There is a God who created the world, and he alone is

eternal.

• This God however, cannot, or will not act in creation, for he set natural laws into motion that control the universe. Thus, there are no miracles.

• Deists believe in a unitarian concept of God, denying the doctrines of Trinity, and deity of Christ.

Herbert of Cherbury• Considered the father of English deism, he published a

book (“De Veritate”) with five major principles of religion he believed were common to all men:

• 1) There is one supreme God • 2) He ought to be worshipped • 3) Virtue and piety are the chief parts of Divine

Worship • 4) We should be sorry of our sins and repent • 5) The Divine goodness rewards and punishes us in this

life and the next

Matthew Tindal• Deism reached its height of influence in Tindal’s work.

• He reformulated Cherbury’s principle of natural religion:

• 1) There is a God • 2) He should be worshiped • 3) Do what will bring you the most good, or happiness • 4) Promote the common happiness of all

• He believed that “Miracles are for fools, reason is for wise men.”

David Hume

• Hume represents deism during its beginning decline into more of a skepticism.

• He suggested that the wise man bases his belief upon whatever is most probable. And since natural explanation is always more probable than supernatural, for we see the natural always and most have never seen the supernatural, then employing the miraculous is never wise.

Immanuel Kant• By reading Hume, Kant turned away from rational

theism to philosophical skepticism.

• Kant rejected all miracles as well as rational and historical proofs for the existence of God, relying instead upon a moral postulate.

• He suggested that while miracles could conceivably happen, they cannot be known to us, and are not morally needed, for religion can be lived within the limits of reason alone, without appeal to the supernatural.

Kant’s Proof Against Miracles• 1) Either miracles occur regularly hidden under the guise of

natural events…Or they occur seldom…Or they never occur. • 2) If they occur regularly, then it is no miracle but a natural

event. • 3) If they occur seldom, then one must ask how seldom. • 4) But we can never know how seldom since we can only use

practical reason by objective principles, and miracles, by nature are not objective principles.

_____________________________________________ 5) Therefore, miracles never take place since seldom is not an

option able to be defended, and regularly implies that miracles are natural events, not miracles.

Assorted Arguments of Deists Today

• Many “deists” today are really more skeptics than deists.

• Usually though, their concept of God is thus: God created the world, and then left it alone, not caring any more about the creation or simply refusing to take part in any of it.

• Thus, life is perceived very much like an atheist.

Assorted Arguments of Deists Today

• An example argument.

• 1) The chance that everything began by accident, and developed by chance to its current state is absurd.

• 2) Thus there must be a God who created everything. • 3) All creation follows set laws of nature, with those

laws never being violated, even by this God. _____________________________________________ 4) Therefore, this God either no longer cares nor acts in the

world, or does care and cannot act, or chooses not to.

Pantheism/Panentheism

Pantheistic Explanation

• A basic “intuitive epistemology” characterizes pantheistic approaches to God.

• One can only know and understand God by mystical intuition, not by observation or rational argument.


• Creation is not out of nothing, for everything is rooted in his being.

• Creation springs out of God’s being by emanation, manifestation, or some kind of “unfolding.”


• God is neither personal nor conscious, and can best be described as an It.

• There is only one reality – absolute monism.

Parmenides

• Parmenides postulated that there can only be one reality, or “being.”

• For if there were two, then they would have to differ in some way – either in being or in nonbeing, since there are no other ways to differ.

• If the difference is in non-being, then one being would not exist.

• If they both exist, then they cannot differ at all for that is the very thing thing they have in common.

• Thus, all reality is one – monism.

Zeno

• Zeno, Parmenides’ disciple, tried to prove his master’s case with logical absurdities based upon motion between two points.

• His basic point was that if you believe in multiplicity (many different beings exist), then irresolvable paradoxes will result.

Zeno

• For instance – If reality can have many points broken up, then motion can never happen. Between A-------------------B, there is in infinite amount of midpoints to be crossed. Thus, it would take an infinite amount of time to go from point A to B, or anywhere at all!

• Thus, monism must be true, for otherwise motion would be impossible.

Panentheism Explanation

• Panentheism is the belief that God is in the world the way a soul or mind is in a body.

• Known also as Process Theology, it holds that the finite, bipolar God is in a continual process of change. (Bipolar here means he has an actual part, and a potential, eternal part)

Panentheism Explained

• The world is God’s body. God is not identical with the world, for there is more to God than just the world. God also transcends the world as the mind transcends the body.

