Your steadfast love, O Lord, is better than life. You have told us this in many ways. Your servant David said: “Because Your steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise You.” Your apostle Paul, cried out in prison, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” O Lord, how much better You are than life! Not just “better,” but “far better.” You are so much better than life that Your apostle says death is gain. “To live is Christ, and to die is gain.” To lose everything this world can offer and be left with You alone is gain.
Why is Your love better than life? David gives us the answer. He doesn’t say, “Because Your steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise Your love.” He says that he will praise You, not Your love. “Because Your steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise You.” The most loving thing about Your love is that it brings us home to You. With Your wrath removed, and our sin forgiven, there is nothing to prevent the pleasure of Your presence. This is divine love defined—the will and work of God gave us undeserving sinners everlasting joy in God. What else could infinite love be! There is no greater prize than Yourself!
O God, I tremble for fear that many of the ones who call You Lord have made themselves the prize and glory of Your Grace. How many have made Your love a witness to their worth! Is their joy resting in Your worth or in their worth? Decades have gone by with the constant message from the world (and even from some ministers) that love means making much of man. And so men ponder Your love and say that God’s love means making much of man. For proof they ask: Don’t you feel loved when someone calls attention to your worth? Now (thanks to Your mighty grace!) I see it is a perversion. It robs our souls of the joy that You designed to satisfy us for eternity and even worse it robs You of Your honored place as Treasure of our lives.
You have a grand design! To make our joy the echo of Your excellence. To make our pleasure proof that You now hold the place of Treasure in our lives. To make the gladness of our souls the essence of our worship, and the mirror of Your worth. To make Yourself glorified in us. How could I be so blind to think that being loved by You means making much of me and not Yourself? How could I put my eye to some great telescope, designed to make me glad with visions of the galaxies, and notice in the glass a dim reflection of my face and say, “Now I am happy, I am loved”? How could I stand before the setting sun, between the mountain range and the vastness of the sea, and think that everlasting joy should come from making much of me?
At great expense You made Yourself my glory and my boast. The cost was beyond imagining. You sent Your Son, the blazing center of Your beauty and Your love. You gave him up to mockery, betrayal, thorns, the whip, the rod, the fists, the nails, the shame, and death. For what? To swallow up Your wrath, and satisfy Your righteousness, and bury all my sins as far as east is from the west. This is Your love, O God, not to make much of me, but do whatever must be done so that I awaken to the joy of making much of You.
You must be my only boast! Every sweet thing I have ever received was purchased by Christ’s blood? I deserve only judgment yet everything is mine in Him and by His sacrifice alone. O God, forbid that I should ever boast save in the cross of Christ, my Lord. We who treasure Christ and know Your love is better than life must not lay up our treasures on this earth.
Protect us, Lord. Cause us to hear and obey Your call: “Lay up your treasure not on earth, but in the place where moth and thief will never come. Make treasures for yourself that cannot fail.” You are my Treasure and great Reward. You are my life and my all-satisfying Joy.”
In this life we may begin to treasure Christ. A greater weight of glory waits to be enjoyed for those who grow in love to Christ. Teach me to cherish Your perfection over all the treasures of the world. Teach me to delight in Your fellowship beyond all family and friends. Teach me to embrace Your promises of more pleasure in Your presence than from all the lying promises of sin. Let me see the truth of the gladness from the present taste of glory and the promise of hope of future fullness when we see You face to face. Give me a quiet peace on the path You choose for me even when it is with pain.
Jesus, You both saved us from our sin and showed us how to love. Your life was both a purchase and a path. You died for us and now call us to die to ourselves. You took our poverty upon Yourself so that we, in You, might have the riches of heaven, and You call us to use our riches for the poor.
Father, give us a love of Your glory that greater than any love of gold. Cause us to cease our love affair with comfort and security. Grant that we seek Your kingdom first and let the other things come as You will. Grant that we move toward need and not toward ease. Grant that the firm finality of our security in Christ will free us to risk our homes and health and money on the earth. Help us to see that if we hoard our wealth rather than using it as You direct then we will waste our lives, however successful the world thinks we are.
Dear Lord, give us great abandon, give us great liberty, give us invincible resolve to walk out our lives in submission to You! Give us a readiness to suffer for Your glory! Give us an eagerness to show the poor that we would gladly spend and be spent to make them glad in God!
Lord let us live with a fear-defeating joy in Jesus Christ. Let our wavering hearts remember that You promised, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So may we say with death-defying confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?”
Forbid it Lord that we would ever come to say of our lives that we’ve wasted them. Grant instead by Your Spirit and piercing Word, that we who name Christ as Lord would treasure Him above our lives and know deep in our souls that Christ is life and death is gain. By our prizing You may You be praised in all the world. May You be magnified in my life and death. May every neighborhood and nation see how joy in Jesus frees His people from the power of greed and fear.
Let love flow from Your saints, and may it, Lord, be this: that even if it costs our lives, the people will be glad in God. “Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You! Let the nations be glad and sing for joy.” Take Your honored place, O Christ, as the all-satisfying Treasure of the world. With trembling hands before the throne of God, and utterly dependent on Your grace, we lift our voice and make this solemn vow: As God lives, and is all I ever need, I will not waste my life . . . through Jesus Christ, AMEN.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
DWYL - Book Summary
My Search for a Single Passion to Live By
Breakthrough – the Beauty of Christ, My joy
Boasting Only in the Cross, The Blazing Center of the Glory of God
Magnifying Christ Through Pain and Death
Risk is Right – Better to Lose Your Life Than to Waste It
The Goal of Life – Gladly Making Others Glad in God
Living to Prove He is More Precious Than Life
Making Much of Christ from 8 to 5
The Majesty of Christ in Missions and Mercy – A Plea to the Generation
- Will you feel you’ve wasted your life at the end of it?
- Will you make a difference?
- Only one life, ‘Twill soon be past; Only what’s done for Christ will last.
- Lost years – Most of us have some
- Where do you find meaning in life? How do you know what you know?
- God will work in your life according to His grace.
Breakthrough – the Beauty of Christ, My joy
- Christ is an objective reality
- God is not dead and man is not dead
- The essence of glorifying . . . God consists, therefore, in the creature’s rejoicing in God’s manifestations of his beauty, which is the joy and happiness we speak of. So we see it comes to this at last: that the end of the creation is that God may communicate happiness to the creature; for if God created the world that he may be glorified in the creature, he created it that they might rejoice in his glory: for we have shown that they are the same. – J. Edwards
- Would we stand at the Grand Canyon and contemplate our greatness.
