Preface: Concerning This Post Series

Note: This is part of a mini-series; reading the posts in order will help them to be understood. This is the first post but many more will come

Introduction

As someone who has grown up as a born again child of God, I’ve been familiar with Christian apologetics for years. However, over the past couple of years I’ve definitely done considerably more thinking on the ideas of the existence of God, inspiration of Scripture, and Jehovah being God. I hope to share some of my current thoughts on the issues in this series.

I intend to be succinct and straightforward. At times I may fail, for some ideas are very difficult to communicate, but I will try.

Disclaimer: I am a man of faith, I believe many things. The list could go on and on, but let me just present a few:

  • There is one God, Creator of the universe, and He is Jehovah
  • God represented Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ
  • Jesus died for the sins of (at least) those chosen to be His Bride and rose from the dead
  • The Bible is a book written by many men but inspired by God

Thus, I have biases. I try to maintain impartiality in my reasoning, but I am wise enough to realize impartiality is at best extraordinarily difficult, and I would not claim it for a minute. However, biases do not mean valid and sound reasoning are not possible, and I think I’ve had some success in my endeavors.

Many people think I’m crazy for my beliefs, I understand. The question I want to pursue is this: “Let’s get down to the basics, what is actually reasonable to believe? Is ‘believing’ itself even reasonable?” And then I’ll continue from there.

I would love feedback (email or comment) and will address questions in the comment/email thread or in later posts.

§36 · April 6, 2011 · 338 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series), Miscellaneous · 3 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Part One: Concerning Faith and Reason

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

First

Before we tackle traditional questions, we need to clarify and define some ideas. Faith and reason are commonly seen as contrary to each other. Or two things that need to be carefully rectified. However, I think that the exercise of faith (not in anything in particular) ought to be universal but reasonably applied, the relationship is that simple.

I have two points for this first section: (1) we all exercise faith on a daily basis and (2) the question is not whether to exercise faith but, rather, in what ought we to have faith?

Faith

Many persons are highly skeptical of those who have “faith,” and sometimes rightly so, for one ought not believe something for no reason. That said, faith is often very sensible. Let me give an illustration.

Object Lesson: The Continent of Antarctica (wiki link)

Do you believe that Antarctica exists? I do. It is a large chunk of land in the middle of the Southern Hemisphere. I believe various things about Antarctica. For instance, I believe that the continent is home to several species of penguins. I don’t actually *know* that the continent exists, but I have a strong faith in its existence.

Assuming you share my belief, let me ask you another question: *why* do you believe that Antarctica exists? Unless you have actually been there (and even then, technically), you are exercising faith to hold such a belief.

In this case, however, it is not blind faith which faith is often directly correlated with, but is in fact reasonable faith. We exercise faith that Antarctica exists because it makes sense to believe for a variety of reasons:

  1. Things like continents exist
  2. Textbooks that make other statements we hold as true also claim Antarctica exists
  3. We have seen video footage of scientists in Antarctica
  4. If it did not exist, most probably some reasonable and noble person who has purportedly “been there” would fess up and run a campaign declaring a conspiracy theory

Based upon these reasons (and other too) it is very reasonable to believe or exercise faith in the existence of Antarctica.

And that’s just one example. Here’s another.

Object Lesson: Wikipedia (wiki link)

You are probably aware that you ought not place very much faith in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is very useful, but when I write a research paper I find sources that are significantly more trust worthy. Trust. What does trust really mean? It means that you can reasonably place your faith in something. Could a trusted source get something wrong? Of course. But we don’t trust sources because they cannot be wrong but because it is reasonable to believe they are correct.

A case for the reasonability of trusting a source would include an analysis of their track record and their methods. Neither of these guarantees they cannot be wrong, but simply allows us to reasonably determine whether or not to place faith in their research. Anyone in academia who cites a source is demonstrating some level of faith (or expectation of faith in others).

What we find is that faith is something that we all exercise very regularly. We believe news reports (or at least aspects of them). We trust certain reputable sources. I even believe things I will almost certainly never empirically test myself (e.g. the existence of quarks).