• Since God did not create the world, but directs it, he is not sovereign over it, but cooperates with it.

• God and the world depend on each other’s existence – the world depends upon God for its existence, and God depends upon the world for essence.

Panentheism Explained

• God is continually growing towards perfection due to the increase in value in the world (his body) resulting from human effort.

• God can never overcome all evil, but tries to do as much as possible with our help.

Positive Apologetics

The Ontological Argument

Ontological arguments attempt to prove from the very concept of God that God exists.

This argument was formulated by Anselm and defended by Scotus, Descartes, Spinoza, Lebniz, Stuart Hackett, Norman Malcolm, and Alvin Plantinga (among others)

Anselm’s argument is found in the second chapter of “Proslogium.”

1) God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” 2) Existence in reality is greater than only existing in the understanding. ______________________________________________ 3) Therefore, God exists in reality, otherwise He would not fulfill the criteria found in #1 – a greater being could be conceived.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Descartes begins with the argument: “I doubt, therefore I must be thinking, and thus an existing, thinking being.”

1) God is perfect. 2) Existence is a perfection. _____________________________________________ 3) Therefore, God exists, otherwise He would not fulfill the criteria found in #1 – He would not be perfect.

Descartes’ Ontological Argument

Norman Malcolm reformulated Anselm’s argument in such a way that it became more clear and potent

1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. 2) If God didn’t have necessary existence, then a greater being than God would be possible. 3) Therefore, God must have necessary existence. 4) Whatever has necessary existence must exist _____________________________________________ 5) Therefore, God exists.

Malcolm’s Ontological Argument

Proving God’s existence based upon maximal greatness

1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. _____________________________________________ 6) Therefore, a maximally great being (God) exists.

Modal Ontological Argument

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological argument assumes that something exists and argues from the existence of that thing to the existence of a First Cause of the Cosmos.

Cosmological arguments find their roots in Plato and Aristotle, was developed by medieval Islamic, Christian, and Jewish thinkers, and continues to be a forceful argument today in light of modern science.

It has been defended by Plato, Aristotle, al-Ghazali, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, and William Lane Craig (to name a few).

This argument originated with Christians trying to rebut the doctrine of the eternity of the universe, but was later developed by Islamic

thinkers into, roughly, the following form

1) You cannot add or subtract from infinity.

2) If the universe existed for an infinite amount of time (we’ll use days for example), then every day that comes to pass adds time (days) to an already infinite number.

3) But this is impossible, and so time, and the universe, must have had a beginning. ___________________________________________

4) Therefore, God exists, for the universe must have a beginner.

Al-Ghazali’s Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas formulated, in “Summa Theologica,” five basic arguments that attempt to logically prove that God must exist.

The first three ways are cosmological in nature, while the fourth is closer to the moral argument (though not completely), and the fifth is a teleological argument.

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways

1) Everything in the universe is in motion.

2) Whatever moves must have been moved by something else.

3) There cannot be an infinite regression of movers for that would mean nothing was ever moved in the first place. _______________________________________

4) Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover (God)

The First Way - The Unmoved Mover

The primary question here is to ask “why motion as opposed to not motion?”

If non-motion is default, then the existence of motion demands an explanation.

Aquinas’ argument, and underlying reasoning negates Hume’s later suggestion that “the universe has simply always been in motion”, for it is not a linear cause and effect question.

The First Way - The Unmoved Mover

1) Everything in the universe is caused by something else, for it is impossible for something within time to be self-caused.

2) There cannot be an infinite regression of causes for that would mean nothing was ever caused in the first place. _______________________________________

3) Therefore, there must be an Uncaused Causer (God)

The Second Way - The Uncaused Causer

This argument is not simply a copy of the Unmoved Mover for it is asking the question of causal power. In order to be THE Uncaused Causer of all things, it must be inherently infinite in causal power - the thing by which all causal power is derived.

The Second Way - The Uncaused Causer

1) The universe contains beings that are not necessary, but merely possible.

2) With an infinite amount of time would come the necessity that no merely possible beings would exist (In an infinite amount of time, all possibilities would be realized).

3) Thus, since nothing would exist, there would always thereafter be nothing, for nothing cannot create anything.

4) But something currently exists, and thus there could not have been an infinite amount of time in the past.

