'Tis the Reason for the Season

The Virgin Conception of the Son of God

You can almost see the traditional skeptic rolling their eyes at the mention of a young woman becoming pregnant without having sex with a man. I mean, give me a break!

Try to imagine yourself in the place of Joseph. You've proposed to your girlfriend, you've been sexually abstinent from her, and then you get the "We need to talk" talk. It may have went something like this:

Mary: "Joseph, I need to tell you something."

Joseph: "What is it my dear?"

Mary: "Well, I'm pregnant. But I promise I haven't cheated! You know I've not been with any man! The child inside of me is from God. An angel came to me and told me that I would conceive a child from the Holy Spirit!"

At this moment I could imagine what kind of thoughts would be going through my head. Jealousy, rage, anger. My initial reaction would be to NOT believe this woman. But the book of Matthew tells us that Joseph was an honorable man and didn't make a spectacle of the situation. Instead he moved to secretly "put her away", suggesting he intended NOT to marry her. But then we're told that an angel came to Joseph in the night and told him the same thing that was told to Mary: that the conception was from the LORD, and that this was to be the the Savior of mankind!

There are just two ideas I want to explore regarding the virgin conception:

1. The virgin conception was prophesied in the Old Testament in the book of Isaiah.

For years the Jewish nation had been awaiting their Messiah. It was prophesied in the Old Testament that a king would rise up and do away with Israel's enemies and establish the nation as the rightful ruler of the earth. This king would be born through the lineage of David and would usher Israel into a golden age of power and influence. In fact there were many would-be Messiah's that popped up before and after Jesus, and each one was crushed by the Roman Empire (as was Jesus) and those who were looking for the conquering Messiah were continually disappointed. 

The book of Isaiah records in 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.” Not only was the birth of the Messiah predicted by Isaiah, but in Matthew 2 we are told about the "wise men" that came from the east. Many have speculated that these men were well aware of the prophecies concerning the birth of Christ and had been waiting for a sign. As the book of Matthew records, the wise men "saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

2. If God exists and miracles are possible, this isn't such a big deal.

One of the most natural objections to the virgin conception is that it just isn't possible. A better explanation might be that Mary indeed had sexual relations with another man and that she just didn't want to upset her husband to be. So instead of just fessing up, they concocted a story about how an angel came to them and said the child was conceived by the Spirit of God. 

But this naturalistic explanation is a cover something deeper. The commitment to philosophical naturalism means it couldn't possibly have happened the way the Bible records the story. So rather than following the evidence of the history of Jesus, the supernatural conception of Jesus must be discredited on account of the commitment to the naturalism. But if God exists, and miracles are possible, then this sort of thing isn't out of the question.

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, and eager to forgive us and cleanse of of our sins, then the advent of Jesus makes total sense. God humbled Himself and placed Himself in the shoes of the average Joe. It would have been easy for God to just come down out of Heaven and manifest Himself in some overly fantastic way, but He chose to have His plan of redemption be different. If God's plan is to have humanity choose to enter into a relationship with Him freely, then the kind of grandiose display of power and authority would undermine His ultimate goal.

Lastly, many theologians have argued that for Jesus to be fully God and fully man He couldn't have come into the world any other way than through a virgin. For if He were the natural product of two human parents then His body would be merely inhabited by the Spirit of God and not actually God Himself. Additionally, others have proposed that the plight of original sin would have been present in Jesus if He were to come into the world by two human parents.

If we are to recognize Jesus as being God in the flesh, then His advent into the world must be some kind of special. There would need to be a hallmark of His coming that world could point to as being different. There would need to be some clues left behind for people to follow to come to the knowledge of the savior of mankind.

Science Doesn't Say Anything. Scientists Do.

Science Doesn't Say Anything. Scientists do.

"To say a scientist can disprove the existence of God, is like saying a mechanic can disprove the existence of Henry Ford." - Frank Turek


A very common objection to the claims of theism these days tends to fall into the camp of scientific knowledge. Consider the myths of ancient gods like Thor, the god of thunder. Thor was said to have a hammer that was used to create thunder and lightning. But as scientific knowledge of the earth's atmospheric conditions increased, the belief that such a god exists diminished. A natural explanation had been given to show that what uneducated myth-followers believed was simply a lack of knowledge about the natural world.

Today's anti-theist will use this type of explanation to show that a sort of "God of the Gaps" will ultimately be disproved by science. The idea is that as our scientific knowledge increases, the need for God or gods as an explanation will continue to shrink until the notion finally vanishes. Many conversations that I and others have had with atheists will oftentimes included phrases like, "Science shows..." or "Science says that..." followed by some explanation about how the physical world can account for all reality or that God is unprovable by scientific means.

The problem here is that science isn't a thing and doesn't speak! The real issue is that it is the interpretation of scientists and philosophers of science who say anything at all. As some of my atheistic friends have said, "Science isn't a belief system. Science is a methodology." Well, I agree. Science isn't a thing at all. Science IS a methodology for gathering data. The data must then be interpreted by a mind. And that mind has many presuppositions that form the interpretations of the data gathered.

