INFERIOR GOD-SUBSTITUTES

When Paul engaged the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens, he had to speak to them in a language that they understood and respected, rather than through the Scriptures. He therefore appealed to them through the wisdom their esteemed Greek poets and through logic. He reasoned that the Creator of humanity had to be greater than what He had created:

·       “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:29-30)

These Greek philosophers were intelligent and educated. However, they were willfully ignorant and had to repent of their foolish views about God. They believed that their gods were “silver or stone,” but how could such gods create human beings and even a gnat! Clearly, they couldn’t. Science and reason require that the cause has to be greater than the effect, as DaVinci had to be greater than his paintings or as the shoemaker has to be greater than his shoes.

There are many rational reasons to believe that life, consciousness, freewill, the fine tuning of the universe...came from a supremely intelligent Source and didn't just magically and naturally appear uncaused out of nothing, even before the "natural" even existed.

Science is predicated on the fact that every effect has an adequate cause(s). If the effect didn't have an adequate cause, it would mean that part of the effect had been uncaused, a scientific and logical impossibility. It would also mean that science searches for non-existent causes. This means that life had to have a cause greater than itself. Only the eternal uncaused God is adequate to cause such effects or even the smallest atom. And only the God of the Bible is adequate to explain all the phenomena of the universe.

To believe in gods of “gold and stone” might seem to be the height of foolishness and denial, but it is no more foolish than to believe that everything appeared out of nothing. Therefore, we must repent of all of our god-substitutes.

Proof of the Existence of God from Reason

 

There are many proofs for the existence of God. This is because this universe is His creation, and all of His creations point back to their Creator. Here is just one proof out of many – The proof from reason or logic:

1. REASON EXISTS.
2. REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is absolute, universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it would be like measuring a building with an elastic band. It must also be universal or it would change from day to day and from town to city, rendering it entirely useless for science or even intelligent conversation.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion. They can only be accounted for by an immutable and universal Cause and Sustainer – something that transcends this universe.

Some claim that reason is a property of this universe. However, the universe is changing. Therefore, reason would also be changing, obviating any conclusion of science. Besides, the things of this universe are impacted by other things, but nothing seems to be able to change the laws of reason and logic. (Admittedly, many things impact our use of reason and logic.)

Similarly, others appeal to evolution. However, there are many problems with this. First of all, they would have to prove that evolution isn't intelligently guided - something they can't do. Besides, evolution or naturalism would also have to account for the allied and immutable, universal physical laws, which it can't possibly do! Naturalism only has explanatory power  after “natural” laws exist.

Besides, Naturalism cannot explain the subtlety and freedom of thought necessary for science and creativity. Naturalism claims that thought is guided exclusively by bio-chemical laws. Laws work predictably and formulaically. However, these would impose such severe limitations on thought that creative and scientific thought would not be possible. It would therefore seem that more is necessary for thought to be what it is, something that accounts for some degree of mental freedom.

Reason is like the operating systems of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created the laws of reason, logic, and the laws of science, since these predate humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

Praise His glory, all you His creations!

ADDENDUM: Atheists claim that we have to provide a detailed explanation of how God created. Admittedly, we cannot provide this. There is much that we do not know. Nor do we know the basic things like the nature of time, space, and matter. These remain mysteries, but this ignorance does not prevent science. Likewise, our ignorance about God does not preclude any knowledge about God and ID.

Other claim that reason and logic are also in flux. Then I would have to retort that any scientific statement is in flux and therefore must be taken tentatively at best. Nevertheless, we still make solid assertions about this world. Reason is still reason and my measuring stick can still measure the reality of length and depth. They are still rock solid and require explanations that explain this solidity.

A Proof of God from Reason

I enjoy taking snapshots of the glorious work of God. The one below is a snapshot of reason/logic. (All of these snapshots point back to the existence of their Creator.) Here’s how:

1. REASON EXISTS.
2. REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is absolute, universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it would be like measuring with maple syrup. It must also be universal or it should change from state to country.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion. They can only be accounted for by an immutable and universal Cause – something that transcends this universe.

Reason is like the operating systems of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created reason, since reason predates humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

Praise His glory, all you His creations!

This same proof can be constructed for every law of science. All are elegant, immutable, and universal. All reflect a Supreme Intelligence!