_______________________________________

5) Therefore, there must be Necessary Being that must exist (God)

The Third Way - The Necessary Being

1) Nothing happens without sufficient reason.

2) The universe exists and thus it must have a reason for existing.

3) Thus, the reason for the universe existing must be found outside the universe.

_______________________________

4) Therefore, God exists and is the reason for the universe existing.

Leibniz and PSR

Today, science, through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), has revealed that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and came into existence through a “fiery explosion” called the “big bang.”

This conclusion was predicted by the theory of relativity and dictates that all time and space had a beginning.

The Cosmological Argument and Modern Science

1) The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

2) The universe is comprised of all existing matter, space, and time.

3) Thus, before the universe existed, nothing existed.

4) If ever there was nothing, there can never be anything.

______________________________________

5) Therefore, God exists, and created all space and time, otherwise nothing would ever exist.


1) The universe is expanding

2) Thus the universe is limited in size and nature

3) For something to be limited, it must first be assumed that something unlimited is enacting the limitation

4) Thus something unlimited must exist

______________________________________

5) Therefore, God exists and is the unlimited thing than enacts all limitations


Teleological Argument

The Teleological argument is possibly the oldest and most popular of all the arguments for God’s existence. It is also known as the argument from design as it infers an intelligent designer of the universe just as we infer an intelligent designer for any product in which there is evidence for purposeful adaptation of means to some end.

Teleological arguments became very popular with Plato and Aristotle, continued with Aquinas and Paley, and continues to be a forceful argument today in light of modern science.

It has been defended by nearly every apologetic theist since the dawn of humanity.

1) Nothing in nature, lacking a consciousness, tends toward a goal unless it is under the direction of someone with consciousness and intelligence.

2) Things in nature that lack a consciousness tend toward a goal. (ex – acorns always grow into oaks, etc.)

___________________________________________

3) Therefore, God exists and directs things in nature toward their respective goals.

Aquinas’ Fifth Way

• Assume you are walking in a forest and stumble upon a working watch.

• Now, you can clearly see all the evidence of design contained within the watch that make it work.

• You next begin to wonder how it came to be that this watch was sitting where it was when you saw it.

• Is it more reasonable to believe that 1) it was always sitting there, never created, 2) it created itself, or 3) someone created and fashioned it into its current state, for some purpose?

William Paley and the Watchmaker Argument

Argument for Design

1) The universe has mathematically predictable patterns

2) Patterns are a component of design

3) Design requires a designer

________________________________________

4) Therefore, the designed universe requires a designer (God)

1) Anything exhibiting design characteristics was most likely designed.

2) The universe exhibits design characteristics

________________________________________

3) Therefore, the universe was most likely designed and thus, a designer (GOD) exists.

The Modern Teleological Argument

• The Anthropic Principle asserts that the parameters of the universe (as well as Earth) were specifically tailored to foster human life.

• The current scientific estimate of the probability for attaining the necessary parameters for life support on one of the planets in the universe is less than 1 chance in 10215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).

The Anthropic Principle

The Probability for a Life Support Body

The Anthropic Principle

Parameter Probability that feature will

Fall in the required range

for physical lifelocal abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1relative abundances of different exotic mass particles 0.1decay rates of different exotic mass particles 0.1galaxy cluster size 0.1galaxy cluster location 0.1galaxy size 0.1galaxy type 0.1galaxy mass distribution 0.2galaxy location 0.1variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate 0.1quantity of galactic dust 0.1star location relative to galactic center 0.2

star distance from corotation circle of galaxy 0.005star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1z-axis extremes of star’s orbit 0.02proximity of solar nebula to a type I supernova eruption 0.01timing of solar nebula formation relative to type I supernova eruption 0.01

proximity of solar nebula to a type II supernova eruption 0.01

timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption 0.01

timing of hypernovae eruptions 0.2number of hypernovae eruptions 0.1flux of cosmic ray protons 0.1variability of cosmic ray proton flux 0.1number of stars in birthing cluster 0.01star formation history in parent star vicinity 0.1birth date of the star-planetary system 0.01number of stars in system 0.7number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars 0.01

proximity of close stellar encounters 0.1masses of close stellar encounters 0.1star age 0.4star metallicity 0.05ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron in star-planetary system 0.02

