Hello Friends,
Here are some of my ideas for upcoming topics. I would like it if the readers would choose one, or if you have a different topic, i welcome all suggestions.

Topics:
1. – “The Secret”-I will be discussing how the theory behind the new book is actually ancient pantheism repackaged for the 21st century.
3. – Islam- Is Islam a religion of peace? I will only be using Islamic sources in my research to see if the claim matches the climate.
2.- Questions for a Christian-If you call yourself a Christian, would you agree with God’s definition of a Christian? Using a sola scriptura approach, this topic is an attempt to explain what is truly means to be a Christian.
4. – What do we actually know? – Regarding the famously recorded fossils of early man, I will go deeper than a college textbook to find out what are the facts and what are ideas.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPod touch]

Hello friends,
I must apologize for the large gap in posts. Recently my entire computer and external hard drive was lost. All of my resources, documents, pictures, music, and programs were erased. Needless to say God has seen fit to bless me with a brand new, faster computer. I will be resuming a regular schedule as soon as I have gotten all of my digital affairs in order. In the meantime, I would still love to hear your suggestions as we attempt to dig deeper than merely surface level discussions. Thank you all for reading and God bless.

Aaron

To Eliot,

Thank you for reading my post and taking your time to honor me with a response. I added a parenthetical assumption in the first part of your quote that I hope you will afford me. In the last essay, I took issue with what was a mixing of ideas resulting in a worldview hodge-podge which was inconsistent with our observable reality. In this instance however, it is a bit different. While on the surface your statements may have the appearance of truth, there is much to be revealed when a proper scrutiny of your choice of words is applied.

Words are important because they are the only way that humans have to communicate. It is what separates us from every other living thing on this planet. If we are speaking, we are using words. If we are thinking, we are using words to define our thoughts. If we are showing emotions, others interpret them by labeling them with words. And if we are writing, we are using our words to make a permanent statement. The meanings of words are vital to our human existence. If somehow words were to lose their meanings, we humans would have a difficult time expressing much of anything.

In your comment you state, “Don’t Christians fall into the same trap of an apparent claim to infinite knowledge (as atheists)? Christians believe that there is ONLY ONE god thus they claim that there is no other god, anywhere else in the universe. So they are basically doing almost the exact same thing that atheists are doing.”

At first glance, this statement would seem to be true. However, upon further analysis, some problems arise with the very thesis statement of your argument. The first confusion comes with the coupling of words “apparent claim”. The word apparent has two meanings. It can mean “clearly seen or understood”. Or it can mean “appearing to be shown as, but perhaps not genuine”.

Your choice of the word “claim” here has interesting ramifications also. The word itself allows us tremendous freedom and therefore requires further definition. The word claim means to “maintain something is true”. Or it can mean “to state a truth without any evidence”. I may claim that wind blows across the face of the earth from all different points on the compass. I may also claim that I have a red, mint-condition, 1967 Shelby GT 500 in my garage. What would be the difference between these two claims? They are equally assertive claims, yet the difference is the evidence. There is no way to prove that I am right in my claim about the wind since the wind cannot be possessed. The only thing to do is to see if we observe anything in our world that would allow me to make such a reasonable conclusion. The evidence for the wind is all around me. I cannot see the wind itself, yet I can see the trees, bushes, flowers, and flags all being affected by the wind. The object of the claim is invisible, but the effect of the claim is visible. On the other hand, the evidence for the car would be the physical presence of the car in my driveway. The car is a possession. It would be easy to see if I was in possession of the evidence or if I was lying.

Here we are presented with a statement that be interpreted many different ways based upon the mathematical like precision of English grammar, context, and syntax. If we substitute your choice of words with their multiple meanings, there are four possible ways to interpret the first part of your comment. I will answer them each in turn.

1.  Don’t Christians fall into the same trap (as atheists) by clearly maintaining that something is true?

The focus of this part of the question is what we can see. Do we observe atheists and Christians making claims of truth with the same level of tenacity and verve? The answer to this interpretation of your question is a resounding yes. In this instance the atheist and the Christian are the same. They both make obvious claims of truth and maintain them vigorously.

But here is the first fundamental error. The reason why the answer cannot be yes is because you mistake the claims of the Christian. The Christian is making an affirmation; the atheist is making a negation. The Christian does not claim infinite knowledge for oneself. The Christian claims infinite knowledge is held by God alone. The Christian does not need to, nor desires to claim infinite knowledge for oneself. The Christian desires to relinquish such accolades to One who deserves it. The Christian does not claim to be the source of knowledge. The Christian merely claims to have relational and experiential knowledge of the source. The Christian claim for evidence of God is based upon a reasonable assessment of mankind’s true infancy in knowledge.

My question to you is do you know anyone that does not believe in some type of absolute? Is there a person that exists who holds nothing to be true? If there is such a person he or she must be the most ignorant of all fools. Another question for you would be, why if every human is adhering to these things we call absolutes, do you deem them to be a trap or a trick? If this is the case, then the atheist has also been tricked. For the atheist holds himself to the absolute denial of the existence of God. In fact we have all been tricked according to your statement. Assuming for a moment that it was a trap, who set it out for the human race? The question in itself assumes that there is something more intelligent out there who is playing a huge trick on the minds and hearts of men. The question is not possible unless you innately reason that God exists.

2.  Don’t Christians fall into the same trap (as atheists) by clearly stating a truth without any evidence?

In this interpretation of your question the emphasis is different. It is no longer a question of observable statements, but of available evidence. Are the atheist and the Christian the same with the levels of evidence that they have produced for their respective sides? I have selected the fields of evidence which we will discuss to be science, textual authority, and morality. Let us begin with the Christian. It is important to remember that since the object of debate is one that cannot be tested with our five senses, we are limited to what we can test with our five senses. Once we do this, we may then see if our conclusion lines up with reality.

Science

The scientific method involves asking a question, doing research, forming a hypothesis, testing your hypothesis through experimentation, analyzing of data and drawing a conclusion. It is only after you have completed this method that you have gone through the appropriate steps to make a claim. The question that the Christian asks is, is there a God? Since there is no physical proof of God’s existence, that is to say that he cannot be empirically proven, we are left to looking at the evidence of the effect of God that would agree with such a hypothesis.

