Cannot Be Broken

Debates about which Bible version is best generally focus on peripheral concepts: archaic language, the age of certain Greek manuscripts, or theological clarity. The primary evidence is often overlooked: the consistency of the Majority Text proves it’s the most reliable — random copying errors don’t account for it, as KJV critics claim.

To illustrate, suppose 127 college students transmit a 1000-word short story, where the 1st student makes 2 hand copies from the original and gives the copies to 2 more students; those 2 students each make 2 more hand copies of their copy and pass those 4 copies on to 4 more students, who each make 2 more copies, etc. Seven copy generations yields 254 new manuscripts to compare with the original.

Assuming unintentional, random copying errors, one may easily note that the earlier in the transcription process a mistake is made the more prevalent the error will be in the total set of manuscripts. Additionally, it’s virtually impossible for any particular error to occur in more than half the manuscripts; the only probable way for any single error to be prevalent in the majority is for the very first student to deliberately introduce the same error into both of their copies, violating randomness.

This fact proves the Majority text, which is generally consistent within itself concerning supposed errors, has a single original source: the general consistency of the manuscripts can only be rightly accounted for in this way.

Carefully consider: there are only two possible sources for the Majority text — the autographs themselves, or another set of manuscripts deliberately constructed to supplant the autographs. This fact forced the revisers of 1881 to propose the myth of the Syrian Recension to justify their preference for the Alexandrian Text.

The patent absurdity of the Syrian Recension proves the Majority Text represents the autographs, and therefore that most modern translations are based on a corrupt manuscript witness. This is the only proper foundation for a KJV debate.

Arguments focused on archaisms in the KJV miss the forest for the trees. After a 3-minute tutorial on thee, thou and basic verb tenses, only a very small percentage (0.16%, or 1-2 per 1000) of the words in the KJV are archaic. Learning new words from time to time is a given for anyone pursuing truth; it’s why we have dictionaries.

Debating which version better supports orthodox theology is irrational: theology depends upon scripture, not vice versa — we may not rightly argue for the validity of scripture based on how it supports our beliefs. This debate is about which words were in the autographs, not the doctrines implied by them.

And diminishing the value of the KJV by claiming certain verses are incorrectly translated, when the reasoning of its translators is no longer available, is subjective at best and does more harm than good. No imperfection in the KJV causes us to believe or act improperly as we trust and obey it (unlike most newer translations – e.g. His Virgin). This should be the whole of the matter … it’s the very reason we have the Word of God. What’s left to discuss?

God inspired His Word in written form to accomplish a purpose, which is unfulfilled merely by the autographs: to enable His elect, in many ages and nations and languages, to be mature and complete, thoroughly and completely equipped unto all good works. (2Ti 3:16-17)

God didn’t inspire His Word in vain: He says the scripture cannot be broken. (Jn 10:35) We can be sure He has preserved His Word across time, and across languages, sufficiently to achieve His purpose. That’s exactly what God does — faithfully keep His promises. So, find His Word in a language you can understand today; trust it, memorize it, and obey it as the very Word of God.

articles     blog

What Thinkest Thou?

Jesus Christ, knowing all things (Jn 16:30), is always asking questions; it’s not because He doesn’t know the answers: He’s giving us unique opportunities to understand, leading us to new insights and answers.

For example, when Simon Peter is pondering whether he and Christ are obligated to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24), Christ leads with a question: “What do you think, Simon? Do kings tax their own children, or strangers?” (25) The answer is obvious to Peter: “Strangers,” yet it’s the same question. Since the temple is God’s house, Christ’s own Father, He and the disciples are exempt. (26) Why is the question more effective than just telling Peter the answer?

In the Garden, as He’s being betrayed, Christ asks Judas two penetrating questions — as Judas is in the very act of committing the greatest crime in history: “Friend, why have you come?” (Mt 26:50a) Christ knows perfectly well what Judas is doing (46), so why the question? How is this better than just confronting Judas and accusing him?

The second question: “Are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Lk 22:48) The deed is done, but really? With a token of affection and loyalty? You thought this through?