So what are we really talking about here? A certain philosophy is needed to even start to make sense of any data obtained through the scientific method.

Consider one theory that scientists disagree on: quantum mechanics. There are currently over 10 different physical interpretations of quantum mechanics, and each one is trying to make sense of the same data and are empirically identical in every way. Where the conflict lies between the differing theories are the philosophical presuppositions of the scientists who are interpreting the data. Some are naturalists, others a super-naturalists, and the conclusions obtained will be skewed by the philosophical commitments by the individuals.

So the atheist or anti-theist must be extremely careful when using scientific findings to try and disprove the existence of God. With a commitment to philosophical naturalism, one might be affirming a wrong-headed conclusion before they even start. So the next time someone says, "Science says...", remind them that science doesn't say anything. It is people with a certain worldview that are interpreting what the scientific data shows.

C.S. Lewis's Famous Trilemma

Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

C.S. Lewis is one of the most famous fiction writers of the 20th century. At one point in his life Lewis was an atheist. Against God and angry at the pain and suffering he saw in the world he argued that God could not exist while the problem of evil exists.

But upon reflection Lewis learned that the existence of evil proved that a standard of good existed by which he could see evil. Eventually his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the Lord of the Rings series, helped Lewis come to faith in Christ. After his conversion C.S. Lewis became a great Christian apologist, using reason and logic to defend the truths of the Christian faith.

One of Lewis's most compelling arguments was concerning the deity and authority of the claims of Jesus Christ. After a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, Lewis concluded that Jesus did not leave himself open to be just another wise man along the path of history. But rather He was God in the flesh come to save humanity from itself.

Lewis stated his argument as follows:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, pp. 54–56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")

Lewis sees that the words of Jesus shouldn't be taken lightly, that He didn't just teach people to be good to each other. Jesus's words cut people to the core. Jesus came to bring the dead to life, to find the lost, and redeem the created to live eternally with the Creator.

So which is the best option to choose of Lewis's great trilemma?

Liar?

Was Jesus a liar? Was he really the promised Messiah that was foretold in the Jewish scriptures? Why think he was a liar? Jesus's life is one of the most well attested biographies of the ancient world. Tens of thousands of manuscripts from early writings after Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection remain today. These represent vastly more attestations than any other ancient figure. We can at least be assured that what he said and did was recorded accurately, but does that mean that He was telling the truth? Or that He really is the Son of God?

One piece of evidence we can search out is the rise of the early church. Rising among the backdrop of Judaism and Roman paganism, the early church was persecuted heavily for their beliefs and practices. All of the apostles, except for John, dies a martyr's death. If Jesus was a liar, then these men died for a lie. But none recanted their stories. And all died horrible deaths separated from one another. What could have possibly been their motive?

Lunatic?

Was Jesus a crazy man? Was he on the level of a David Koresh, just a mere mortal with delusions of being another god? What kind of crazy would you have to be to challenge the rule of Caesar? The world has been transformed by this man over the last 2000 years. Modern science, hospitals, orphanages, humanitarian aid have all been instituted in the name of this supposed lunatic! Read the New Testament for yourself and you most likely won't come away thinking the words of Jesus were conjured up out of lunacy.

Lord?

The only option left is that Jesus is who He said he is: the Light of the world, the Son of Man, the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world. Not only did Jesus come to preach righteousness and God's perfect moral code, but the New Testament records that He came as a sacrifice to redeem the lost so that by his shed blood alone could man be reconciled with God and be brought back to fellowship with the Creator of the universe.

If this is the case, then every man, woman, and child owes Jesus their allegiance and their very lives. We owe eternal gratitude and worship to the one who gave up eternity to suffer at the hands of His own creation. He should rightly be seated at the right hand of the Father, and worshiped day and night by the people who gave their lives so that all could know the good news!

So Lewis's trilemma stands before us all today. How will you choose?

The Argument From Fine-Tuning

The universe is incredibly fine-tuned, not just for life, but for it's own existence.

From the initial conditions of the Big Bang, to the microscopic DNA strands that carry instructions for the creation of life, this world in which we find ourselves is fine-tuned on a razor's edge. It is so finely tuned that if the some of the quantities were altered, the universe would collapse on itself and die. If other quantities were altered the universe would never be able to form galaxies, or any other element than hydrogen. 

It's important to note that "fine-tuned" doesn't mean "designed". That would certainly be a circular argument. The term "fine-tuned" refers to the fundamental reality of the constants and quantities that make up the known universe, including certain aspects of the Milky Way galaxy, our solar system, the earth and moon.