Much like a person is not able to see sound waves, light waves, or wind, yet they can see the effects of them. The Christian will then look through the available research in the fields of chemistry, biochemistry, biological structure, dendrology, embryology, genetics, geology, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, geophysics, astronomy, neurobiology, molecular biology, nutritional biochemistry, radiology, physics, anthropology, anatomy, physiology, organic chemistry, kinesiology, entomology, ecology, meteorology, ophthalmology, thermodynamics, and zoology. The Christian then analyzes the data he or she has gathered and makes a conclusion. The Christian’s conclusion is that due to the countless examples of irreducible complexity, fine tuning, design and craftsmanship in our universe in the aforementioned fields, that there must be a tuner, designer, and craftsman behind it all. This is confirmed by examples that we see in everyday life such as sculpting, painting, singing, dancing, drawing, and building construction. The Christian sees thousands of archaeological, paleontological, biological, chemical, nuclear, mathematical, logical and moral holes in Darwinian explanation of life. However, Christians are not the only ones to observe these great chasms of truth before us.

Two documents that have recently been created prove that Christians are not the only ones who feel that Darwin may have gotten it wrong. Both the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php) and the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (http://www.pssiinternational.com/) are non-religious organizations. Yet, they have seen fit to band together and make a statement against Darwin’s claims. Not from a Christian viewpoint, but from a scientific and medical viewpoint. SDFD’s requirements for being a part of the document state that the signer “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine.” Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel. So the Christian observes confirmation his conclusion from scientists inside and outside of the Christian religion.

Now we will look at the atheist. What evidence does the atheist provide for the contrary? What areas and fields of study within the realm of science can they reference to suggest otherwise? What non religious organizations have been formed in order to affirm the very claims of the atheist? What empirical proof has been gathered to show that God does not exist? There is none at all. There is no proof to show that order arrives from chaos. There is no experiment that has proven that life arises from non-life. Nowhere has it been found, observed, or recorded that the universe is eternal. What paper has been published which proves that complexity in any area can be orchestrated by something less complex than the thing itself? The problem of the atheist is that besides being forced to ignore all these legitimate questions, he has to positively demonstrate that God does not exist. What science does the atheist turn to and say, “See, that experiment affirms my hypothesis a little bit more.” One of the most popular arguments that is presented, is that since we cannot hear, see, touch, feel or smell God, therefore he must not exist. The problem with this approach is that by the same logic I cannot sense thoughts, hatred, love, fear, empathy, grace, etc. Yet no reasonable person would deny their existence. So the fact that I cannot have the kind of evidence that I desire, does not mean that I am justified in ruling out the possibility.

Textual Authority

The Christian bases his truths upon the Bible. There are many ways to show that the Bible is what it says it is. Here is some evidence that confirms things found in the Bible. The areas that we will discuss here are prophecy, scientific accuracy, number of original manuscripts and timeline of production, and historical sources.

Prophecy

As there are too many examples to list them all, I will provide five examples of fulfilled prophecy that would have been impossible for Jesus to manipulate. There are many more, but I feel that these are some of the most compelling. I will cite the verse in the Bible that states a prophetic word and then cite the verse in which it was fulfilled. (Note – if you are under the impression that the prophecies were fulfilled because Jesus saw an opportunity to become famous, or if you suggest that because he knew the prophecies he was able to fulfill them, than you clearly have not done your research and you must believe that Jesus was the most influential, crafty, deceitful, creative, naive, insane and successful liar the world has ever seen. I would ask you to provide any shred of evidence showing that this is so.)

• Jesus foretells his own death and resurrection.
  • Verse of Prophecy – Matthew 20:17-19 – Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!
  • Fulfillment – His death on the cross and recorded resurrection witnessed by over 500 people.
• Isaiah foretells that Jesus will be born of a virgin 700 years before Jesus arrived.
  • Verse of Prophecy – Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
  • Fulfillment – Jesus born of a virgin.
• Jesus foretells that His words would never be forgotten
  • Verse of Prophecy – Luke 21:33 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away
  • Fulfillment – The fact that even one person remembers what Jesus said to this day is fulfillment of this prophecy.
• The Gospel would reach all corners of the earth
  • Verse of prophecy – Isaiah 49:6 – “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
  • Fulfillment – Christians are scattered all over the globe bringing this message with them.
• Jesus would be buried in a rich man’s tomb
  • Verse of Prophecy – Isaiah 53:9 – He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
  • Fulfillment – Jesus had no grave and was instead buried in a grave owned by a rich man – Joseph of Aramathia

Scientific Accuracy

• Statements Consistent With Astronomy
  • Innumerable stars
    • Genesis 22:17 – Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
    • Jeremiah 33:22 – “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”
  • Uniqueness of stars.
    • 1 Corinthians 15:41 – There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
  • Precision of movement in the universe.
    • Jeremiah 31:35, 36 – Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.”
  • Suspension of the Earth in space.
    • Job 26:7 – He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
• Statements Consistent With Meteorology
  • Circulation of the atmosphere.
    • Ecclesiastes 1:6 – The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.
  • Fluid dynamics.
    • Job 28:25 – To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.
• Statements Consistent With Biology
  • Value of blood.
    • Leviticus 17:11 – ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
  • Biogenesis and the stability of each kind of living organism.
    • Genesis 1:11,12 – Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    • Genesis 1:21 – So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    • Genesis 1:25 – And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
  • Chemical nature of flesh.
    • Genesis 2:7 – And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
    • Genesis 3:19 – In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.
  • Mental and spiritual health in correlation with physical health.
    • Proverbs 12:4 – An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.
    • Proverbs 14:30 – A sound heart is life to the body, But envy is rottenness to the bones.
    • Proverbs 15:30 – The light of the eyes rejoices the heart, And a good report makes the bones healthy.
    • Proverbs 16:24 – Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
    • Proverbs 17:22 – A merry heart does good, like medicine, But a broken spirit dries the bones.
• Statements Consistent With Anthropology
  • People inhabited caves.
    • Job 30:5,6 – They were driven out from among men, They shouted at them as at a thief. They had to live in the clefts of the valleys, In caves of the earth and the rocks.
• Statements Consistent With Hydrology
  • Hydrologic cycle.
    • Psalm 135:7 – He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
    • Jeremiah 10:13 – When He utters His voice, There is a multitude of waters in the heavens: “And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
    • Job 36:27-29 – For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?
  • Recirculation of water.
    • Ecclesiastes 1:7 – All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.
    • Isaiah 55:10 – For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater,
  • Amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.
    • Job 26:8 – He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
    • Job 37:11 – Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds; He scatters His bright clouds.
  • Hydrothermal vents
    • Genesis 7:11 – In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
    • Job 38:16 – Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
• Statements Consistent With Geology
  • Earth has a foundation or core.
    • Jeremiah 31:37 – Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.”
  • Shape of the earth
    • Isaiah 40:22 – It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
• Statements Consistent With Physics
  • The presence of nuclear processes associated with nuclear weaponry.
    • 2 Peter 3:10 – But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
  • A description of something that allows everyone on earth to see a single event. (internet or TV)
    • Matthew 24:30 – Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
    • Revelation 11:9-11 – Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