Judas doesn’t answer either question, which is telling. He’s been deceiving himself, and is fully committed to walking in darkness. These questions were light in his darkness, showing himself to be what even he himself could not tolerate, (Mt 27:3-4a), and likely brought Judas to the end of himself. (5)

When Christ is exposing Simon the Pharisee, He tells a simple parable and asks Simon to interpret it. (Lk 7:41-42) Again, the answer is unmistakably obvious (43), and Christ agrees. Yet the parallels to their present relationship are undeniable, forcing Simon to face the coldness of his own heart, revealed by his own confession.

Christ asks us these kinds of questions because we need to consider them and look inside for answers. We know a whole lot more than we might think; if we’re seeking hard truths about ourselves, God reveals them to us through our own spirits. (Pr 20:27) When we ourselves come up with the answers it’s much more natural to accept them.

So, how do we emulate the Master here? How do we help folk find answers to the toughest, growth-spurring questions rather than spoon-feeding them? Perhaps by loving others enough to really care about helping them understand, rather than impressing them with our own knowledge. Perhaps by investing, taking time to get to know our audience, to understand them, listening, studying their strengths and weaknesses, asking God for wisdom to use common sense in illustrating spiritual reality.

And we must understand what we’re talking about, well enough to ask the right questions, surgically pointing others to God’s answers. We must study to show ourselves approved, not to men but to God. (2Ti 2:15)

articles     blog

Better Not to Have Known

There’s great responsibility involved in how we respond to truth; God’s very concerned about how we receive truth and what we do with it; He holds us accountable.

God’s wrath is revealed from Heaven against all who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Ro 1:18), who have the truth but turn from it and don’t obey it. It’s worse to disobey the truth once it’s revealed than to disobey in ignorance.

In other words, we’re better off not to have known the way of righteousness than to turn away from the holy commandments given to us (2Pe 2:21) There’s mercy when we sin in ignorance (1Ti 1:13), but no mercy for presumptuous sin. (He 10:26-27)

And it’s not just the truth we actually know, but it’s all truth which we have the opportunity to know, which we could know if we love the truth and pursue it. (2Pe 3:5) This is how all will be judged. (Ro 1:20-21)

So, we should consider carefully the example of our Lord Jesus, how He was very selective in who He revealed truth to, and when. He deliberately hid the truth from those who were superficial in their interest, speaking vaguely in parables and riddles. (Mt 13:13-15) His pattern was to reveal Himself only to those who were seeking truth, and He often required significant obedience before giving them much revelation at all.* He didn’t cast His pearls before swine, and encourages us likewise. (Mt 7:6)

This isn’t cruel or unloving, to be careful with truth, thoughtful in who we speak to, strategic in what we tell them and when. It’s the most loving thing to do with those who hate the light, which is most people. (Jn 3:19-20) If we shine bright lights into the eyes of the wicked, they won’t respond well; it just reveals their hatred of the light and makes them more culpable. Then they get angry with us. Not good for anyone.

There’s Hell to pay, literally, for missing Christ, so we might reason that it doesn’t matter much if people don’t respond well and are more guilty as a result of our witness; perhaps we should just shove everything we know at them and hope for the best: they might get some of it. Yet we must remember that there are levels in Hell (Mt 11:22) as well as in Heaven; it’s not one-size-fits-all. (Mt 5:19) Spray and pray isn’t the example of Christ or of Paul (Ac 17:31), and we should soberly consider this.

We must also think carefully and soberly about ourselves, those of us who have found Christ and are following Him the best we know how: are we living in such a way that honors what we know, that gives it the heart, flesh and bone it deserves? Do we buy the truth, and sell it not? (Pr 23:23) counting it more precious than the trinkets of this world? Does our joy in God reflect His majesty? Does our love for others reflect His? Are we walking worthy of God? (1Th 2:12)

Is there anything we can do today that might move us closer to God? Anything at all that might align us more fully with His Way? Let’s ask God to show us the next step (Php 3:15), and then do this. Let us draw near to God, and work out our deliverance from the coldness and lifelessness of dead religion with fear and trembling (Php 2:12), for our God is austere, a consuming fire. (He 12:29) He has chosen us to obedience (1Pe 1:2), and is able to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. (Jud 24)

writings    posts

*See comments below

Vessels of Mercy

Predestination and election are difficult to understand until we diligently consider the context — the dreadfully sinful human condition: Man’s Depravity. Apart from carefully integrating this concept throughout our theology, many fundamental precepts of Scripture appear hopelessly irreconcilable.