- Love people = point them to the All-Satisfying God
- Life is wasted if we do not grasp the glory of the cross, cherish it for the treasure that it is, and cleave to it as the highest price of every pleasure and the deepest comfort in every pain. – J. Piper
Boasting Only in the Cross, The Blazing Center of the Glory of God
- You don’t have to know a lot of things for your life to make a lasting difference in the world. But you do have to know the few great things that matter, perhaps just one, and then be willing to live for them and die for them. The people that make a durable difference in the world are not the people who have mastered many things, but who have been mastered by one great thing. – J. Piper
- Christ Crucified = The Blazing Center of the Glory of God
- What do you boast in?
- If I deserve nothing but condemnation because of my sin, but instead get life and breath in this age, and everlasting joy in the age to come, because Christ died for me, then everything good—and everything bad that God turns for good—must be the reward of his suffering (not my merit). J. Piper
- Galatians 2:19-20 “I have been crucified with Christ [so I am dead]. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh [so, yes, I am alive, but it isn’t the same “I” as the “I” who died] I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Magnifying Christ Through Pain and Death
- We boast best in the Cross when we bear it
- Paul said, “It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:20-21).
- Life and death to glorify God – If we learn to die well, we will live well
- The Christian life is many deaths
- How we handle loss shows who our treasure is
- Don’t waste your life by running from costly things
- What a tragic waste when people turn away from the Calvary road of love and suffering. All the riches of the glory of God in Christ are on that road. All the sweetest fellowship with Jesus is there. All the treasures of assurance. All the ecstasies of joy. All the clearest sightings of eternity. All the noblest camaraderie. All the humblest affections. All the most tender acts of forgiving kindness. All the deepest discoveries of God’s Word. All the most earnest prayers. They are all on the Calvary road where Jesus walks with his people. Take up your cross and follow Jesus. On this road, and this road alone, life is Christ and death is gain. Life on every other road is wasted.
Risk is Right – Better to Lose Your Life Than to Waste It
- What is God’s view of risk?
- Risk is part of our lives as finite creatures
- The myth of safety can cause us to make poor decisions
- Queen Esther – had the right attitude (Purim)
- Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego - O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up. (Daniel 3:16-18)
- Do we hold onto something that we can’t keep rather than spending ourselves on something that we can’t lose?
- In some parts of the world it is a simpler question because of the danger of being a Christian.
- Risk must be taken for Godly reasons and not for risks sake
The Goal of Life – Gladly Making Others Glad in God
- This is the basis of evangelism
- Forgiveness is good because it gives us God
- Our being forgiving is a response to a forgiving God
- Our being giving is a response to a giving God
- We must be glad in God to make others glad in God
- When I speak of gladness in God, therefore, I mean a gladness that has roots in God’s eternal decree, was purchased by the blood of Christ, springs up in the newborn heart because of God’s Spirit, awakens in repentance and faith, constitutes the essence of sanctification and Christlikeness, and gives rise to a life of love and a passion for redeeming the world after the image of God. Gladness in God is a massive reality planned and purchased and produced by God in the lives of his elect for the glory of his name. – J. Piper
Living to Prove He is More Precious Than Life
- If Christ is an all-satisfying treasure and promises to provide all our needs, even through famine and nakedness, then to live as though we had all the same values as the world would betray him.
- Christ should be our obvious hope and draw others by His glory.
- The credibility of Christ hangs on how we use our money (Mark 10:21; Luke 6:20, 24; Luke 14:33; Luke 18:25; Luke 12:15; Matthew 6:33; Luke 12:33; Luke 19:8-9; Matthew 13:44; Luke 21:2-3; Luke 12:20-21; Luke 9:58-59)
- Use money to show that God, not possessions, is our treasure
- Our “wartime lifestyle” should show our focus is on the goal
- Wasting life means losing our lives by trying to save them
- Our peace and deep satisfaction should be in God
- Cut away those things that waste our life.
- What has weight in your life? What do you hold dear?
- Oh, that young and old would turn off the television, take a long walk, and dream about feats of courage for a cause ten thousand times more important than American democracy—as precious as that is. If we would dream and if we would pray, would not God answer? Would he withhold from us a life of joyful love and mercy and sacrifice that magnifies Christ and makes people glad in God? I plead with you, as I pray for myself, set your face like flint to join Jesus on the Calvary road. “Let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:13-14). When they see our sacrificial love—radiant with joy—will they not say, “Christ is great”? – J. Piper
Making Much of Christ from 8 to 5
- Our war is not geographical. The front is where you are.
- Your secular position can be strategic
- You will probably be called to stay in your job “with God”
- Breath out continual thanks to God for all things
- Work is not a curse; futility is.
- God is glorified when we participate with God in our work.
- We can make much of God in our secular job through the fellowship that we enjoy with him throughout the day in all our work
- We make much of Christ in our secular work by the joyful, trusting, God-exalting design of our creativity and industry.
- We make much of Christ in our secular work when it confirms and enhances the portrait of Christ’s glory that people hear in the spoken Gospel.
- We make much of Christ in our secular work by earning enough money to keep us from depending on others, while focusing on the helpfulness of our work rather than financial rewards.
- We make much of Christ in our secular work by earning money with the desire to use our money to make others glad in God.
- We make much of Christ in our secular work by treating the web of relationships it creates as a gift of God to be loved by sharing the Gospel and by practical deeds of help.
The Majesty of Christ in Missions and Mercy – A Plea to the Generation
- Adoniram Judson – 1st overseas missionary from America (1812); captured by the Hounds of Heaven.
- Follow the action on the mission field
- Rejoice in what God is doing in the lives of those he has called to foreign missions.
- Our actions at home give credibility to our efforts on the mission field.
- Missions are not finished
- Are you doing what God has called you to do?
Saturday, February 18, 2006
DWYL Chapter 9
The Majesty of Christ in Missions and Mercy – A Plea to This Generation
Why must a passion for the supremacy of God in all things through Jesus Christ strive for the joy of all peoples worldwide?
Why does Piper include the accounts of Adoniram Judson and the Student Volunteer Movement?