Number of original manuscripts and timeline of production

The key to this topic is to compare the gap between the existence of events or people and the first written recording of those events. Let’s see how the Bible stands up with some other historical works.

• Secular Manuscripts
  • Gap between death of individual and first writing of original manuscripts
    • Herodotus – 300 years
    • Thucydides – 300 years
    • Aristotle – 1,400 years
    • Caesar – 1,000 years
    • Pliny – 750 years
    • Suetonius – 800 years
    • Tacitus – 1,000 years
• Biblical Manuscripts
  • Gap between death of individual or ending of historical period and first writing of original manuscripts.
    • John Rylands (John) – 40 years
    • Bodmer Papyrus II (John) – 60-110 years 
    • Chester Beatty Papyri (New Testament) – 150 years after historical period
    • Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) – 150 years after historical period
    • Codex Vaticanus (Bible) – 275- 300 years after historical period 
    • Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) – 300 years after historical period
    • Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) – 350 years after historical period
    • Dead Sea Scrolls (Bible) – began during historical period and was completed within 70 years of historical period

Historical Sources

•  
  • “Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles.” – Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius, circa 150 AD
  • “He must needs be manifested in the flesh. He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree.” – Barnabas, circa 138 AD
  • “The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.” – Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian, circa 125 AD
  • “Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope.” – Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians, circa 115 AD
  • “He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we–that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection. For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, ‘Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.’ And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them.” – Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans, circa 115 AD

This Bible is a collection of ancient scrolls and scriptures that have been miraculously and perfectly preserved throughout the millennium. These scriptures have been scrutinized down to the letter. Even the atheist has futilely spent time trying to disprove the very things that this book states. The Bible has been tested for historical accuracy, societal accuracy, and accuracy of translation. All the while, these same scriptures have been the focus of eradication for as long as they have existed. The Christian would say one need not look further than the person of Jesus Christ as evidence for the existence of God. Three or so recorded years of this man’s life, changed history. Can you name another person who has rippled the ocean of human existence such as He did? Of course you cannot, for there is no one else who has the capacity to do so. These are the arguments from evidence that the Christian uses in his claim of the existence of God.

Morality

Every human being on the face of the Earth has a conscience. If you do not agree with this statement I would ask you to provide proof to the contrary. The word conscience is derived from the Greek word suneidesis. Suneidesis is made up of two words: sun, meaning with, and oida meaning to know. Quite literally the word means with knowledge. Every single time that you or I have done something wrong we have known that it was wrong in our hearts without anyone having to tell us so. This is achieved by our conscience.

The Christian stands on the fact that the Bible says in Romans 2:14-15: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. This verse tells us that even there were those who were not in possession of the law of Moses (the Ten Commandments), they knew what it was in there hearts and were able to either accuse or excuse one another based upon their consciences.

The Ten Commandments lay out for us very clearly things that are considered by God to be a standard of right and wrong. The Bible says that our consciences bear witness to our acts. When we commit acts of wrong or evil, we are aware of it in our hearts that we are doing so. Even the atheist will agree with the Ten Commandments which say that lying, murder, covetousness, and theft are wrong. But why would such a person who denies the existence of God, agree with the standards that He has put forth? The answer is simple, because his conscience is bearing witness.

The Christian states that we have an objective moral law. There are things that are right and good, and there are things that are wrong and evil. If there is a moral law that all men are aware of in their hearts due to their conscience, then there must have been a moral law giver. This is yet another reason for the existence of God. Let us see how the atheist determines his morality.

In the worldview of the atheist there can be no right and no wrong for there is nothing to base it upon. Atheism at its root is naturalistic and humanistic in nature and gives man no more credit than an ape, shark, or bug. By these naturalistic standards, we cannot be held accountable for any action at all for it is nothing more than the actions of an animal.

Yet here is the interesting phenomenon that we observe. We find many atheists saying that you don’t need God to be moral, yet they never provide a definition of where moral law comes from. There is no explanation for the conscience in naturalism, for there is no need for one. Here is a question for the atheist: If we are truly animals as you would suggest, why did we evolve a conscience, only to be tormented by it when we commit acts of evil or ill will against another one of our animal companions? Is it not just the same as a bear ripping a salmon apart only to eat the eggs inside? On what basis do you stand to tell me that my actions are wrong or right? Here we see the breakdown of the idea that there is no moral law, for even those who deny that it exists, are bound by it in their judgments and pronouncements.

3.  Don’t Christians fall into the same trap (as atheists) because they have the appearance of a claim to truth but perhaps do not truly adhere to their own claims?

It is possible for any person on the face of this earth to misrepresent what it is they truly believe. We do it all the time when we tell someone that we like their shirt when we really hate it. We do it when we eat someone’s home cooked meal and respectfully tell them it was great as we put it into our napkin. It is called lying. We have all done it, and we all have the capacity to do it. So in this interpretation of your question, yes it is possible for someone to claim to be a Christian yet not truly adhere to it in their own heart, just as it is possible for someone to claim to be an atheist and not truly be one in their heart.