For example, how can God choose who will be saved while respecting Man’s Free Will? Similarly, How can a loving God be in total control when there’s so much evil and suffering? These are perhaps the hardest questions, and they aren’t peripheral; they’re fundamental spiritual bedrock. We can’t afford to dismiss them, yet resolving such mysteries seems impossible. Many stumble here, and go no further.

Yet God Himself gives us the key by addressing the problem directly, asking these same questions, and then answering them. God’s purpose in election will be realized (Ro 9:11) yet God will be totally righteous in it all (14), because God’s not obligated to be merciful (15) — by definition: mercy is undeserved, never justly required.

The reality is, if God didn’t elect anyone, choose anyone to be saved, and He let us all go our own way — we would: every last one of us would walk away from Him; we would not come to Him. (Mt 22:3) This would be fair, certainly, but then Heaven would be desolate (Lk 14:16-18a), and the world filled with even more evil and suffering than it already is. (Ge 6:5) This is what Depravity teaches us (11), if we listen. (Je 17:9)

So, if God chooses to intervene in a few of us, choosing us out from the masses and giving us new hearts and new wills that don’t run away, He’s showing mercy in election, not being unjust.

God never actually turns anyone away who seeks Him, or causes anyone to do evil; He controls by mercifully restraining us from acting out our full evil nature according to His sovereign purposes. (2Th 2:7) There’s nothing at all inappropriate about restraining evil; so, God’s in absolute control of all that happens (Ep 1:11), yet He’s also perfectly good, just and merciful; He’s righteous and holy in all He does. (Ps 145:17)

In giving us new hearts God doesn’t force us against our will; what He does in His elect is heal our will, displacing our love of lies, which moved us to distrust and despise Him, with a love for truth; He works in us to will according to His good pleasure (Php 2:13), such that we begin to want to do good. He works all this in us for our good and for His glory. (Ro 8:28)

The only remaining challenge here is: Why doesn’t God save everyone if He has this ability? The answer lies in God’s glory: He’s most glorified in fully revealing His nature, His wrath and power as well as His love and mercy. (Ro 9:22-23) If God didn’t let most all of His enemies act like enemies, and treat them as He does, we’d know much less about Him, so that’s exactly what He’s doing; God is perfectly revealing and glorifying Himself by only saving a few. (Re 15:3)

Rather than faulting God for being absolutely sovereign, and for choosing only a remnant to be saved, we ought to let all the blame for evil lie where it truly belongs: with sinful Man, and glorify God for His mercy. (Ro 15:9) Rather than complaining and running away, we seek God until we find Him (He 11:6), and discover that we’re indeed elect, vessels of divine mercy. (Ro 9:23)

And in being vessels of infinite mercy (Ps 103:11), undeserving recipients of God’s kindness, love and favor, we also ought to be merciful (Lk 6:36), to be compassionate toward those who are out of the way (He 5:2), esteeming others better than ourselves. (Php 2:3)

writings    posts

Give an Answer

When unbelievers ask us why we believe and act the way we do, why we have any hope living in this evil, broken world, we should be ready to answer. (1Pe 3:15) We shouldn’t just give them sentiment either; true faith is based on facts.

Scientific facts, archaeological and historical facts, well-attested to over centuries, provide the groundwork of earnest belief. We don’t believe a certain way just because our parents did, or because friends and family agree. Godly faith isn’t blind; it’s grounded in wisdom and reason. We should be familiar with the factual grounds of our faith and be prepared to provide a reasonable defense.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to our faith will be on moral grounds, why we don’t accept the LGBTQ or Social Justice agenda. Those who’ve invented their own false Christ think He accepts any behavior because He’s too loving to correct or rebuke anyone. They won’t tolerate those who refuse to bow the knee to political correctness.

In the face of such challenges, is it appropriate to begin quoting scripture? If they reject scripture as authoritative, why would they care what it says? The wicked are often expert at finding flaws in arguments, pointing out apparent inconsistencies, and referencing academic/scientific authorities to support their rejection of Christianity. Trying to answer their objections can be very difficult and time consuming, and  even well-reasoned answers will be unacceptable to the darkened heart. This approach seldom ends well.

Perhaps it is better to ask them to explain the basis of their own confidence. In my experience, atheists don’t arrive at their position through any clear evidence, but by rejecting false religion: it’s a strawman fallacy. For a moral code, ask them how they know what good and evil are, and why they act as if evil exists. They can’t help but act this way; it’s in their very design. How so?