How can we pursue a global vision of Christ’s exaltation as a sender? How do the insights from the previous chapter connect to the role of a sender? How are you pursuing the global cause of Christ and what can you do to make Christ known worldwide?
Why must a passion for the supremacy of God in all things through Jesus Christ strive for the joy of all peoples worldwide?
Why does Piper include the accounts of Adoniram Judson and the Student Volunteer Movement?
How can we pursue a global vision of Christ’s exaltation as a sender? How do the insights from the previous chapter connect to the role of a sender? How are you pursuing the global cause of Christ and what can you do to make Christ known worldwide?
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
GOD IS THERE - Week 3
1. The God of Philosophers and the God of the Bible
1.1. Introduction – While we have proven the god of the philosophers (the necessary being; Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover) we have not proven the God of the Bible. While God is the first cause, the necessary being, an eternal self existent being but He is more than that.
1.2. God is Not Just the Unmoved Mover – God didn’t just create. He upholds creation and is concerned with history. I think it is important that although we acknowledge that God is so much more we still see God stress in Scripture the sufficiency of creation. This is a partial knowledge of God but it is not untrue because it is partial. We also assert that God is sovereign over all and that He is both immanent and transcendent. Errors often occur if a person forgets one or the other.
1.3. God is the Intentional Designer – The Bible reveals God as a designer and the design we see has also been developed as an argument for the existence of God. This has given rise to the teleological argument for God. For Kant this was a convincing proof. However, the argument usually declines into a discussion of what makes something “designed”. We showed that the universe is “dependent” or created. We don’t need to argue about design or no design. We simply have shown that something exists and than requires God exist. The real problem with the teleological proof of God for a Biologist is that the “rules” we live in seem to “select” in a way that “produces” things of complexity. While we look at a garden and see a gardener’s hand someone else looks at a garden and sees “natural beauty”.
1.4. God is Personal and He Holds Us Accountable – The god of the philosophers is not personal. An impersonal God isn’t going to hold you accountable for sin. Sin is rebellion. Rebellion isn’t impersonal. Sin is an offense. You can’t offend and impersonal thing. The psychology of rejecting the proof of God is often deeply rooted here. Accountability is a scary thing.
2. Kant’s Moral Argument
2.1. Introduction – Kant was the one who was especially important for epistemology (I think therefore I am). For Kant the moral argument for God’s existence was most convincing. The moral law within was convincing to Kant. He rejected the other proofs because he decided that our experiences here (phenomenal) were too limited to learn anything useful about God’s unreachable (noumenal) world.
2.2. Romans 1: God’s Moral Law Is Plain to All – Paul argues that God’s revelation in creation is sufficient to convince us of God and that God has also revealed His enough of His character in creation that we as humans can understand righteousness and the demands on our behavior. Paul argues that we know how we ought to act. However, in spite of knowing how we ought to behave, we chase after sin and approve of those who chance after sin. We may declare that each act is amoral but our conscience may be cauterized but not removed.
2.3. Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” – Non-Christians sometimes argue that our consciences are simply a result of socialization or conventions. We could argue about custom vs. absolute law but the conscience is at the core even in fallen mankind. Ethics is the core of society. Our form of government requires a moral population. It is one reason that it can be difficult to export. “Imagine” by J. Lennon is the dumbest song on the planet. I can’t believe anyone could even write the song. No heaven, no hell, no countries, no religion, and no possessions. The situation would create a world of anarchy and selfishness and violence. We’ve really been there from time to time anyway and a brotherhood of man didn’t result. And if you want to see a truly dangerous man, find a smart man who is convinced there is not heaven or hell. If there is not God then there is no ground for doing what is “right”.
2.4. Kant: Morality Makes No Sense Without God – He moved to a transcendental type of question, “what would it take for objective moral standards to be meaningful?” Well first of all Justice. If we have moral standards but ultimately no justice then there is no reason to be virtuous. Right? If crime pays then sign up for crime. Then Kant reasoned that we certainly don’t see perfect justice in this life. Amen to that (see Psalms 94:3). The wicked can rejoice only in a world with imperfect justice even though we try to design systems that dispense justice. Then for this to make sense there must be a place with perfect justice. This requires a morally perfect judge with omniscience. So if our sense of “oughtness” is anything other than a trick or preference then there must be a God because the required characteristics for the judge are God’s characteristics. Morality makes God necessary and Kant argues that we need to live as if there is a God because if there is not then there is no hope.
3. Nihilists
3.1. Introduction – Those who came after Kant acknowledged his point. They acknowledged they were acting like God was so that they had some reason to act like morals had a meaning. Eventually they argued that you had to stop sitting on the fence. Either we have God and morality or no God and no morality, life is meaningless, and there is no hope.
3.2. Nietzsche and the “New Morality” of Nihilism – Nietzsche is a key figure. He thought we (western civilization) had been made weak by the Judeo-Christian foundation. He thought that man’s basic driving force was a will to power (he never would have written “Image”). The suppression of this will to power and elevation of herd mentality and exultation of weaknesses like compassion are all bad for Freddy. He dumps pity as God’s fatal disease. Nietzsche says the superman will rise above this and created his own morality. Remember I said the most dangerous man is a smart man convinced there is no God. This is the point at which I pity John Lennon (and his sentiments in “Imagine”) both as a Christian and as a man who would have lined up with Nietzsche except for the Grace of God. Pity is probably too kind a term.
3.3. Ecclesiastes on Nihilism – Concepts expressed by nihilism are not really new. Ecclesiastes was written by a pretty smart guy and God helped him. He has an argument with himself. He ends up after examining wise people and fools at “all is vanity and a striving after the wind”. Other’s have also ended up in the nihilist camp. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “Nausea” in which he shows man as a “useless passion” to have no meaning and cares that amount to nothing. The author of Ecclesiastes doesn’t accept Kant’s breakdown at the world of nature unable to deal with the world of God. The author of Ecclesiastes looks upward past the right now and calls on us to look to God’s wisdom, goodness, justice, and God’s ability and will to punish hypocrisy. The earth bound view is show as useless and we are to think beyond the earth bound view.