4.  Don’t Christians fall into the same trap (as atheists) because they have the appearance of a claim to truth without any evidence?

            This interpretation is closer to the second version of your question. In this question you are asking if Christians and atheists both have merely the appearance of a claim to truth while not producing any evidence. The answer to your question is no. As we discussed above by my limited examples, the Christian can produce reams of evidence from outside his own belief system that confirm the very things within that belief system. The atheist cannot do this. The atheist cannot stand on his evidence because the evidence is constantly shifting. The atheist is required to change  his evidence to fit his worldview, whereas the Christian changes his worldview to suit the evidence. I ask you, which one of these sounds more intellectually honest to you?

In the latter part of your comment you state “Christians believe that there is ONLY ONE god thus they claim that there is no other god, anywhere else in the universe. So they are basically doing almost the exact same thing that atheists are doing.”

The Christian creed that there is only one God, and the atheist creed that there is no God are not the same thing. As stated before, one is an affirmation, and the other is an absolute negation. Your insertion of the word almost, shows that even you cannot equate the claims to be the same. You had a choice to omit that word, or to include it. By including it you have allowed me freedom to show that while your head may desire to put the claims of the Christian on par with the atheist, your fingers would not let you do so.

As far as the idea of only claiming the existence of one God, how many gods would you desire? What type of god needs help? That is not a god. That is a glorified human. What kind of a god would need an assistant or another equal? When the proposal for the existence of one God is enough, why create more?

In conclusion, it is important to remember, that while you would desire to equate the claims of the atheist and Christian, you are not giving them equal levels of scrutiny. The requirements that you have put upon the Christian are not the same as enforced upon the atheist. I would encourage you to dive deeper into the topics and areas we have discussed and try to disprove the existence of God. I can assure you that you will not be able to do it. That is the point. The Christian never has claimed that God’s existence can be proven. Christians will freely tell you that it is a matter of faith. That being said I must ask you, what type of faith is required of the atheist in his conclusion? How much faith does it required to rule out the existence of God? In this respect, the atheist is more like the Christian than you would like to believe, yet in a different area. Not in the area of claims that they make, but the amount of faith which is required. The main difference is in the simplicity of the explanation. If God exists, there are many questions easily answered. If He does not exist, more questions are created than there are answers.

To My Anonymous contributor,

First I must apologize for my delayed response. This time of year can be hectic as we all try to take advantage of the nice weather for a change. I wanted to first thank you for taking the time to pose these questions to me. They are well thought out and rational questions. I read your post several times in order to make sure that I didn’t miss anything. I will break down your statements for ease of dissection.

In the first part you ask,

“What are your ideas about the Gaia hypothesis? It states, in short, that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism that actively works to create a favorable environment. Clearly, this hypothesis disproves your hypothesis.”

There are two ways to answer this section and they both depend on what Gaia you are referring to. I will assume that since you capitalized the word that you are referring to the ancient Greek supreme goddess of the earth, Gaia. Yet your definition of what your interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis is refers to a theory first articulated by British atmospheric chemist James Lovelock in 1965. Lovelock’s original definition of the hypothesis states “that the temperature and composition of the Earth’s surface are actively controlled by life on the planet. It suggests that if changes in the gas composition, temperature or oxidation states of the Earth are caused by extraterrestrial, biological, geological, or other disturbances, life responds to these changes by modifying the abiotic environment through growth and metabolism. In simpler terms, biological responses tend to regulate the state of the Earth’s environment in their favor.“

How does this statement disprove my hypothesis? It provides no terms, no conclusions, definitions, and no contradictions with the idea of an omniscient God. It merely states a scientific proposal. In fact, the term self regulating is a mechanical term. Machines need to be designed and created. This would cause me to think of all of the complex systems that this statement envelops. Biological, chemical, geological, hydrological, atmospheric, and nuclear systems all must be fine tuned to such precision, that new numbers have had to be created, in order to define the probabilities of random assemblage.

Allow me to separate us from the argument by way of an illustration. It is simple, yet I feel adequately sums up the ideas that we are discussing. Imagine for a moment that you are walking through the tropical jungles of Papua New Guinea. As you clear your way through the brush, you pull aside some plants to reveal Michelangelo’s David sculpted in flawless black marble. Could this have resulted by black marble gathering in all corners of the globe in an effort to create something beautiful at a agreed upon location? Or did it take thought, design, intelligence, and skill?

Here is the catch. I neglected to mention some other things that you observed on your stroll. You watched hypertonic, isotonic, and hypotonic osmosis in action. You saw sunlight being converted to energy using this equation which cannot be altered – 6CO₂+6H₂O –> C₆H₁₂O₆+6O_2. You walked upon a self recycling machine of plate tectonics floating on top of a controlled core of boiling iron and rock. Your skin absorbed vitamin D and you felt only a small portion of the sun’s rays, as most of the gamma radiation and other harmful rays are diverted by our magnetosphere as a result of the properties of our molten core. You also autonomously breathed in a perfectly balanced mix of 78.084% Nitrogen, 20.9476% Oxygen, 09.34% Argon, 0.0314% Carbon Dioxide, 0.001818% Neon, 0.0002% Methane, 0.000524% Helium, 0.000114% Krypton, 0.00005% Hydrogen, and 0.0000087% Xenon.

My question to you is, how is it possible to go through life observing complexity and design in various systems everyday and find it perfectly acceptable to reason that something more intelligent than the systems themselves must have been involved: yet when complexity is observed in nature, where there is a possibility of the same logic being applied wherein the result must be God, it is denied? This is a paradox of reason. Either complexity and design merit intelligence or they do not. One cannot hold contradictory viewpoints without intellectually imploding like a neutron star.

The idea that the world is a self regulating; super organism that actively works to create a favorable environment raises several questions for the one holding this to be more than a proposal from someone hired by NASA as a research scientist. Where does morality come from? Where do right and wrong come from? How can matter regulate morality? When have rocks banded together in protest against the social injustice being committed towards all the other rocks currently being crushed at quarries across the globe? When has a tree condemned another tree for stealing the water from a neighboring plant? Does a hurricane wager the morality of its destruction of innocent lives? I would ask you to provide any such evidence of so, other than a spiritual and philosophical distortion of Lovelock’s original theory.