If they can’t site some scripture somewhere, some official written moral code that isn’t subject to their momentary whim, perhaps Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim, which they’re following earnestly and consistently, they’re simply making up their own morality as they go. Why then should they get so frustrated when they see us (supposedly) doing the same thing? It’s irrational.

And on the rare occasion when an antagonist does follow some documented code of conduct, it’s easy then to ask what evidence they have that this code was revealed by God. If they’re letting some mere mortal set up their moral code, why impose this on others? This isn’t much better than making up our own.

The very existence of the Jewish people proves God exists, and that Torah is His moral code: it’s not Man-made. And the very existence of Christianity proves that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and he believed in Torah. If they can’t point to any other code with a more compelling factual and historical basis, and they can’t even get close, then why not follow Torah?

Such an approach may cause an unbeliever to consider why they feel so smug and confident in their unbelief, and to begin to question their own faith. Perhaps God would use this to convict them and move them to seek Him. (Ac 17:27)

articles     blog

Dull of Hearing

An inability to hear or see severely limits our opportunity to receive new information. Most of us cherish our sight and hearing in the natural realm, but not so much in the spiritual; we tend to think we’ve already arrived (Php 3:13), to be wise in our own conceits (Ro 12:16c), thinking we already know it all. We tend to close ourselves off to anything new, choosing to ignore what doesn’t fit with our preconceptions, dimming our own sight and dulling our own ears, locking ourselves into our current errors and limited understanding. (Mt 13:15)

When we read our Bibles in this state, or participate in spiritual discussions, we aren’t really listening with an intent to learn; we’re waiting for an opportunity to reinforce or show off what we think we already know. We ignore and dismiss ideas which might contradict our current view; we want to be perceived to be right, rather than actually being right. We become dull of hearing, unteachable. (He 5:11)

Scripture calls such behavior loving darkness, and it’s our natural state (Jn 3:19); it takes an act of God to wake us up (Ep 2:1) and fill us with love for truth. (2Ti 2:25) Apart from God’s intervention, making us truth lovers, we’d all be deceived and eternally damned. (2Th 2:10)

How do we know if we’re dull of hearing? Simple: when we perceive something inconsistent with our current way, how do we respond? In the natural realm, we carefully consider obstacles and incorporate them into our world view, understanding them and navigating them, or leveraging them as tools to help us on our way. But if we’re constantly ignoring and dismissing reality itself, stumbling over the aspects of it we don’t like and not even noticing, it proves we’re blind, deaf and insensitive to pain – disconnected from the natural world and largely unaware of it. (Jn 11:10) In such brokenness, we don’t tend to last very long. (Mt 15:14)

When we perceive any aspect of reality which might not align with our current world view, a lover of truth pauses and carefully reflects on this new information. What am I missing? How does this fit with my current understanding? If something doesn’t fit, I need to adjust my thinking until it does … until everything fits into a coherent whole. I am poor in spirit; I need others to challenge me, to help me see my blind spots, where I’ve been deceived, where darkness still dwells in me. Everyone knows something I don’t; let my hearing be clear and sharp, so I can learn what I should as God crosses our paths.

writings    posts

Your Own Conceits

The carnal nature in us, our old man, presumes we already know all we need to know; we don’t seek truth since we think we already have enough. It often operates in a vacuum of desperate self-deception (Re 3:17); the less we know the more confident we are in our understanding: in the extreme, it’s being utterly confident while knowing virtually nothing. (Pr 26:16)

We can detect this well-known principle operating in us, called the Dunning-Kruger effect, when we find ourselves over-estimating our own ability or knowledge, or underestimating that of others. Simply ask, what do I really know about this? How well do my ideas hold up under the scrutiny of experts who disagree with me? How well do I understand their best counter-arguments? Do I have training and experience demonstrating my capability under stress? What are the true boundaries of this area? Is my confidence based on facts or presumption? Whenever we find ourselves smugly confident, unwilling to listen to and deeply consider the claims, opinions or skills of others, we’re deceiving ourselves. (Ja 1:22)

Were it not for the restraining grace of God, our sin nature here would put each of us well beyond hope (Ro 7:24), for one who thinks he already knows has closed his mind (Mt 13:15) and can’t learn. (Pr 26:12) But this presumption is simply pride rooted in lies; we can learn from anyone, we can always improve if we’re poor in spirit and love the truth. As we perceive this arrogance operating within, it’s time to humble ourselves, soften our hearts, and repent. (Ja 4:10)