People may scoff at faith, but either they scoff at something that ought to be more precisely defined or they scoff at sensible living! Without faith, one could not believe anything one hears, even if it comes from what ought to be a trusted source. Without faith, one cannot even trust what is seen and felt (we trust our senses==an extension of faith). Without faith, one is necessarily is shakily uncertain of whether the Sun will rise tomorrow, because its track record of rising everyday does not prove it will rise tomorrow but simply gives great reason to a faith in such a happening.

Reason

I could go on and on about faith, but that should suffice. My point is simple, faith is no stranger at all to any rational person. Many might not have been aware, but all normal people exercise faith (and rightly so) daily. The key is always exercising reasonable faith, not blind faith.

Blind faith is faith when one believes something without any reasoning to support said belief. Is there one piece of evidence that would suggest I am going to live one thousand years? Certainly not. If I were to believe this anyway, then I am not using reason to guide my faith. Instead I am closing my eyes and rejecting what is reasonable (I am an American male who is slightly overweight, and thus I’ll probably die between sixty-five and seventy-five years old with an upper bound of one hundred twenty, if I set a record or something!).

So the question isn’t whether you should or should not be a person of faith, the question is whether or not your beliefs are reasonable.

§39 · April 7, 2011 · 907 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series) · 4 comments · Tags: ,

Part Two: Concerning Proof and Reasonability

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

Can You Prove It?

You might think you know many truths and can *prove* them. But seriously, what can you actually prove? Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), Descartes’s famous premise. It is quite good.

But moving beyond that basic idea, it is pretty hard to prove anything.

Can you prove your body actually exists? What if you are in the Matrix—your mind is plugged into a virtual reality system somewhere? Can you prove you aren’t? Can you prove that the people around you aren’t figments of your imagination?

No, you can’t actually prove these things.

However, we don’t get anywhere useful by questioning obviously reasonable ideas like the actuality of our bodies. Unless you are presented with a good reason to doubt, trust your reality is actuality; it will allow you to continue on to much more interesting conclusions! It takes some faith to believe your body exists and that the people around you exist, but it is more useful to believe, and since there is no evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe our reality.

Sometimes this point becomes very significant because people will ask, concerning my beliefs, “Can you prove it?” Well, no. I don’t think I can. But I cannot even prove your existence! But what I can do is show that my beliefs are very reasonable. Can you?

Reasonability

So rather than trying to prove X before exercising faith, one simply needs to judge X’s reasonability. I essentially already covered this in the last post, but I want to make sure my bases are covered.

There are at least a few ways we judge if something is reasonable:

  • we use science (observable, measurable, and repeatable tests)
  • we use intuition (if something just “feels wrong” it is very difficult to believe)
  • we use our experience (I like to call it experiential data)
  • we use logic (propositional, predicate, categorical, math, etc.)

And then we come to a conclusion concerning a thing’s reasonability.

Of course, if we want to have good results then we need to be careful in our judgement. If we have an unsound premise or variable that is unaccounted for in a test, then our conclusion may be entirely unreasonable! So let’s proceed cautiously.

Teaser

If you’re bored so far, the next post might be more interesting: what’s the explanation for the existence of the Universe? Yes, my favorite version of the Cosmological Argument.

§44 · April 12, 2011 · 446 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series), Essays · 1 comment · Tags: , ,

Part Three (A): The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

Introduction

Well, it’s been longer than I anticipated since the last post, I guess I got distracted, and then lost vision. But now I’m back.

I haven’t been able to reduce Part Three below two thousand words, so I’ve decided to break it up further into two posts, Three (A) and Three (B). In this post I will introduce the argument, and then consider it’s second premise.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Much credit goes to William Lane Craig, a prominent scholar who’s excellent presentation of this argument has had a great impact on me.

(Much credit is also due to my friend, Carson Smith, who has engaged with me in dialogue for many hours concerning this and related subjects. He also authored sections of this, but I cannot remember which ones.)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, one of many versions of the Cosmological Argument, is an argument for the existence of a cause of our universe, and takes the form of a very simple syllogism.