In actuality, nature cares nothing for morality or right and wrong. We know this to be true because it is within our observable reality. Animals kill when they want to or when they need to. There is no moral thought process for the lioness snapping the neck of a baby water buffalo. Morality does not exist in the kingdoms of animals and plants. There is no great Darwinian jungle court to hear and try the crimes of nature. Therefore, I would ask what evidence have you observed in nature that would lead you to believe that morality could be regulated by nothing more than mitochondria, algae, or a single celled bacteria. Do you consult the amoeba in order to find out if you should rob a bank? Or do you already posses the knowledge that it would be wrong to do so? These questions may sound a little extreme, but they are none the less accurate conclusions of a spiritual application of the Gaia hypothesis.

“No matter what you say about evolution being a hypothesis FAITH in a greater being is not substantial proof that creation came about from an all-knowing, all-powerful God.”

If I ever gave the impression that faith alone is what validated something, than I must apologize, for here we are in agreement. Faith is not substantial proof for an all knowing all powerful God. Nor is faith proof that God created everything. I may place all of my faith in glorifying my desk as god, yet that would not make it so. Instead, the strongest argument for God’s presence is within our own hearts.

As you are a human being, I will assume that you wrestle with the same things that all humans have questioned at some point and time in their lives. I believe if one has not struggled with these questions yet, they will. We all struggle with the questions of origin, purpose, destiny, and meaning. Where did I come from? What am I here for? Where am I going? What does it all mean?

If we apply Darwinian logic, these thoughts are meaningless. These ideas and concepts are nothing more than neurons firing short, small bursts of electricity over synaptic gaps. Yet I do not need to convince you that anyone who has had these thoughts will defend their legitimacy to the end. Why? They are intrinsic to us. Yet evolution would suggest that we evolved these thoughts. I ask you, what possible naturalistic advantage would we have by creating things to wrestle with in our minds that were meaningless? This is the necessary conclusion of naturalism as a philosophy and worldview. Everything becomes meaningless. All value and beauty are lost and hopelessness and despair come as a result of believing that you are just a valuable as a grain of sand.

Does your claim that Darwinian evolution is true have rational inference? Is it able to be defended when viewed through the lens of reality? Does it stand up when scrutinized with statistics, reason, logic, chemistry, paleontology, biology, nuclear science and archaeology? I would conclude that in fact it does the opposite. It falls apart.

Can you tell me any one thing from Darwinian evolution that you know to be true? Are you sure of any one thing that has been empirically proven? Is there one piece of evidence that exists to show that life can come from non-life? Where are the missing links? Where are the innumerable transitional forms that should exist? We have hundreds of thousands of fossils in museums scattered across the globe from all corners of the earth, and yet, no transitional forms. Not one. If you fancy yourself a person of science, I ask you to evaluate these questions the same as you would if I were proposing that Darwin was correct.

“Your idea of creation is nothing more than a hypothesis, and what I believe about evolution. Both sides hold evidence to prove their correctness. It seems to me that faith would be required on both sides. What makes your faith in a greater being, more right than my faith in the universe and science?”

This comes back to a certain modicum of agreement. This statement again reveals the importance that you put upon faith. As stated above, faith alone in something is not enough to make it true. But what is faith? Is it not a belief or trust? I would suggest that it is not the amount of faith that you or I can put into our respective sides, but rather what we use as our foundation of that faith.

What is your faith in the universe? From where does it come? It must come from within for there it would be contradictory to base it upon anything else. As man is the center of the naturalistic universe, there is no need for God. He is freed from all moral and logical obligations to create his own reality. Yet again I ask if this has rational inference in our lives. Are we truly free to do whatever we see fit? Or must we adhere to moral guidelines that are present within every one of us via our conscience?

I would suggest that the only difference between your view of the universe and mine is one of moral absolutes. What is preventing you from saying that it is not the universe that designed, ordered, and set in motion the things we see? What prevents you from acknowledging a holy creator? The minute that you say that there is a possibility of God being in control, now there is accountability. The desire to avoid accountability to God can be a powerful motivator when choosing a worldview. It can be so strong as to make great thinkers and amazing scientists to believe a theory that cannot explain why if humans came from apes, how it is that we still have apes reproducing apes. Yet, that is what naturalism and evolution have afforded us.

Darwinian evolution and Naturalism have tried to illustrate a model of the world that is incomplete because it does not deal with intangibles. They have innately, and by design removed the very thing that would allow resolution of such a conflict; the presence of an intelligent God. They have attempted to explain construction of stealth jet fighters without first explaining the toothpick model plane. They have said that men are no more than beasts and should be treated as such. They have attempted to convey that humans evolved morality, only to contradict our own evolution by violating it constantly.

In conclusion, the combination of the following factors allow me to make a claim for the presence of God as truth: evidence of irreducible complexity in our observable reality, the four questions that are intrinsic to us, the scientific errors in evolutionary theory, the complete lack of a naturalistic account for morality, and the presence of a conscience in every human.

It is not our levels of faith that make us right or wrong, it is what we are placing our faith in. The things that we hold to be true must be able to withstand the scrutiny that is brought against it. The Gaia Hypothesis simply falls miles short when a deeper level of scrutiny is applied.

Hello friends,
Well I decided that for my next post, I would leave it up to the readers. I would like you guys to comment on this post and give me some ideas as to what you would like to discuss. All subjects will be given equal consideration. I I hope that this encourages some of you to participate in the discussion. Thanks again for being here.

As you cleverly noticed from the title, the topic today will be The Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that it is not possible that something be both true and not true (at the same time and in the same context). In other words, if there are two contradictory statements regarding the same thing, one of them is false. For example if I was to say to you, “I would love to go to dinner with you next week”, and then take a breath and say ”I would hate to go to dinner with you next week.” These are two diametrically opposed statements. The initial reaction of your common sense tells you that something is a bit off with what I just said. Your brain is telling you that one of them is false.