3.4. Secular Humanism: Combining Theism and Nihilism – There are a range of fuzzy blends in which folks want to deny God but yet still have morals that are more than preferences. Human rights and dignity are lifted up as good things when there is no basis for anything to be good. This is intellectual cowardice. Why would human dignity matter is there is no God? It is a preference not a real “good”. Kant said to whistle in the grave yard and pretend there is a God because the alternative was too scary. Nietzsche had the common sense and guts to say that was silly and a cowards solution. Nietzsche accepted Eph 2:12 (Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.) Nietzsche didn’t whistle in the grave yard because he believed he was alone. Really alone. Alone in the universe. He just decided like moss was moss he was going to be man as man and as good as he could – superman exercising as much power as he can muster because it is his natural inclination.
3.5. If There Is No God, Why Is There Religion – hedonists who escape the futility of life? Since Kant argued that God was unknowable and we couldn’t say anything meaningful about him, nihilists went on to say He was irrelevant. Why is religion so universal? Mankind is naturally religious and so psychological fear is often suggested as the reason. For someone raised in the world of science it is surprising to me that so few folks note that this begs the question, “Why would, and how could, such a useless, pointless, and ultimately fatal thing evolve in this cold mechanistic universe?” The answers are not satisfactory.
4. Those who choose to reject God
4.1. Why do they do it? – Well they say that our belief in God is a result of an unfortunate genetic predisposition to a life with meaning. In other words they say we have psychological need to believe. Brilliant people have ended up on both ends of this argument. All these guys were smart. Nietzsche was a genius and so was Aquinas. At this point psychological baggage should be looked at. Christians “want” God to exist. We know that we can rationalize facts to fit out prejudices. We generally want to avoid that sort of thing. However, it isn’t just Christians that bring baggage. Atheists bring baggage. They have a vested interest in God not existing. The idea that a perfect Judge exists calls all our being into question. What does He require? How will He set things right? What if He is “Holy?” The atheist has at least as deep a need for God to not exist as the theist has for God to exist. The atheist’s big problem with God is not intellectual it is moral. Unless you bow your knee to Almighty God you’ve got to suppress the knowledge of Him with all the strength you’ve got. Even then you’ll hear the hounds of heaven and I pray they catch you if they haven’t yet.
5) Brief summaries of various proofs of God (Thanks to Logan Almy via John Walker)
5.1. Cosmological Argument (Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas)
5.1.1. Every existent thing has a cause
5.1.2. This universe is an existent thing (an effect)
5.1.3. Therefore, this universe has a cause
5.1.4. The cause of this universe is God (who has being in Himself)
5.2. Teleological Argument (William Paley)- design implies there is a Designer
5.2.1. Things that have harmony and order admit to having design (e.g. a watch)
5.2.2. Something having design has an intelligent designer.
5.2.3. This universe has harmony and order (natural laws, etc.)
5.2.4. Therefore, this universe has design
5.2.5. Therefore, this universe has an intelligent designer
5.2.6. The intelligent designer of the universe is God
5.3. Ontological Argument (Descartes, St. Anselm)
5.3.1. We have a concept in our mind of God as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.2. Therefore, God at least exists in the mind as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.3. It is greater to exist (in terms of being) in reality than to exist in the mind alone
5.3.4. Suppose God does not exist in reality but in our mind alone
5.3.5. If God, the greatest conceivable being, exists in the mind alone, then we could conceive of him being greater, that is, conceive of him existing in reality
5.3.6. This means that we could conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being
5.3.7. Since a contradiction cannot be true and God either exists in the mind alone or in reality (with or without the mind), God must necessarily exist in reality
5.4. Transcendental Argument/ Moral Argument (Kant, Van Til, William Lane Craig, Gregory Bahnsen)- Argues that science, logic, and morality all presuppose the existence of the Christian God
5.4.1. There are certain law-like presuppositions involved in science, logic, and morality. These include but are not limited to laws of logic and reason, e.g. the law of non-contradiction
5.4.2. These presuppositions are either objective, universal standards OR subjective, relative conventions.
5.4.3. If they are not the objective, universal standards as they are assumed to be, then science, logic, and morality become impossible because there is no foundational standard of meaningful discussion. Cf. The assertion, “Two plus two equals four,” excludes the possibility of two plus two equaling five, negative eight, or two hundred. This is because there are certain presuppositions involved in mathematics as being necessarily true, objective and universal.
5.4.4. Moreover, the objective, universal preconditions of science, logic, and morality cannot be explained by chance because of their (a) universal nature among all people (e.g. Every rational human being agrees that X cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, the law of non-contradiction) and (b) their continuity over time (We are relatively certain that gravity will be true tomorrow)
5.4.5. Things not explained by chance are explained by intention, purpose, and design
5.4.6. Intentional, purposeful, objective, universal laws presuppose the existence of an intelligent being called God
1.1. Introduction – While we have proven the god of the philosophers (the necessary being; Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover) we have not proven the God of the Bible. While God is the first cause, the necessary being, an eternal self existent being but He is more than that.
1.2. God is Not Just the Unmoved Mover – God didn’t just create. He upholds creation and is concerned with history. I think it is important that although we acknowledge that God is so much more we still see God stress in Scripture the sufficiency of creation. This is a partial knowledge of God but it is not untrue because it is partial. We also assert that God is sovereign over all and that He is both immanent and transcendent. Errors often occur if a person forgets one or the other.
1.3. God is the Intentional Designer – The Bible reveals God as a designer and the design we see has also been developed as an argument for the existence of God. This has given rise to the teleological argument for God. For Kant this was a convincing proof. However, the argument usually declines into a discussion of what makes something “designed”. We showed that the universe is “dependent” or created. We don’t need to argue about design or no design. We simply have shown that something exists and than requires God exist. The real problem with the teleological proof of God for a Biologist is that the “rules” we live in seem to “select” in a way that “produces” things of complexity. While we look at a garden and see a gardener’s hand someone else looks at a garden and sees “natural beauty”.
1.4. God is Personal and He Holds Us Accountable – The god of the philosophers is not personal. An impersonal God isn’t going to hold you accountable for sin. Sin is rebellion. Rebellion isn’t impersonal. Sin is an offense. You can’t offend and impersonal thing. The psychology of rejecting the proof of God is often deeply rooted here. Accountability is a scary thing.
2. Kant’s Moral Argument
2.1. Introduction – Kant was the one who was especially important for epistemology (I think therefore I am). For Kant the moral argument for God’s existence was most convincing. The moral law within was convincing to Kant. He rejected the other proofs because he decided that our experiences here (phenomenal) were too limited to learn anything useful about God’s unreachable (noumenal) world.