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

Using this basic syllogism, let us proceed.

Validity of the Syllogism

Firstly, does this syllogism represent valid logic? That is, if the (1) first and (2) second premises are true, does (3) the conclusion necessarily follow? The answer is yes, for this syllogism is of a simple form:

1. All A are B
2. x is an A
3. Therefore, x is B

This syllogism represents simple and valid logic. Thus, if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily is true also. In order to determine the soundness or reasonability of the conclusion, we now must examine the premises. The conclusion is as true/sound/reasonable as the weakest premise.

First we’ll analyze the (2) second premise.

Evidence for the Truthfulness of the Second Premise:

Metaphysics

The second premise:

  1. The universe began to exist

If the universe did not begin to exist, then it is eternal and has an infinite past. However, it can be demonstrated that the actualization of an infinite quantity quickly leads to absurd results. Infinities cannot exist in reality. Stick with me for a moment, this will make sense. Another simple syllogism:

  1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality
  2. A beginningless series of events is an infinite number of things
  3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality

Simply put, infinities cannot be actualized.

Additionally,

  1. An eternal universe must exist over an infinite period of time
  2. An infinite period of time would imply a beginningless series of events
  3. A beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality
  4. Therefore an infinite period of time cannot exist in reality
  5. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal

This states that time without a beginning means that there exists an actually infinite set of time events. But since we know that infinities cannot be actualized, then time must have a beginning, and the universe must not be eternal.

This is an important point to understand, so let’s continue further. Some more illustrative arguments:

Billiard Balls

Suppose person A has an actually infinite number of billiard balls. Person A could give ten of the balls to person B, but he would still have an infinite number of balls himself. Infinity minus ten equals infinity.

Continuing with this for a moment, suppose person A gave person B every other ball in his collection, an infinite number of balls. So person A keeps an infinite number of balls, every other ball, while giving away and infinite number of balls. Infinity minus infinity equals infinity.

This math works on paper, but when applied to actuality, it becomes absurd. We all know that if you have a bucket of balls, no matter how big (even a bucket the size of our galaxy) if you give away ten billiard balls, then you will have ten less. You will not have the same amount.

Similarly, if you give away your total number of balls, then you will have none left. Infinite numbers are useful for lots of stuff, but they cannot be actualized…it’s absurd.

In this case with the billiard balls, we encounter a situation in which infinity minus ten (or even infinity minus infinity) does not change the actual number of balls remaining; there are still an infinite number of balls. This defies logic, and therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, this example demonstrates that actualized infinities cannot exist in reality.

Walking Home

Enough with the billiard balls, let’s consider a situation more directly analogous to infinite time.

Suppose that you started walking home from a position an actually infinite number of steps (yards) away from your home. Now imagine that you take one step. If you subtract one step from infinity, you still have an infinite number of steps remaining, and so your one step closer to your home has simply positioned you another infinite number of steps away from your home. In essence, after one step you now have an “infinity minus one” number of steps to go, which is, of course, just another infinite number of steps. No matter how many steps you take, you will aways have an infinite number of steps to traverse, and so you will never make it home.

Not only can we not actualize infinities because of the absurdity and the law of non-contradiction, but we could never traverse an infinite number of steps, events, or pass through an infinite amount of time, even if such quantities of distance or time were real.

Back to Our universe

Now let us consider some things about the universe. If the universe were eternal—as in, has always existed, as in, did not begin to exist, as in, has existed from an infinite past—then between the infinite past and the present exists an infinite expanse of time. As has been demonstrated, an infinite expanse of distance, time, or anything, cannot be fully traversed, and so our universe could never traverse that infinite expanse of time to reach the present. Given an infinite past, our universe would always be in transit to the present, an infinite amount of time away.

However, we have reached the present! The universe has reached “now”!