star orbital eccentricity 0.1star mass 0.001star luminosity change relative to speciation types & rates 0.00001star color 0.4star magnetic field 0.1star magnetic field variability 0.1stellar wind strength and variability 0.1short period variation in parent star diameter 0.1star’s carbon to oxygen ratio 0.01star’s space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest 0.05star’s short term luminosity variability 0.05star’s long term luminosity variability 0.05amplitude and duration of star spot cycle 0.1

number & timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds 0.1

galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2H3+ production 0.1supernovae rates & locations 0.01white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system 0.3planetary distance from star 0.001inclination of planetary orbit 0.5axis tilt of planet 0.3rate of change of axial tilt 0.01period and size of axis tilt variation 0.1planetary rotation period 0.1rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05planetary revolution period 0.2planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity 0.1rate of change of planetary inclination 0.5

period and size of eccentricity variation 0.1period and size of inclination variation 0.1number of moons 0.2mass and distance of moon 0.01surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001tidal force from sun and moon 0.1magnetic field 0.01rate of change & character of change in magnetic field 0.1albedo (planet reflectivity) 0.1density 0.1reducing strength of planet’s primordial mantle 0.3thickness of crust 0.01timing of birth of continent formation 0.1oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1global distribution of continents 0.3frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages 0.1

frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events 0.1asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1rate of change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1mass of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.002timing of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.05location of body’s collision with primordial Earth 0.05position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01major planet eccentricities 0.1major planet orbital instabilities 0.05drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.05number & distribution of planets 0.01distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances 0.02

orbital separation distances among inner planets 0.01mass of Neptune 0.1total mass of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.1atmospheric transparency 0.01atmospheric pressure 0.01atmospheric viscosity 0.1

atmospheric electric discharge rate 0.01atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01rate of change in carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.1rate of change in water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere 0.01oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01nitrogen quantity in atmosphere 0.01carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere 0.1chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1cobalt quantity in crust 0.1arsenic quantity in crust 0.1copper quantity in crust 0.1boron quantity in crust 0.1flourine quantity in crust 0.1iodine quantity in crust 0.1manganese quantity in crust 0.1nickel quantity in crust 0.1

phosphorus quantity in crust 0.1tin quantity in crust 0.1zinc quantity in crust 0.1molybdenum quantity in crust 0.05vanadium quantity in crust 0.1chromium quantity in crust 0.1selenium quantity in crust 0.1iron quantity in oceans 0.1tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01quantity of sea salt aerosols 0.1

soil mineralization 0.1quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.001quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01quantity & timing of vascular plant introductions 0.001quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals 0.00001

quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens 0.00001quantity of soil sulfur 0.1ratio of electrically conducting inner core radius to radius of the adjacent turbulent fluid shell 0.2

ratio of core to shell (see above) magnetic diffusivity 0.2magnetic Reynold’s number of the shell (see above) 0.2core precession frequency for planet 0.1rate of interior heat loss for planet 0.01

quantity of sulfur in the planet’score 0.1quantity of silicon in the planet’s core 0.1quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust 0.01quantity of high pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs 0.1

hydration rate of subducted minerals 0.1tectonic activity 0.05rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1volcanic activity 0.1rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1continental relief 0.1viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01viscosity of lithosphere 0.2biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01regularity of cometary infall 0.1number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02

dependency factors estimate ≈ 1032longevity requirements estimate ≈ 1013 Probability for occurrence of all 165 parameters ≈ 10204 Maximum possible number of planets in universe ≈ 1022

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10182 (hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.

The Moral Argument

The Moral argument for the existence of God argues for the existence of a Being that is the embodiment of the ultimate Good, which is the source of the objective moral values we experience in the world.

Moral arguments trace their history back to Plato, continued with Aquinas and William Sorley, and continues to be a popular argument today (C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity).

1) Whatever possesses a property more fully than anything else is the cause of that property in other things.

2) In the world, we find a gradation of values: some things are more good, more true, more noble, etc., than other things, which assumes a perfect standard with which to base such judgments. ______________________________________________ 3) Therefore, a perfect standard for good, truth, etc., must exist (God).

Aquinas’ Fourth Way

1) No one can conceive or comprehend any notion beyond experience (ex.- I can understand the concept of a unicorn because I know what a horse, a wing, and a horn are from experience. However, if I had no eyes, I could never understand what light was since I could not experience it).