2.2. Romans 1: God’s Moral Law Is Plain to All – Paul argues that God’s revelation in creation is sufficient to convince us of God and that God has also revealed His enough of His character in creation that we as humans can understand righteousness and the demands on our behavior. Paul argues that we know how we ought to act. However, in spite of knowing how we ought to behave, we chase after sin and approve of those who chance after sin. We may declare that each act is amoral but our conscience may be cauterized but not removed.
2.3. Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” – Non-Christians sometimes argue that our consciences are simply a result of socialization or conventions. We could argue about custom vs. absolute law but the conscience is at the core even in fallen mankind. Ethics is the core of society. Our form of government requires a moral population. It is one reason that it can be difficult to export. “Imagine” by J. Lennon is the dumbest song on the planet. I can’t believe anyone could even write the song. No heaven, no hell, no countries, no religion, and no possessions. The situation would create a world of anarchy and selfishness and violence. We’ve really been there from time to time anyway and a brotherhood of man didn’t result. And if you want to see a truly dangerous man, find a smart man who is convinced there is not heaven or hell. If there is not God then there is no ground for doing what is “right”.
2.4. Kant: Morality Makes No Sense Without God – He moved to a transcendental type of question, “what would it take for objective moral standards to be meaningful?” Well first of all Justice. If we have moral standards but ultimately no justice then there is no reason to be virtuous. Right? If crime pays then sign up for crime. Then Kant reasoned that we certainly don’t see perfect justice in this life. Amen to that (see Psalms 94:3). The wicked can rejoice only in a world with imperfect justice even though we try to design systems that dispense justice. Then for this to make sense there must be a place with perfect justice. This requires a morally perfect judge with omniscience. So if our sense of “oughtness” is anything other than a trick or preference then there must be a God because the required characteristics for the judge are God’s characteristics. Morality makes God necessary and Kant argues that we need to live as if there is a God because if there is not then there is no hope.
3. Nihilists
3.1. Introduction – Those who came after Kant acknowledged his point. They acknowledged they were acting like God was so that they had some reason to act like morals had a meaning. Eventually they argued that you had to stop sitting on the fence. Either we have God and morality or no God and no morality, life is meaningless, and there is no hope.
3.2. Nietzsche and the “New Morality” of Nihilism – Nietzsche is a key figure. He thought we (western civilization) had been made weak by the Judeo-Christian foundation. He thought that man’s basic driving force was a will to power (he never would have written “Image”). The suppression of this will to power and elevation of herd mentality and exultation of weaknesses like compassion are all bad for Freddy. He dumps pity as God’s fatal disease. Nietzsche says the superman will rise above this and created his own morality. Remember I said the most dangerous man is a smart man convinced there is no God. This is the point at which I pity John Lennon (and his sentiments in “Imagine”) both as a Christian and as a man who would have lined up with Nietzsche except for the Grace of God. Pity is probably too kind a term.
3.3. Ecclesiastes on Nihilism – Concepts expressed by nihilism are not really new. Ecclesiastes was written by a pretty smart guy and God helped him. He has an argument with himself. He ends up after examining wise people and fools at “all is vanity and a striving after the wind”. Other’s have also ended up in the nihilist camp. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “Nausea” in which he shows man as a “useless passion” to have no meaning and cares that amount to nothing. The author of Ecclesiastes doesn’t accept Kant’s breakdown at the world of nature unable to deal with the world of God. The author of Ecclesiastes looks upward past the right now and calls on us to look to God’s wisdom, goodness, justice, and God’s ability and will to punish hypocrisy. The earth bound view is show as useless and we are to think beyond the earth bound view.
3.4. Secular Humanism: Combining Theism and Nihilism – There are a range of fuzzy blends in which folks want to deny God but yet still have morals that are more than preferences. Human rights and dignity are lifted up as good things when there is no basis for anything to be good. This is intellectual cowardice. Why would human dignity matter is there is no God? It is a preference not a real “good”. Kant said to whistle in the grave yard and pretend there is a God because the alternative was too scary. Nietzsche had the common sense and guts to say that was silly and a cowards solution. Nietzsche accepted Eph 2:12 (Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.) Nietzsche didn’t whistle in the grave yard because he believed he was alone. Really alone. Alone in the universe. He just decided like moss was moss he was going to be man as man and as good as he could – superman exercising as much power as he can muster because it is his natural inclination.
3.5. If There Is No God, Why Is There Religion – hedonists who escape the futility of life? Since Kant argued that God was unknowable and we couldn’t say anything meaningful about him, nihilists went on to say He was irrelevant. Why is religion so universal? Mankind is naturally religious and so psychological fear is often suggested as the reason. For someone raised in the world of science it is surprising to me that so few folks note that this begs the question, “Why would, and how could, such a useless, pointless, and ultimately fatal thing evolve in this cold mechanistic universe?” The answers are not satisfactory.
4. Those who choose to reject God
4.1. Why do they do it? – Well they say that our belief in God is a result of an unfortunate genetic predisposition to a life with meaning. In other words they say we have psychological need to believe. Brilliant people have ended up on both ends of this argument. All these guys were smart. Nietzsche was a genius and so was Aquinas. At this point psychological baggage should be looked at. Christians “want” God to exist. We know that we can rationalize facts to fit out prejudices. We generally want to avoid that sort of thing. However, it isn’t just Christians that bring baggage. Atheists bring baggage. They have a vested interest in God not existing. The idea that a perfect Judge exists calls all our being into question. What does He require? How will He set things right? What if He is “Holy?” The atheist has at least as deep a need for God to not exist as the theist has for God to exist. The atheist’s big problem with God is not intellectual it is moral. Unless you bow your knee to Almighty God you’ve got to suppress the knowledge of Him with all the strength you’ve got. Even then you’ll hear the hounds of heaven and I pray they catch you if they haven’t yet.