Your response to these two statements would be one of confusion, and rightly so. Our brains are not wired to make sense of known contradictions. Our logical side kicks in and says that either both statements are false, or only one of the statements is false. Yet, here is the important point that we must remember. They cannot both be true. Combined with our God given ability to reason and what I like to call your “gut” (Intuition, First Reaction, Pre-Conceived Notions, Common Sense) reaction; we determine that things are true. Arriving at the conclusion that something is a truth is based on a combination of our observations, research, and our experiences being tested. So, what are some observable examples of accepted truths that exist in our world today?

• The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second
• Murder is wrong.
• The equation that Isaac Newton created for universal gravity is F = GMm/R².
• The primary colors are red, blue and yellow.
• The sun is at the center of our galaxy and we revolve around it.
• All people are created equal.
• The gravitational pull of our moon is what causes ocean tides.
• Aurora Borealis is caused by the interaction between clouds of high energy ion plasma particles and the earth’s magnetic field.

If you were to say that you did not believe in the above statements that would be your prerogative. However, we must realize that our beliefs cannot erase truth. Not agreeing or believing these statements would not alter their accuracy. The law of non contradiction says that if I were to pose opposite conclusions to any of these statements, either my statement is false, or the original statement is false. But they cannot both be true. Can water be wet and not wet? Can light and dark occupy the same space? Is it possible for someone to be chronologically old and young at the same time? Is two plus two five? These are all simple examples of contradictions, but some would have us believe that these are possible with enough self convincing

In today’s society, tolerance is the new creed. Granted that tolerance is a value we should all embrace and is beneficial for relational purposes, to help learn patience, to absorb knowledge about things we are not familiar, and to help us to empathetically put ourselves in others’ shoes. But in our aim to make sure that everything is tolerated and that no one is offended, we have become a society that believes that everything can be true, no matter how contradictory.

Picture this. In a large auditorium, there is a gathering of five hundred of the top academics from all of the country from all different fields of education. They have come to debate how to create a global education network, and the most efficient methods of doing so. The first proposal is to start construction from the local level with pre-schools. While others maintain that if they were to merely alter the current system the objective could be achieved. Yet still other academics say that the best way to do attack this task is to trash the system as it is, and rebuild the whole world’s education system over again. As soon as this idea is proposed, another group says that the best way to create this new network is to have each continent tackle the job independently.

Are all of these conflicting proposals true? Can they all be the best solution even though they are completely contradictory ideas? Is this really possible? Can two or more completely opposite conclusions about the same topic, all be true? Of course not, but we have been told that it is possible and that it is perfectly normal to think that it is so.

Why are we discussing this topic? I feel that it is an extremely important issue. It has become a major issue in society. Let’s take a look at why a breakdown of the concept of contradictions, would lead to disaster. In our world today, we see a slow erosion of the idea that things are either true or false. We are told not to tell our kids they are wrong, but to encourage them to find the right solution on their own. We cannot tell someone that he is morally wrong on a topic, because then we are closed minded and presented as being judgmental.

We tell people that they can pick any religion that they want as long as it suits them, as long as it works for them and as long as it doesn’t affect others. We have migrated as a people from societies of right and wrong to societies of “if it feels right or wrong”. Where is the standard for it? When did it go from a God given standard, to a man given standard? Do we feel that we are absolved of absolute morality and truth merely because we feel that we are? The ramifications of the dissolution of the law of non contradiction would result in a breakdown of physics, mathematics, language, history, justice and law to name only a few fields that would be dramatically affected.

Let’s say for a moment that I do not believe in the law of non contradiction. In my line of thinking, these statements would all be correct because I feel that they are, and no one can tell me that what I feel is wrong because I justify these truths myself. No other justification is needed.

• Gravity does not exist because I cannot see it and therefore do not believe it exists. The laws of physics are fairy tales. It would affect my life if I accepted them as truth. Therefore I choose not to.
• I do not do my taxes because I do not believe that the equations are correct. As a matter of fact, no equations are correct.
• All definitions of words in the English language, or any other language, are up for debate. I do not believe that the word melancholy means pensive, despondent or gloomy. I believe that melancholy means a type of fine china dishware.
• Hitler never existed and he never killed any Jews. Proving this to me will not matter. It does not suit me to believe this, so I reject even the notion.
• All lawyers and judges are useless. Everybody knows that no testimony can be held as truthful. Convictions are pointless as criminals just deny that they ever committed the act. And law has no purpose, because it sets boundaries on me and nothing can do that except me.

Does this sound ludicrous? Do these statements make sense? I can answer with a resounding no. But yet, as the bottom of the mountain of right and wrong gets eroded, these statements must be given credence. It is the next logical step. It is the only possible way to explain them. The way to make these statements become true is to attack the idea that there are only certain things that are true, and certain things that are false. Once you have attacked that, then the law of non contradiction becomes nothing more than another idea that somebody made up one day to try and prove a point.

So what is the point? We as a human race have collectively declared that we observe, feel and conclude that a person can be right or wrong when it comes to statistics, mathematics, architecture, grammar, biology, anatomy, pharmaceuticals, botany, physics, language, and morality.

Why do we assume any different for the things of God?

Truth is not subject to interpretations or feelings. It is not altered by cultural upbringing or by location in the globe. Truth does not need to appease your emotions in order to be true. The contradictions that we have discussed are evidence that someone can be wrong and someone can be right. Often Christians are portrayed as narrow minded or fundamentalist. If narrow minded means that I believe that truth is narrow, then yes I am narrow minded. And if fundamentalist means that I believe that there are certain things that exist in this universe that are true independent of subjective human feelings and their interpretations, then yes I am a fundamentalist.

My closing thought for you would be to think about this concept and to ask yourself, can I be wrong about God?

The average life span of a human is 66.12 years (2008 est). If truth was subject to what we thought about it that would have to mean that we were definers of absolute truth. But, the only truths that we would be able to define would be in the span of our lives. Since we have a life span, it means that our truths end when we do.