Rather than thinking we’ve arrived (Php 3:13-14) and are superior to others (Ro 2:19), God tells us all to be not wise in our own conceits (Ro 12:16c): helping each other seek and find the truth (a), esteeming others better, focusing first on fundamentals, along with the lowly. (b) Generally, when we’re missing it big, we’re missing the basics. (Mt 23:23)

This isn’t to say that we can’t be confident in our knowledge of God (Je 9:24), that we must always be doubting everything. (2Ti 1:12) There is room in faith and humility for confidence and certainty. (He_10:22) While that is true, it is also true that we don’t know everything about anything. (1Co 8:2) We can be both confident and teachable, grounded in the truth while ever seeking more of it.

writings    posts

Clearly Seen

To design is to envision an outcome and then purposely determine how to rearrange matter to achieve that outcome. The context might be physical, resulting in a tool or a machine, or metaphysical – symbols or imagery conveying meaning, or a combination of the two. Design is ultimately produced only by intelligence; unconscious matter cannot envision, purpose or determine.

Easter Island StatueComplexity is a measure of difficulty in design; more complex designs require more intelligence. When we encounter highly complex, inanimate designs we immediately recognize them, and we naturally ascribe the intelligent cause to humans; proposing any other cause is irrational.

Yet living creatures also have the appearance of profoundly complex and exquisite design, far beyond human capability, so it’s natural to infer the existence of a supreme Mind, a God, the Designer of the human mind, and to be inspired unto worship. (Ps 139:14)

But when we’re predisposed to rule out the possibility of a transcendent, intelligent Cause a priori, we invariably struggle with the apparent design of living creatures, desperately looking for a natural cause rather than a divine one.

Enter Charles Darwin, a mid-19th century biologist offering an explanation (Evolution) for how unintelligent processes might account for the appearance of design in Nature: organisms change (evolve) over time due to slight, random changes in offspring (Common Descent), some of which improve chances of survival; in competing for scarce resources, random (unintelligent) processes tend to eliminate inferior organisms (Natural Selection), favoring those more suitably adapted to their environment. Given sufficient time, Darwin supposed such processes might plausibly account for design throughout Nature.

Yet Darwin and his contemporaries were unable to explain how Evolution works at the required level of detail; they were clueless about the complex biological machinery of life because the tools enabling this level of research were unavailable until the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Now, we understand the molecular mechanism which drives Evolution: random anomalies (mutations) may occur during DNA replication which alter the structure of proteins, the building blocks of living cells; some of these changes are beneficial, helping offspring survive.

This explains, for example, the wide variety of Galapagos finches or African cichlids; Evolution nicely accounts for variations within a kind of organism (generally within the same family classification, micro-evolution), but it has not yet explained how the various kinds of organisms (family and above, macro-evolution) came to exist in the first place. Why not?

Differences between families of organisms, say between a finch and a swan, or between a cichlid and a shark, lie at the molecular level, in the myriad array of biological machines which make up living cells. Many of these machines are irreducibly complex: disabling any one of the component parts breaks the machine; such machines cannot be formed gradually, in a step-wise manner, continuously improving or altering their function: it’s all or nothing.

Consequently, after decades of intense research, scientists hoping to find a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design of living systems find themselves at an impasse: mutations in DNA replication cannot reasonably account for the large differences between diverse kinds of biological machines. It’s like proposing that blueprints (DNA) for sewing machines came from haphazard copying errors (mutations) to blueprints for washing machines, one step at a time, such that each intermediate machine (none of which were ever actually observed) worked as well as or better than the prior one. It’s unthinkable, patently absurd.

It should come as no surprise then to find that, to date (early 2020), no scientific publication of any kind explains exactly how random rearrangements of DNA could reasonably account for the design of any irreducibly complex molecular machine in any living organism, not even the simplest of these machines. The reason is obvious: each one comprises many very complex proteins arranged in very specific ways to achieve very complex functions, much more complex than a sewing machine.

The chances of randomly forming a typical, useful protein molecule from scratch, even if all (20 or so) required types of components are present, compares to blindly selecting a particular atom from among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.