The only way the universe could have reached “now”, is for it to have traversed a finite expanse of time on its way to “now”. If it traversed a finite expanse of time to reach now, which it must have done, then there must have been a beginning at which it began. The only way to have a finite expanse of time before “now”, is to have a beginning.

To Summarize The Metaphysical Arguments

Infinities can never be actualized, only approached. Thus time as we know it (think space time) had a beginning.

Thus, our universe is not eternal, but began to exist at some point in the past.

Contemporary Science

The non-eternal nature of our universe can be attested through an analysis of the impossibility and absurdity of eternal time. However, is a logical analysis of the absurd effects of infinite time just a theoretical idea about the non-eternality of the universe, or does the realm of science provide us with any additional information to confirm or deny the claim that the universe is not eternal?

The answer to this question is: Yes! Scientific observations do provide additional information about the eternality or non-eternality of the universe. In fact, scientific observation has done much to corroborate the theory that the universe is not eternal, has not always been, and therefore had a beginning…aka…”the universe began to exist”.

Redshift and Expansion

One of the many observations directing one to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is fact of the current expansion of the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies appeared to be moving away from each other, based on his observation of the redshift in the light received from distant supernovae. Hubble’s observations and subsequent conclusions demonstrated that the universe is expanding. This conclusion carries the implication that the universe had a definite beginning; for movement backward in time necessarily entails the progressive densification of our universe, and consequently, if one were to continue to move backward in time, eventually they would reach a state in which the universe was unexpanded and extremely dense. If one were to travel far enough into the past, they would reach the point in time when the expansion began, thus representing the beginning of the universe. The event causing this unexpanded and dense amount of material to expand, is commonly known as the Big Bang, and marks the beginning of our universe.

Accelerated Expansion

In 1998, a monumental discovery was made by cosmologists indicating that the universe is not only expanding, but expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past. Again, the discovery that our universe is expanding (at an accelerating pace no-less) is a strong evidence that in the distant past, the universe began to exist. However, the discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion also demonstrates that the universe will not collapse back on itself, destroying the postulation that the universe has oscillated back and forth, eternally, by means of successive Big Bangs and “Big Crunches”. Digressing back to the original point, the accelerating expansion of the universe is yet another corroboration that the universe’s expansion and the universe itself began at some point in the distant past.

Modern Science

The beginning of the universe has also been described by leading cosmologists and theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. In their publications, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe” (Astrophysics Journal 152 (1968), pp. 25-36) (co-written with George Ellis), and “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology” (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548), Hawking and Penrose conclude that space and time, along with matter and energy, had a distinct beginning at some point in the past. Stated more simply, they concluded that before the Big Bang, time, space, energy, and matter did not exist. Instead, everything began to exist only once the Big Bang occurred.

Reasonability

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simple. But it is valid and it’s conclusion is bold. The debate concerns the reasonability of the premises.

  1. The universe began to exist

This premise is highly reasonable. It is strongly supported by metaphysical arguments and modern physics and cosmology.

Next we’ll consider the (1) first premise. And then we’ll consider the reasonability of the conclusion and its implications.

§51 · June 14, 2011 · 1850 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series), Essays · Comments Off · Tags: , , , , ,

Part Three (B): The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Note: This is part of a mini-series; I recommend reading the posts in order.

The First Premise

Now that the reasonability of the (2) second premise has been established in the previous post, let us examine the (1) first premise.

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause

A Brief Illustration: A Broken Window

If you arrive at home and notice the kitchen window is broken, there are many possible explanations. Maybe a tornado kicked up debris or maybe a thief broke in or maybe a child threw a ball or maybe the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused or maybe the glass had been changing over time (unintelligibly to you) and suddenly reach some sort of breaking point or maybe…

There are lots of explanations, and technically any and all of these explanations are possible, but which one is most reasonable to believe? Well, if you knew some kids were playing with a ball out in the yard that morning, I suggest a conversation with them; the ball through the window theory is looking very promising. If things are missing and the house is trashed, then the thief hypothesis is a reasonable option. And so forth.

We reason like this everyday, all throughout the day.