2) All humans inherently have a notion of good and evil, or right and wrong within them (not agreeing with what is good and evil, but an understanding of the very concepts) _______________________________________________ 3) Therefore objective good and evil, or right and wrong exist and is thus determined by God.

The Moral Argument

Other Arguments

The Transcendental Argument

Augustine of Hippo

Argued that the human mind apprehends universal, objective, unchanging, and necessary truths superior to the human mind itself.

Since these truths must reside in a mind, Augustine reasoned that these eternal truths are grounded in the eternal mind of God.


The Transcendental Argument is often demonstrated using the Laws of Logic (Noncontradiction, Excluded Middle, etc.).

The Laws of Logic cannot be simply human convention for that would make them not laws but merely relative theories. Thus, no one form of logic would be more true than another, and true knowledge would be unattainable through reason, mathematics, and even the scientific method.


Thus, the Transcendental Argument presents the Atheist with a major dilemma: Demonstrate that God cannot exist without using the senses, mathematics, logic, or the scientific method, for these tools are only available to the Theist


1) The Law of Contradiction (LOC) is obeyed by reality and all things in it.

2) Humans cannot account for the existence of the LOC for it affected all things before humans came into existence.

3) The universe cannot account for the existence of the LOC for the universe obeys the LOC (The universe cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect).

4) A multiverse cannot account for the LOC for it too would obey the LOC (even infinite universes would for they cannot be infinite and not infinite at the same time and in the same respect).

________________________________________

5) Therefore, an omnipotent being (God) must exist in order to account for the existence of the LOC.

Reformed Epistemology

Alvin Plantinga

Credited with the formulation of “Reformed Epistemology,” (though it in many ways dates back to the Reformation) an argument dealing with foundational knowledge.


Plantinga begins his argument byexplaining the notion of basicality:

• There are some beliefs that are properly basic, and some that are not.

• Properly basic beliefs require no evidence or other propositions in order for someone to be rational in believing them (ex. – I believe that 1+1 is 2, or that my right knee hurts right now, and I base those beliefs upon no other propositions or evidence.


Plantinga then declares that belief in God is a natural and properly basic belief – fully rational and not groundless.

People have a natural tendency to believe in God because that is the way they are made.

Echoes of Reality

Models For Explaining The Universe Atheistic Model Personal Theist Model

1. World created from nothing2. Life from nonlife3. Persons from the impersonal4. Minds from the mindless5. Order from the orderless6. Reason from the nonrational7. Morality from the nonmoral8. Information without a sender9. Code from no programmer10. Truth from an accident

1. World created by a Creator2. Life from Ultimate Life3. Persons from the Superpersonal4. Minds from the Ultimate Mind5. Order from an Orderer6. Reason from a Rational Being7. Morality from a Moral, Personal Being8. Information from a Sender9. Code from a Personal Programmer10. Truth from ultimate Truth

Resurrection/The Church

Resurrection/Christian Plausibility Questions

1. What were the Jews expecting and how did Jesus somehow make sense of that?- Resurrection- New creation - Life after death- Kingdom of God- Eschatology; apocalyptic (Role/Expectation of the Temple)- Messiah (What does it mean?)- Prophecy- God and Man - Greek idea?- How much Hellenization In Christianity?- Overthrow of Rome?- Peace on earth?- End of exile mentality?


2. Did Jesus really exist?-It was a legend made up years later-It was created as a future hope/spiritual/political reawakening (metaphorical)-It was simply a good story (fiction)

Jesus Was A Product Of Legend

- 99% of all historical scholars believe that Jesus really did exist, in fact, it is so assumed to be a fact

that questioning Jesus’ existence is not even an question worth entertaining among scholars.

- Claiming that a lack of Jesus being mentioned by any writers of the day is evidence against his existence is poor reasoning.

a) Very few people from this time and place were mentioned in any of the literature, including Pontius Pilate and Josephus.


3. Did Jesus really do what is written about him in the Gospels (not miracles)-Disciples made it up-Paul made it up - Took a political figure and made him into a spiritual leader-Jesus’ actions were sensationalized

Disciples Made It All Up?

The integrity of the NT is upheld by the eyewitnesses to the events described.-The life, death, and resurrection of Christ was witnessed by many, and written down by several of these eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Peter, James, etc.)

-After his resurrection, Christ appeared to and spent time with over 500 people at different times, negating the notion of mass hallucination.