We are not absolute. We do not outlive everything. Therefore, if anyone else’s self defined truths should differ from ours, there exists a contradiction. Resolution of contradiction is necessary for truth. It cannot exist without it. Truth is exclusive. I end with a statement of exclusivity by a man named Jesus.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”

The word atheist can be broken down into two parts. The first part is “a” meaning no, not, or without. The second part is “theism” meaning god-belief. Therefore: “atheism” means without god-belief.

Commonly, games of semantics come into play as to whether this word and belief  have come to mean, “I do not believe a deity exists” or “I believe a deity does not exist” The difference in the structure of these sentences is one of an active postulate and a passive postulate. In order to adopt an active postulate, therein lays a burden of proof. To adopt a passive postulate is to avoid having to prove anything.

Whether the person adopting atheism takes the active or passive postulate is not essential to our discussion. Either way, these statements are both absolute negations of God and are, in actuality, an impossible position. In order to make an absolute negation, you would need to posses infinite knowledge of the entire universe.

For example, if I was to say to you that there is no such thing as a yellow stone with blue dots anywhere in the universe that implies that I have knowledge of all stones, everywhere throughout the universe. If I say to you that there is a yellow stone with blue dots in the universe that merely requires knowledge of the stone itself. So, absolute negations require omniscience. I do not think that it need be said, but we all can agree that humans are incapable of infinite knowledge. As a result of such an obvious fact, we cannot possibly have the resources to be the culmination of all existence and all knowledge.

The first requirement of atheism is infinite knowledge.

Theism on the other hand does not presuppose infinite knowledge, atheism presupposes infinite knowledge. Theism merely claims that there is enough evidence in our existence to come to a conclusion. It is very difficult for atheists to show evidence for the conclusions that they have reached. When asked to prove that God does not exist, many are left in the same position as the theist trying to prove the counterpoint. Most atheists realizing the bankruptcy of such a position as an absolute negation have translated themselves into agnostics. I find it somewhat important to say that the word agnostic in Greek meant “one who did not know”.

When we make decisions as to what we believe to be true or untrue, we go through several steps. We first start with a question or a concept that we wish to investigate. We then form an idea of what we assume is the truth. This includes or bias, our prejudice, prior knowledge of the subject and our hypothesis. Next we move to the research stage. We read, write, blog, discuss, observe, think, and wrestle with the conclusions of our observations. It is after the research stage that we must come back to the hypothesis stage and see if our data and our research have been shown to be correct. If the data suggests otherwise, a person would be wise to amend his hypothesis. How much data do you think that we have amassed throughout the centuries about our world?

If you were to see a marble sculpture of a perfectly symmetrical cube in the middle of the woods, what would your rational mind tell you about the origins of it? Would you assume that some type of wind had eroded marble pieces from all over the region and gathered them together all for the purpose of art?

Ask yourself this question, in your entire life, have you ever seen evidence to suggest that precisely balanced systems (biological, mechanical, chemical, physical, and mathematical) scattered throughout nature, and in our lives could possibly arrive as a result of chaos? Has anarchy ever produced law? Has a scientist ever created something out of nothing? No. It is not possible. In fact the first Law of Thermodynamics states that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.” So anything that has ever existed came into existence at once. Everything that we as humans have ever made, created, invented, achieved, and built has come from what already was provided for us.

Instead, may I suggest a very basic term that describes what we witness with our eyes everyday? Design. Design is defined as – 1. To plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc. 2. To intend for a definite purpose. Would the cube sculpture imply a sculptor? Do we observe purpose in nature? Do we see perfectly balanced systems in which the slightest variation results in a breakdown of function? Or do we see a world where chaos and chance bring about order, design, function, complexity and uniqueness?

The second requirement of atheism is to attribute all beauty and science observable by humans as a mere process of coincidence and chance. Naturalism is the second requirement of atheism.

The question that must be posed to the atheist is, “What would it take for you to acknowledge a God, what kind of evidence do you require, and what is the basis of your rejection of such a notion?” It is in the answer to that question that you will find the true nature and motives of this philosophical world view. If the person says that it would take an act of God for them to believe, than you obviously cannot provide that, for you are not God. If the person says that nothing could make them believe, no matter what is presented to them, it reveals a type if intellectual and logical suicide, for they are assuming that they are the pinnacle of intelligence and knowledge. If the person says that they are willing to hear the evidence, but are not willing to accept it, they have already made their conclusion before hearing all of the information that can be presented to them. Is this the Darwinian pinnacle of intellectualism at its finest? Or is it a person who will do anything to deny the existence of God?

Often times, this is best illustrated when confronting an atheist with the concept of morality. Usually morality is something that atheists will say is subjective, while theists maintain that it is absolute. It is the difference in these two points of view that we observe an unusual phenomenon.

The start of the logical error occurs when presenting any type of horrible hypothetical situation to an atheist. I have used this example before. “What if I came into your house in the middle of the night and tied up your whole family? I sexually assaulted your wife and children. Then I murder them all in front of you and I leave you so badly wounded that you never walk again. Was that right or wrong of me to do?” Here is where the phenomenon occurs. Their first instinct tells them of course it is wrong. There is no question in his or her mind. To consider such an atrocity to be right would be insane. The atheist must however find some way to convey moral outrage while maintaining the position that they have no right to be outraged. Rather than coming to a conclusion based on something that every human being has, a conscience, the atheist must find a way to ignore it.

The third requirement of atheism is to believe that any person has the right to commit any type of unlawful, perverse, or evil deed; as long as they can explain why it was right for them. This is relativism at its best.

Such are the requirements of the atheist. Yet, here is the best part. These requirements are not possible, at least not by any human being. I will leave you with a dialogue that I obtained from a website. I found it be a very good example of how a simple two paragraph conversation could very clearly illustrate what this post has been about. Matt is our theist, absolutist, non-contradictory friend. Bill is our atheist, relativist, humanistic friend. I ask you this question as you read….Which one of these sounds like it is truth? The beauty of God is that he made truth simple for us to understand it.

Matt:

“Is it subjective that all knowledge is subjective? If so, how can he say that since it is subjective?”

Bill:

“No, you just don’t understand. It is perfectly acceptable to say that subjectively all knowledge is subjective. You’re just dismissing the possibility because you don’t like it.”