5) Brief summaries of various proofs of God (Thanks to Logan Almy via John Walker)
5.1. Cosmological Argument (Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas)
5.1.1. Every existent thing has a cause
5.1.2. This universe is an existent thing (an effect)
5.1.3. Therefore, this universe has a cause
5.1.4. The cause of this universe is God (who has being in Himself)
5.2. Teleological Argument (William Paley)- design implies there is a Designer
5.2.1. Things that have harmony and order admit to having design (e.g. a watch)
5.2.2. Something having design has an intelligent designer.
5.2.3. This universe has harmony and order (natural laws, etc.)
5.2.4. Therefore, this universe has design
5.2.5. Therefore, this universe has an intelligent designer
5.2.6. The intelligent designer of the universe is God
5.3. Ontological Argument (Descartes, St. Anselm)
5.3.1. We have a concept in our mind of God as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.2. Therefore, God at least exists in the mind as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.3. It is greater to exist (in terms of being) in reality than to exist in the mind alone
5.3.4. Suppose God does not exist in reality but in our mind alone
5.3.5. If God, the greatest conceivable being, exists in the mind alone, then we could conceive of him being greater, that is, conceive of him existing in reality
5.3.6. This means that we could conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being
5.3.7. Since a contradiction cannot be true and God either exists in the mind alone or in reality (with or without the mind), God must necessarily exist in reality
5.4. Transcendental Argument/ Moral Argument (Kant, Van Til, William Lane Craig, Gregory Bahnsen)- Argues that science, logic, and morality all presuppose the existence of the Christian God
5.4.1. There are certain law-like presuppositions involved in science, logic, and morality. These include but are not limited to laws of logic and reason, e.g. the law of non-contradiction
5.4.2. These presuppositions are either objective, universal standards OR subjective, relative conventions.
5.4.3. If they are not the objective, universal standards as they are assumed to be, then science, logic, and morality become impossible because there is no foundational standard of meaningful discussion. Cf. The assertion, “Two plus two equals four,” excludes the possibility of two plus two equaling five, negative eight, or two hundred. This is because there are certain presuppositions involved in mathematics as being necessarily true, objective and universal.
5.4.4. Moreover, the objective, universal preconditions of science, logic, and morality cannot be explained by chance because of their (a) universal nature among all people (e.g. Every rational human being agrees that X cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, the law of non-contradiction) and (b) their continuity over time (We are relatively certain that gravity will be true tomorrow)
5.4.5. Things not explained by chance are explained by intention, purpose, and design
5.4.6. Intentional, purposeful, objective, universal laws presuppose the existence of an intelligent being called God
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
DWYL Chapter 8
Where is the war of the Christian life fought?
Explain why “secular vocations” are strategic in the war?
In your own words, list the six ways described by Piper in which we can make Christ look glorious in our jobs. (Jobs can include career, home, school, retirement, etc.)
Most people are not in “vocational ministry” (i.e. pastors, missionaries, etc.). What implications does this chapter have for the life well lived for such people?
To whom is the possibility of a non-wasted life available? Where is such a life lived out? What connects and unifies all the things they seek to do?
Explain why “secular vocations” are strategic in the war?
In your own words, list the six ways described by Piper in which we can make Christ look glorious in our jobs. (Jobs can include career, home, school, retirement, etc.)
Most people are not in “vocational ministry” (i.e. pastors, missionaries, etc.). What implications does this chapter have for the life well lived for such people?
To whom is the possibility of a non-wasted life available? Where is such a life lived out? What connects and unifies all the things they seek to do?
GOD IS THERE - Week 2
1. Possibility 1: It is all an Illusion
1.1. Introduction – This approach dates to Augustine and we’ll check each of 4 mutually exclusive possibilities. This approach only requires that something exists and consequent to that then something with the power of being in itself must exist. Reasoning principally from the law of cause and effect.
1.2. Descartes – I know it may seem odd to propose that everything is an illusion but some philosophers have. When I was in High School I remember a kid who proposed the idea to me. I didn’t really have a way of arguing against it and thought it was an odd thing to suggest. The student apparently wasn’t familiar with Descartes and I wasn’t either. I don’t think he probably ever found a useful purpose for the argument. For example, I think his parents still made him go to school. Maybe he felt better thinking he wasn’t really there.
Descartes was a mathematician and approached philosophy and logic as one thing with similar tools. He started from a position of skepticism toward everything and then worked forward from there.
What if there is simply an illusion that I’m living in. How can I know that I’m not simply and illusion?
1.3. I Think, Therefore I Am Not an Illusion – Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am); For Descartes, the presence of doubt or skepticism was a source of confidence for him; If I’m doubting my existence then I must exist. I can’t doubt and worry if I’m not real. Hence Descartes came believe that he was really Descartes and not simply an illusion. I’m sure his mother was proud.
1.4. We can grant that there may be illusions in reality but some have argued that all reality is an illusion (like the kid I ran into in high school). Descartes disproved that everything could be an illusion and in our classical proof of God we are attempting to show that if anything exists then God exists. So, at this point, all we are saying is that at least one or more things exists.
1.5. Skeptic – Descartes made assumptions, if there was doubt in his mind then he was doubting and he must then exist. If a person was an existential irrationalist they might say well maybe he is in an illusion where a doubter can doubt without doubting. They violate the Law of Noncontradiction. So yes if you are an atheist and choose to be irrational then you will reject the argument. Descartes also assumes the Law of Causality. Doubting requires a doubter and so yes you can reject the Law of Causality and choose to be irrational to avoid the conclusion.
1.6. So through formal reasoning alone we can come to the conclusion that we must exist and we can eliminate the possibility that everything is just an illusion. That is a relief right?
2. Possibility 2: Self Creation & Creation by “Chance”
2.1. Introduction – This is actually a popular choice these days but it is usually clouded and not presented clearly as self creation.
2.2. Self-Creation in Analytically False – Just as we said the Law of Causality was true by definition, the idea of self-creation is false by definition. If the universe was self created then it would need to be before it was. That is absurd. So the Law of Noncontradiction tells us that something simply can’t exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship.
2.3. Self-Creation vs. Self-Existence – Self-existence is not irrational. Aristotle knew that the Law of Causality would lead us to reason back to an eternal being that has the power of being within his or her self. Self-existence is not like self-creation. Even God could not make Himself.
2.4. Varieties of Self-Creation
2.4.1. Creation by Chance – This is an interesting proposal if only because it is so common. Spontaneous generation was an early attempt by atheists to remove God from their thinking. That is now discredited and violated “ex nihilo nihil fit.” It should be obvious that nothing cannot produce something. If there ever was a time when there was nothing then there never would have been anything. The question is, why is there something rather than nothing?