-The accounts of the resurrection appearances are divergent enough to draw the allegation of contradiction (though, they can be reconciled), meaning they didn’t get together and make up the whole thing.

-They were honest men who did not tolerate lying (Acts 5:1), being bought with money (Acts 8:18), or giving false testimony under extreme persecution (II Cor. 11:23) - No one creates and dies for a lie that would gain them nothing.


4. Was the oral tradition corrupted before the text was written?-Was the ancient methodology of oral traditions even a valid way of knowledge transmission?-Even if the methodology is valid, why would uneducated and poor disciples be able to successfully employ it?

-Were the correct texts chosen based upon the oral tradition (Gnostic Gospels, etc)?

-Was the information written in the texts simply written incorrectly?

Does The Ancient Oral Tradition Work?


5. Did the Disciples and Apostles actually believe Jesus raised from the dead physically?-Are we as Americans reading the texts correctly?-Is the culture/language of the day so lost to us that there is no hope of correctly discerning intentions/beliefs?

-Could it have been a “spiritual resurrection”?


6. Was the text corrupted after being written down (between the time of original creation and Canonization)?-Does the text line up with the early Church?-Did the scribes infuse their own meaning/language in the text?

Was The Text Corrupted?There is more abundant and accurate manuscript evidence for the NT than

any other book in the ancient world

The following is a list of some of the NT manuscripts we have: - The John Rylands Fragment (John 18:31-33; 37-38) (100-150 AD) - The Bodmer Papyrus II (Luke, John, Jude, 1 &2 Peter) (200 AD) - Codex Vaticanus (Bible) (325-350 AD) - Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) (340 AD) - Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Bible) (350 AD) - Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) (450 AD; representing in part or whole an Alexandrian text dating back to 100-150AD) - Codex Bezae (Gospels, Acts, and Part of 3 John) (400 AD)

- Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies- Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230

Was The Text Corrupted?

There are roughly 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

The quotations of scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could be almost completely reconstructed from

them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Was The Text Corrupted?

Author Date Earliest Copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copy

Caesar’s Gallic War 1st Century BC 900AD 10 ?

Livy (142 Books on Roman History) 1st Century BC 300AD 20 ?

Tacitus (14 Books on Roman History) 100AD 1100AD 4 1/2 ?

Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War

5th Century BC 900AD 8 ?

Herodotus’ The Histories 5th Century BC 900AD 8 ?

Suetonius’The Twelve Caesars 1st Century AD 850AD ? ?

Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 1st Century AD 850AD 7 ?

NT 50-100 AD 130AD 5,000 97-99%


7. Did contemporary secular sources support what is written in the texts?-Josephus-Roman Authorities-Other Historians and Officials-Geographic/Archeological Support

Archeological Support

-More than 25,000 sites within the region of Palestine, dating back to OT times, in their broadest sense have been found.

-No archeological find has ever been made that contradicts the history of the Bible.

Secular Testimony

-Jewish historian, Josephus (37-100 AD)

-Samaritan-born historian, Thallus c. 52 AD)

-Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117 AD)

-Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion (after 73 AD)

-Greek Satirist, Lucian (2nd Century AD)

-Roman historian, Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD)

-Suetonius (c. 120 AD)

-Jewish Talmud (completed by 500 AD)

Secular Testimony

The following secular testimony emerges:

- 1) Jesus was crucified under Pilate at Passover time.

- 2) His disciples believed he raised from the dead three days later.

- 3) Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery and believed he was born of adultery.

- 4) Christianity could not be contained and spread through Rome.

- 5) Nero and other Roman rulers persecuted and martyred early Christians.

- 6) These early Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ’s teachings, and worshiped Christ.


8. Do the Creeds represent authentic Christianity or do they represent a corruption of the actual historical Jesus?-Trinity-Deity/Humanity of Christ-Baptism-The Atonement


9. Is it necessary to believe the historical theology in order to be a Christian"?-Deity/Humanity of Christ-Trinity-Atonement of sin (Salvation and why does it matter?)-The fall of humanity-Baptism-Lord’s Supper-Resurrection of the dead (Heaven/Hell)

The Niceno-Constantinople Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true

God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from

heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with

the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his

kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic

and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.


10. What about the Influence of Paul?-Who was Paul and why was he relevant?-Did Paul invent Christianity?-Did Paul change Jesus and the Church into what he wanted?

defending your faithhendyamps.com/kingdomapologetics/resources/apologeticspowerpoint.pdf•...

Documents