One of these possibilities is *never* accepted: the window spontaneously broke entirely uncaused. And there is a reason this is never accepted—it isn’t a result of prejudice. For all known human history, this reason has never been found to be reasonable. Thus at this point not only is it not accepted as the explanation for a broken window, but for good reason it isn’t even considered as an option.

Intuition, Experience, and Observation

In short, the idea that all things that begin to exist have a cause just makes sense intuitively. And not only does it make sense, but the totality of our experience and methodical observation confirms our natural intuition.

Further, if this (1) premise one was false, then why wouldn’t anything or everything pop in and out of existence entirely without cause? Why is our Universe so stable? But, if the Universe sprang into existence from nothing and for no reason, we could expect to find massive instability. Galaxies would pop in and out of existence, horses would appear in our parlors, etc.

Now, you might wonder, maybe this instability exists outside the Universe and only within the Universe the (1) first premise stands. However, how could “from nothing and for nothing” discriminate concerning these uncaused beginnings!? The falsity of (1) premise one leads to the overturning of the Law of Cause and Effect. And if such is the case, then in our experience (and certainly in our methodical observation) we would find violations of the Law left and right.

However, we find stability. We find the Law of Cause and Effect. We find no violations. We find the (1) first premise is quite sound.

Quantum Events

For those who have some familiarity with Quantum Physics, let briefly address quantum fluctuations.

First, my knowledge is limited, if you want to pursue this extensively, I recommend going other places! But I know a little, and now I will proceed.

At the quantum level, the spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticles has been observed with measurable effects. Does this disprove (1) premise one? Might this be the contrary behavior we’d expect to find through methodical observation if the premise wasn’t sound?

I submit that the answer is “No.”

Why? Because it really isn’t a “from nothing for entirely no reason” situation. These fluctuations occur in vacuums, but vacuums in our Universe are not nothing; they are very much a sea of energy constrained by the laws of physics.

A testament to this is the very fact that these particles and antiparticles exist only for very short periods of time, and the assumption by the physicists I’ve read is that this is on account of the law of conservation of energy.

Thus this differs from what the (1) first premise really gets at in that these quantum fluctuations come from a sea of energy and apparently are obeying prexisting laws beyond themselves. Thus, they don’t begin to exist entirely uncaused, but are at least indirectly caused by their vacuum environment and at least allowed by the laws of Physics.

When we observe these fluctuations the logical question is “why?” We don’t have a complete answer yet, but don’t stop too soon. We have a partial answer, and I’m holding out for a more complete one. It isn’t terribly reasonable to assume that something came about for no reason just because we don’t have a decent explanation for it!

What About Outside Our Universe

Since there is no denying the reasonability of this premise within our universe, the question becomes “How do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the premise holds true outside our universe?” The short answer is that we don’t, and we can’t.

However, it is clear that just because we cannot be 100% certain of something, does not mean that we are stuck and have no rational grounds for moving along. Remember the previous part concerning the nature of proof and reasonability?

For instance, let’s try answering another question:

How do we know that this universe didn’t spring into existence five minutes ago; all of us having been created with a full set of memories that are happy, sad, pleasant, and scary and all together false and imaginary?

The answer is: we don’t know and can’t know. We can’t prove that it did and we can’t prove that it did not!

However, we can come to the reasonable conclusion&emdash;based upon intuition, scientific observation, and strict reasoning—that the universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago. It is possible that such is the case, but we reject the notion because it is unreasonable.

Similarly, couldn’t there be exceptions to (1) premise one? Sure. Is it reasonable to think there is such an exception? No.

Concluding the Kalam Cosmological Argument

For review, the complete (and brief) syllogism:

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The logic is valid.

The (2) second premise is highly reasonable.

The (1) first premise is highly reasonable.

Thus, necessarily, the conclusion is highly reasonable.

Next

In the future we’ll consider reasonable characteristics of the cause and their implications.

§52 · June 23, 2011 · 1096 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series) · 1 comment · Tags: , , ,