Postmodernism, Logic, Love, and Truth

As soon as you mention something about “truth,” feathers begin to fly. You’ll hear responses like:

1. The only truth is change itself.
2. Everyone’s got their own way. It’s not a matter of one-size-fits-all!
3. The idea of truth is just too rigid.
4. The only truth is what is true for you alone!

We live in a postmodern age. Consequently, these statements seem to be so well-established that they are beyond questioning. They are as acceptable as the statement, “I exist” or “I like chocolate.”

However, postmodern thinking has become so much a part of our culture that it is as familiar and unnoticeable as the ocean is for a lobster. We have become so comfortable with this worldview, we fail to see that these assertions are illogical.

For instance, if the only truth is change itself (#1), then this statement is also subject to change and therefore contradicts itself. Therefore, this assertion cannot be true, at least not for long!

Statement #2 also contradicts itself. If “everyone’s got their own way” and there is no truth that is common to all of us, then this statement also is illogical, because it too is a statement of truth that pertains to all. Meanwhile, it rejects the notion that there is any truth that does pertains to all, while asserting the “truth” that it is all simply relative.

Statement #3 is equally illogical. If “the idea of truth is just too rigid,” then this statement is also too rigid, since it too is a statement of truth.

Statement #4, while claiming that we cannot assert what is true for other people (only what is true for us), implies that this principle is true for everyone, thereby contradicting itself.

The problems of incoherence do not stop in the realm of ideas. They also infiltrate our lives like stealth ninjas. For instance, just about everything that we say is a truth statement. Just think of the following instances:

1. That was a great movie.
2. My son goes to a wonderful school.
3. Bill is really a nice guy.

All of these statements have embedded value judgments. They suggest that, according to a universal standard, there is something objectively of value about the movie, school and Bill. However, if you were to press the postmodern about these implicit objective standards, she would retreat and redefine what she had stated:

• I only meant that I really enjoyed this movie. I’m not implying that there is anything superior about this movie.

However, this is the very thing that her statement implied. In fact, we cannot but speak in terms of objective truth statements. If we instead reduce all of our statements to merely personal feelings and tastes, we also reduce life and make it unlivable.

One guy tried to do this in regards to our conversations. When I would make truth statements, he would correct me:

• You can only speak for yourself and your own feelings. You can’t speak of truth in general, because, when you do this, you are also speaking for me, and I won’t allow you to do this!

Do you see the incoherence here? While forbidding my truth statements, he invoked many of his own, even requiring us to submit to the same rules. He eventually terminated our conversation.

However, the problems don’t stop here. One postmodern young lady informed me that she had recently found the meaning of her life. She would now devote herself to loving others.

I applauded her commitment to this noble cause. However, she then reassured me that her decision had nothing to do with truth or the inherent virtue of love. Instead, it was all about what personally worked for her! Consequently, she refused to say that what she had found had any relevance for anyone else, since everyone had to find what was right for themselves.

I therefore asked her:

• Since you do not believe in any objective moral law or the inherent goodness of love, do you tell these people that your intention is not really to love them but love yourself?  After all, you stated that you committed yourself to this cause because it works for you and not because of any higher calling. Therefore, isn’t you commitment inherently selfish? And, in order to be transparent, wouldn’t you have to tell the “objects of your love” that you are merely acting out of selfish motives?

How can love be love if it is done primarily out of selfish concerns? Can I pledge myself to my wife for only as long as the marriage works for me? In a world where there is no truth, there is also no real virtue, integrity, honor, justice or anything else that we cherish. Instead, everything is reduced to whether or not it works for us.

When I contrasted her stance with my Christian orientation, she replied, “That’s just too rigid for me.”

In a sense, she is right. Truth is rigid. It makes demands on us and tells us when we go astray, but we need truth nevertheless. I need to know that, when I’ve morally failed and feel the weight of guilt, that my Lord forgives and cleanses me from all of my filth (1 John 1:9). Without this confidence, I would remain consumed by my feelings of guilt and shame.

When I share this with others, they usually respond, “Well, that’s just your faith!” I retort that it’s not a matter of blind faith but substantiated faith. I need evidential assurances that God forgives me. I cannot believe simply because it makes me feel good. For my faith to give me the joy and confidence that I need, I have to be assured of its truth.

How will this postmodern young woman be able to maintain her love commitment once it stops feeling good to her and no longer works for her? I don’t think that she will be able to! We need to not only feel that something is “right”; we also need to be convinced that it is truly right. Only this kind of conviction will carry us through! Otherwise, we retreat into the unstable and juvenile life where feelings alone reign.