Even if we start with a similar but fundamentally different kind of supposed parent machine, the time required to randomly generate just a handful of the numerous mutations needed to form the specific proteins required by any one of these complex biological machines would be astronomical. In other words, even the simplest of the biological systems is so extremely complex that it is inconceivable for even one of them to come into existence via Evolution.

This scientific impasse is not based on an absence of knowledge (God of the gaps), but on overwhelming biochemical evidence that is only becoming increasingly problematic for Evolution as we learn more about how living organisms work. No reasonable alternative theories have been proposed which explain the scientific data, and given the overwhelming nature of the evidence, we have no reason to ever expect a naturalistic explanation.

The only rational conclusion we can now derive from science is that every living thing is designed by a very powerful Mind. The entire body of scientific knowledge in biochemistry points to this conclusion; there is zero evidence for macro-evolution.

Divine design is now more evident in living things than is human design in inanimate things, which we readily accept where we’re free from crippling bias. Design is clearly seen everywhere, being understood by us all, whether we happen to like it or not. (Ro 1:20)

writings    posts

None Good but God

When a rich young man approaches Jesus Christ to inquire about salvation, he begins by addressing Christ as “Good Master.” (Mt 19:16) Christ replies, as He often does, by questioning the young man: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (17a)

Christ systematically uses questions to help us think through what we’re doing so we can find the truth. This case appears to be no different. What is Christ leading the young man to discover?

Some might claim from Christ’s response that He’s rebuking the young man, admitting that He Himself isn’t good because He isn’t God. If this were true, then a rebuke would certainly be appropriate, but it presupposes that Christ is merely human. So, treating this as evidence of Christ’s mere humanity is classic circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

If we observe carefully, Christ doesn’t actually assert that He isn’t good, or that the young man’s address is inappropriate; the mere question isn’t a condemnation. Christ simply affirms that no one is truly good except God; everyone else is sinful and depraved by nature. So, is the young man acknowledging the divinity and perfection of Christ, or is he flattering a sinful creature like himself? Christ’s challenge is to awaken: either Christ is God, or He isn’t good.

This question challenges us all, does it not? Many are tempted to describe Jesus Christ as merely a good, moral teacher, perhaps the greatest ever, and nothing more. Yet Christ Himself doesn’t leave us this option: He spoke in ways that were totally inappropriate for a mere man. (Jn 8:12, 19, 23, 29, 58)

So, we’re left to choose: either Christ is God, or He wasn’t good; there is no in-between. This is the most profound choice one will ever make, so choose wisely and fully, and then live accordingly.

Unless we find some clear fault in Jesus Christ, some obvious flaw in His character, it’s exceedingly unwise to presume He isn’t Who He claims to be. (Jn_14:6) A Man who foretells His own innocent suffering and death (Mt 16:21), and claims He will raise Himself from the dead (Jn 10:17-18), and then pulls this off — and actually does it — has given us more proof than we could ever need.

writings    posts

Thou, LORD, Hast Done It

Evidence for the existence of God is found in what He’s done, things no one else could possibly do. (Ps 109:27) It’s based on the Law of Cause and Effect; that every effect, everything that happens, has a cause. If the cause can’t be natural, then it must be supernatural: God must be the Cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the primary way of establishing the existence of God (Ro 1:20-21), is based on this law:

  1. Everything that comes into being has a cause.
  2. The universe came into being.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is merely a restatement of the Law of Cause and Effect, which forms the basis of all scientific inquiry. We presuppose it whenever we’re trying to understand something natural. When we’re being honest, we never suppose something just is, that it’s causeless. We instinctively ask Why? looking for the cause. People only deny this law when they’re biased, averse to the implications – and there’s just one scenario like this: when the Cause is God. We find the idea absurd otherwise; it opposes science itself.

Premise 2 is true because if Nature (i.e. everything that is natural) is infinitely old then it would be at steady state with no usable energy (due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), and it’s not. Since Nature is not infinitely old, it must have come into being.

So, the universe, or Nature, the entire space-time continuum, came into being; therefore it had a cause. Nature could not have caused itself since effects must be distinct from their causes; the cause of all of Nature must therefore be distinct from and separate from all of Nature. Thus the cause of Nature cannot be natural; it must be non-physical, beyond space and time: spiritual, supernatural. We call this supernatural, spiritual Cause of Nature: God.

writings    posts