2.4.2. Coins and “Chance” Encounters – I work in statistics all the time and as I mentioned one of the most memorable moments in graduate school, for me, was having a statistics professor turn around in mid-lecture and state that you don’t have to believe that the world is random to find statistics useful as a construct for understanding the universe. Chance is simply a convenient way to express our ignorance of cause and effect without sounding so ignorant. A coin flip is viewed as impartial (chance) because the causes are outside our control.
2.4.3. Can Chance Actually Cause Anything? – No. Chance is not a cause. Chance is used to describe a distribution of effects with variable and unknown causes. Chance is not a thing and therefore to attribute it as a cause is to say nothing caused something. Saying I don’t know what is causing this effect I’m observing is OK but if you say nothing is causing it then you are stating nonsense.
3. Possibility 3: A Self-Existent Being
3.1. Introduction – With illusion and self-creation rejected we move to the final two options that require something being self-existent. The idea of an uncaused, uncreated being that differs from everything else in the universe (that has a cause) is a rational idea. A self-existent, eternal being is one that has the power to be, in and of itself.
3.2. We Need a Self-Existent Being – We can’t make sense of seeing anything without something that is self-existent. The law of causality demands some sort of self existence as we try to figure out how any thing can exist. If anything exists now then God is a rational necessity. Something somewhere must have the power of existence in itself and has always been. There never could have been a time when there was nothing. An eternal something with the power of being within itself must have always been there. God is necessary ontologically. I am dependent, derived, contingent but God is independent, self existent, and He isn’t contingent on the existence of anything. He cannot not be.
3.3. Does the God of the Bible seem to thing that Self-Existence in His Being Important? – Is this consistent with the biblical revelation of God? The short answer is yes. When Moses asked God who He was then God said, “I am that I am”. God doesn’t pick a name for Himself like we would normally think of a name. He simply says uses the verb “to be” in the present tense. He is always present and unchanging and without Him nothing else could possibly be.
4. Possibility 4: A Self-Existent Universe
4.1. Introduction – This is a fairly popular opinion right now.
4.2. What Caused the Big Bang? - Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. As an atheist you would need to believe that everything existed in some stable state from all eternity (and I do mean ALL eternity) and then something “happened” that caused the expanse of stuff we see. And that stuff is expanding. Nothing we see looks stable or appears to be in a cycle. In fact, things look far from stable. The universe doesn’t look anything like eternal or self existent. If the universe was eternal then it would be unchanging or at least locked in a repeating cycle. Remember the number 1 hit from 1969? Maybe not huh? Well the one I’m talking about is “In the year 2525” by Zager and Evans. From that hotbed of musical innovation, Lincoln Nebraska. It was number 1 when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. They attacked the Law of Noncontradiction in the second verse “In the year 3535 Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies, Everything you think, do and say is in the pill you took today” however, I think it is sarcasm. The song suggests that God will judge creation “God is gonna shake His mighty head. He’ll either say I’m pleased where man has been, Or tear it down and start again who oh.” And suggests that we will cycle and start again. “But through eternal night, The twinkling of starlight, So very far way, Maybe it’s only yesterday” and then the song starts all over again. The cycle gives us a way to view the Universe as eternal if, as an atheist, we have a strong motivation to deny the existence of an eternal self existent being that would, naturally, have something to say about us and how we live.
4.3. Is Matter Itself Eternal? Self existence is a characteristic of God but what if someone argues that the Universe is eternal. Well what is eternal? Well nothing in particular right? Even my Harley is mutable (just barely). So the universe we observe isn’t immutable. It is all mutable. So then my Harley is made up of stuff that came from that self existent eternal stuff. So then the self existent eternal stuff isn’t transcendent but immanent and must be someplace we haven’t seen yet. Then you would argue that God is either what the universe is made up of or that He is everything. Back to 1969 and Joni Michell, “We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, …and we got to get ourselves back to the Garden” In Woodstock? Sure you remember that.
4.4. But then no particular part of the universe is eternal or self existent. Even my Harley isn’t eternal. So then you need to argue for an eternal center to the universe that we haven’t found yet that is the source of everything (the cause of all effects). Notice that in this process we are struggling to find an impersonal God who will leave us alone in the universe. The presence of personality was for Francis Schaeffer a critical issue for those who wanted God gone. So the materialist has a hidden unseen source of everything we see but instead of a transcendent God the materialist hides and immanent God in the middle of the universe. But if we as Christians take the universe to include the created universe and the God who is transcendent that haven’t we ended up in a similar place? When we say God is transcendent we mean that He is a higher order of being. It is a description of the being of God. It is ontological since it is part of his being God.
4.5. However, what about the God of the bible? Next week we’ll discuss what kind of God that God must be and look at a few other notable topics.
1.1. Introduction – This approach dates to Augustine and we’ll check each of 4 mutually exclusive possibilities. This approach only requires that something exists and consequent to that then something with the power of being in itself must exist. Reasoning principally from the law of cause and effect.
1.2. Descartes – I know it may seem odd to propose that everything is an illusion but some philosophers have. When I was in High School I remember a kid who proposed the idea to me. I didn’t really have a way of arguing against it and thought it was an odd thing to suggest. The student apparently wasn’t familiar with Descartes and I wasn’t either. I don’t think he probably ever found a useful purpose for the argument. For example, I think his parents still made him go to school. Maybe he felt better thinking he wasn’t really there.
Descartes was a mathematician and approached philosophy and logic as one thing with similar tools. He started from a position of skepticism toward everything and then worked forward from there.
What if there is simply an illusion that I’m living in. How can I know that I’m not simply and illusion?
1.3. I Think, Therefore I Am Not an Illusion – Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am); For Descartes, the presence of doubt or skepticism was a source of confidence for him; If I’m doubting my existence then I must exist. I can’t doubt and worry if I’m not real. Hence Descartes came believe that he was really Descartes and not simply an illusion. I’m sure his mother was proud.
1.4. We can grant that there may be illusions in reality but some have argued that all reality is an illusion (like the kid I ran into in high school). Descartes disproved that everything could be an illusion and in our classical proof of God we are attempting to show that if anything exists then God exists. So, at this point, all we are saying is that at least one or more things exists.