Matt:

“Not at all. I am using logic to address it. Logic is not subjective. Subjectivity is relativism. If all things were subjective, then nothing is true….except the notion that all things are subjective… which means the statement itself is subjective and not absolute.”

Bill:

“And the problem with that is?”

Matt:

“The problem is that it is self defeating. I’m not saying that some forms of knowledge cannot be subjective. I am saying that there ARE logical absolutes. That is the issue.  Again… do logical absolutes exist? If you say no, then you are giving me an absolute; namely, that no logical absolutes exist. Here is the point. Logical absolutes exist. They are, by nature, conceptual absolutes.  Conceptual absolutes exist in the mind. They do not reside in matter.  These logical absolutes cannot be quantified or tested in a lab. Yet, they exist.  In fact, scientists USE these logical absolutes as a basis for verifying their science. The problem for the atheist is accounting for their existence. Since the logical absolutes are conceptual, they transcend all people at all time and are absolute in all circumstances… since they are absolute.  Conceptual Absolutes cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. But they can be accounted for in a theistic one. The Absolute God with and absolute mind, has conceived of the logical absolutes. They are a reflection of His mind.  At least I can offer an explanation for their existence where the atheist cannot.”

Hello Friends,

I would like to suggest a new format for this blog. I started using this blog to establish a forum for a discussion about absolute truth and how we form truth in our minds. I still feel that this is a valid topic. However, that being said, I would like to alter the format slightly. I cannot continue to write this blog without letting people know the reason and purpose of this blog.

In 2009, if a person says that they are a Christian, what is the first thing that you think? Do you think that they are crazy? Do you automatically categorize the person’s intellectual abilities? Do you assume that they are in some ways weaker than others? Do you think, “Oh great, here’s another one.” Maybe you think, “Oh they have religion.” Or maybe you think that it is good for them, but isn’t for you.

The motivation for this blog is to show people that it is possible to be an intellectual and a Christian. It is to show people that being a Christian is not a blind leap into darkness. It is to show the beauty of the fact that the message of what Jesus came here to tell us, can be understood by a child, and yet grasped by a Cambridge philosophy doctor. All that is required is the adjusting of the conversation. The facts never change. They never have.

Being a Christian is not a cop out and being a Christian is not easy. Choosing Christ above myself is the hardest thing I have ever done. Everyday it is a battle. And yet, it is worth it. This blog is to illustrate, that the very ideas at the foundations of Christianity line up with all of our combined logic, reason, and knowledge.

That said, I would like to state some things that I think are important. In the future I will attempt to explain how these concepts or these thoughts are true. Not this exact list. But the topic is God. It was truth, but He is the source of all truth. So why not just go to the source.

• I believe that there is a God.
• I believe that we can know Him.
• His gift to us is for all who would accept it. But it is not to be taken lightly. It is a promise. It is a covenant. It is a most holy thing.
• I cannot escape my love for Him.
• I do not ever want to.
• He has put a love in me for other souls that I cannot describe.
• I believe that the Bible is the word of God.
• It is like no other book in history.  It is completely unique.
• There has never been a book that combines 1600 years, over 60+ generations, and 40+ authors. It contains 2,000 references to “thus sayeth the Lord”.  It was written by political leaders, fisherman, prime ministers, generals, rabbis, tax collectors, historians, doctors, cup bearers, and kings. It was written in dungeons, prisons, synagogues, hillsides, beaches. It was written in times of peace and times of war. It was written in different moods. It stretched over the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. It was written in three languages – Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
• It covers hundreds of topics and concepts, all of which comes together in harmony.
• Try reading it, you will be surprised.
• I do not believe that I am different from anyone else, and if God can make himself real to me, it is possible for anyone.
• My faith is not blind.
• I do not believe that God is a crutch for the weak minded.
• On the contrary, I know that the more I hear, see, touch, taste, smell, and think only reassures the fact that although I am of no significance, that there is a God who wants to know me.
• Every day there is ample evidence that is around me that shows me that God exists.
• Although many would say so, science is not in combat with God. Science is in harmony with Him.
• God is a perfect father, equally just and loving. He is perfect and cannot allow imperfection to be with him.
• I do not believe that a perfect judge in a courtroom would allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to go free.
• We all are no different then these. We all have done wrong. You know it and I know it.
• How can I ever hope to be released from the debt that I owe?I believe that the most difficult thing a person could do is to deny everything that comes naturally all for the sake of showing appreciation and love for what God did for you.
• Not because you have to. But because you want to.
• It is my responsibility to tell everyone I know, because I love them and I care about them.

Hello Friends,

This will not be a lengthy post, as I am sure that every once in a while, you would appreciate something shorter. In my previous posts, I have used the example of an innate moral law that exists in all of us as an example for objective truth. This is a short list of some things that have been said by some of the most famous people in history regarding morality. They are skeptics, authors, scientists, philosophers, and world leaders. But all quoted here seemed to touch on the subject at least once. My reasons for giving this list is to illustrate that even the most well known people in history cannot escape the complete exclusivity of this truth that we call moral law. We may disagree on where it comes from but that is not the topic of our discussion. Rather my object here is to merely point out that this is just one example of an objective truth that exists, free from man’s opinion or thought. In other words, they are absolute. As you read these, ask yourself this question: “If even skeptics, philosophers, and world leaders can admit that morality is not something that is determined or comprehensible by human reason or thought, what then is preventing me from accepting it as an absolute? Do I find reasonable evidence to suggest such a conclusion for the contrary, or am I maintaining my position because it suits my feelings?” Enjoy.

• “Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without, and the moral law within. ” – Immanuel Kant
• “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it, and nothing true.” – Socrates
• “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depends on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.” – Albert Einstein
• “The moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing.” – Thomas Jefferson
• “When virtue is lost, benevolence appears, when benevolence is lost right conduct appears, when right conduct is lost, expedience appears. Expediency is the mere shadow of right and truth; it is the beginning of disorder.” – Lao-Tzu
• “All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.” – Voltaire
• “The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.” – Mark Twain
• “The rules of morality are not the conclusion of our reason.” - David Hume