1.5. Skeptic – Descartes made assumptions, if there was doubt in his mind then he was doubting and he must then exist. If a person was an existential irrationalist they might say well maybe he is in an illusion where a doubter can doubt without doubting. They violate the Law of Noncontradiction. So yes if you are an atheist and choose to be irrational then you will reject the argument. Descartes also assumes the Law of Causality. Doubting requires a doubter and so yes you can reject the Law of Causality and choose to be irrational to avoid the conclusion.
1.6. So through formal reasoning alone we can come to the conclusion that we must exist and we can eliminate the possibility that everything is just an illusion. That is a relief right?
2. Possibility 2: Self Creation & Creation by “Chance”
2.1. Introduction – This is actually a popular choice these days but it is usually clouded and not presented clearly as self creation.
2.2. Self-Creation in Analytically False – Just as we said the Law of Causality was true by definition, the idea of self-creation is false by definition. If the universe was self created then it would need to be before it was. That is absurd. So the Law of Noncontradiction tells us that something simply can’t exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship.
2.3. Self-Creation vs. Self-Existence – Self-existence is not irrational. Aristotle knew that the Law of Causality would lead us to reason back to an eternal being that has the power of being within his or her self. Self-existence is not like self-creation. Even God could not make Himself.
2.4. Varieties of Self-Creation
2.4.1. Creation by Chance – This is an interesting proposal if only because it is so common. Spontaneous generation was an early attempt by atheists to remove God from their thinking. That is now discredited and violated “ex nihilo nihil fit.” It should be obvious that nothing cannot produce something. If there ever was a time when there was nothing then there never would have been anything. The question is, why is there something rather than nothing?
2.4.2. Coins and “Chance” Encounters – I work in statistics all the time and as I mentioned one of the most memorable moments in graduate school, for me, was having a statistics professor turn around in mid-lecture and state that you don’t have to believe that the world is random to find statistics useful as a construct for understanding the universe. Chance is simply a convenient way to express our ignorance of cause and effect without sounding so ignorant. A coin flip is viewed as impartial (chance) because the causes are outside our control.
2.4.3. Can Chance Actually Cause Anything? – No. Chance is not a cause. Chance is used to describe a distribution of effects with variable and unknown causes. Chance is not a thing and therefore to attribute it as a cause is to say nothing caused something. Saying I don’t know what is causing this effect I’m observing is OK but if you say nothing is causing it then you are stating nonsense.
3. Possibility 3: A Self-Existent Being
3.1. Introduction – With illusion and self-creation rejected we move to the final two options that require something being self-existent. The idea of an uncaused, uncreated being that differs from everything else in the universe (that has a cause) is a rational idea. A self-existent, eternal being is one that has the power to be, in and of itself.
3.2. We Need a Self-Existent Being – We can’t make sense of seeing anything without something that is self-existent. The law of causality demands some sort of self existence as we try to figure out how any thing can exist. If anything exists now then God is a rational necessity. Something somewhere must have the power of existence in itself and has always been. There never could have been a time when there was nothing. An eternal something with the power of being within itself must have always been there. God is necessary ontologically. I am dependent, derived, contingent but God is independent, self existent, and He isn’t contingent on the existence of anything. He cannot not be.
3.3. Does the God of the Bible seem to thing that Self-Existence in His Being Important? – Is this consistent with the biblical revelation of God? The short answer is yes. When Moses asked God who He was then God said, “I am that I am”. God doesn’t pick a name for Himself like we would normally think of a name. He simply says uses the verb “to be” in the present tense. He is always present and unchanging and without Him nothing else could possibly be.
4. Possibility 4: A Self-Existent Universe
4.1. Introduction – This is a fairly popular opinion right now.
4.2. What Caused the Big Bang? - Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. As an atheist you would need to believe that everything existed in some stable state from all eternity (and I do mean ALL eternity) and then something “happened” that caused the expanse of stuff we see. And that stuff is expanding. Nothing we see looks stable or appears to be in a cycle. In fact, things look far from stable. The universe doesn’t look anything like eternal or self existent. If the universe was eternal then it would be unchanging or at least locked in a repeating cycle. Remember the number 1 hit from 1969? Maybe not huh? Well the one I’m talking about is “In the year 2525” by Zager and Evans. From that hotbed of musical innovation, Lincoln Nebraska. It was number 1 when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. They attacked the Law of Noncontradiction in the second verse “In the year 3535 Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies, Everything you think, do and say is in the pill you took today” however, I think it is sarcasm. The song suggests that God will judge creation “God is gonna shake His mighty head. He’ll either say I’m pleased where man has been, Or tear it down and start again who oh.” And suggests that we will cycle and start again. “But through eternal night, The twinkling of starlight, So very far way, Maybe it’s only yesterday” and then the song starts all over again. The cycle gives us a way to view the Universe as eternal if, as an atheist, we have a strong motivation to deny the existence of an eternal self existent being that would, naturally, have something to say about us and how we live.
4.3. Is Matter Itself Eternal? Self existence is a characteristic of God but what if someone argues that the Universe is eternal. Well what is eternal? Well nothing in particular right? Even my Harley is mutable (just barely). So the universe we observe isn’t immutable. It is all mutable. So then my Harley is made up of stuff that came from that self existent eternal stuff. So then the self existent eternal stuff isn’t transcendent but immanent and must be someplace we haven’t seen yet. Then you would argue that God is either what the universe is made up of or that He is everything. Back to 1969 and Joni Michell, “We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, …and we got to get ourselves back to the Garden” In Woodstock? Sure you remember that.
4.4. But then no particular part of the universe is eternal or self existent. Even my Harley isn’t eternal. So then you need to argue for an eternal center to the universe that we haven’t found yet that is the source of everything (the cause of all effects). Notice that in this process we are struggling to find an impersonal God who will leave us alone in the universe. The presence of personality was for Francis Schaeffer a critical issue for those who wanted God gone. So the materialist has a hidden unseen source of everything we see but instead of a transcendent God the materialist hides and immanent God in the middle of the universe. But if we as Christians take the universe to include the created universe and the God who is transcendent that haven’t we ended up in a similar place? When we say God is transcendent we mean that He is a higher order of being. It is a description of the being of God. It is ontological since it is part of his being God.
4.5. However, what about the God of the bible? Next week we’ll discuss what kind of God that God must be and look at a few other notable topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)