Here are a few examples:

• amount of entropy of the universe
• the gravitational constant
• the strong nuclear force
• the amount of matter in the universe
• the speed of light
• the ratio of proton to electron mass
• the size and shape of the Milky Way galaxy
• the position of our solar system within the galaxy
• the distance of the earth to the sun
• the distance and size of the moon to the earth
• the tilt of the earth's axis
• the rotation speed of the earth
• the mass and composition of the earth
• and so on and so on

There are literally hundreds of "fine-tuning" examples that, if changed, would not permit the earth to sustain human life. So what are we to think of this incredible phenomenon? Is this worth studying, or is it just an incredible coincidence to notice?

There are 3 possible explanations for the incredible fine-tuning observed in the known universe:

1. Chance
2. Necessity
3. Design

Chance: It is essentially a throw of the dice, just a shot in the dark, and could have been any set of quantities. The famous physicist Roger Penrose has estimated that the odds of the universe having it's unique set of constants and quantities is 1/10^10^126. That's a number so large that there is not enough space in the known universe to hold all of the 0's needed to write out that number.

Necessity: There is no other possible way for the universe to be the way it is. But physicists and scientists see no reason that the universe must be the way it is. They speculate that any of these fine-tuned elements could have been different. Even if it were necessary, that would tend to point to something beyond the universe itself dictating the physical necessity of the universal make-up.

Design: Something or someone had a plan in mind, a purpose, and deliberately set up the universe in such a way to enable a particular outcome. 

So which seems more plausible to you? That the universe just happened to be spit out the way it was, like a spin of the roulette wheel? That the universe must be this way and that there is no other way it could be? Or that it was designed by a superior intellect powerful enough to bring the universe into being ex-nihilo?

The argument would be stated as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either chance, necessity, or design.
2. The universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, the universe is designed.

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." - Fred Hoyle

Who Created God?

"If God created the universe, then who/what created God?"

It seems reasonable at first. It seems like there should be an explanation for everything, right? Well, the explanation may not be a contingent state of affairs.

For centuries philosophers thought that there must be a first un-caused cause, the prime mover. Aristotle called this first cause "the un-moved mover". He reasoned that there cannot be an infinite regress of events or causes because there would never be an ultimate resolution to the question.

So what are we to think of the question "Who or What created God?"

The question itself has a presuppositional hurdle to overcome. When some asks "Who created God?", they are implying that God was created. And if God was created then we must seek to find out who or what is responsible. And then you would naturally ask "Who created the god that created the god that created the god..." into infinity.

This has been a question that atheists and skeptics have asked as some sort of knock-down objection that is supposed to stop any theist in their iron-aged tracks. But why should we suppose that God was created?

The Bible is very clear that God is eternal:

Deuteronomy 33:27 - "The eternal God is a dwelling place..."

Job 36:26 - "Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable."

Isaiah 40:28 - "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding in inscrutable."

I understand that those who don't believe in the authority of scripture might not be convinced by some Bible verses, but consider the following...

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz said that the first question of philosophy that should rightly be asked is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This is a pretty good question.

Everything that exists exists necessarily or contingently. There is no third option. Either something comes into being from some other cause, or that thing exists by a necessity of it's own nature. This would be the case for God. If God exists eternally, then God must be a metaphysical necessity. In other words, it is impossible for God not to exist.

So if God is metaphysically necessary, then God is un-created. God is eternal and cannot not exist. God exists necessarily, therefore eternally and had no beginning. God is the prime mover that Aristotle thought must exist.

The Moral Argument

Does the existence of a standard of right vs. wrong show that God exists? The argument is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral duties and values do not exist.
2. Objective moral duties and values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

What do we mean by "objective moral duties and values"? We mean that there seems to exist a moral code that is valid and binding for all people at all times, regardless of the cultural values, governments, or ruling authority's say so.

One of the most obvious examples for people of the 20th & 21st centuries is the Holocaust. What Hitler commanded to his nation was morally wrong, even though he believed it was the right thing to do. The world put on trial those who said they were just following orders. Even if the Nazis would have won WWII and killed all who thought differently, it would still be wrong.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral duties and values do not exist.

So why should we think that objective morality would only exist if God exists? If atheism is true, then everything is just here by accident. There is no purpose, no plan, no right, and no wrong. Everything just is. There is no goal-directedness, no ultimate meaning, and as far as behavior of species goes...well that's just a survival-of-the-fittest mechanism. 

As Richard Dawkins (arguably the world's most well-known atheist) says, "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins himself points out that if there is no good, no evil, then that's just they way things are. So why does he become so outraged at things he finds offensive in the world? If there is no good and no evil, then certainly it is irrational to lash out at others for just behaving as their genes would have them do, right?

2. Objective moral duties and values exist.

But it seems that Dawkins is grasping at what he wants to deny, an objective realm of good and evil. He is at least acting as if there is some kind of standard that decent human beings should adhere to. He wants to affirm that we should follow the good and do good, and eschew evil and abstain from evil acts, but his entire worldview puts that notion in jeopardy.

Atheist Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Louise Antony, says, "Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based upon premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values and duties themselves, and therefore can never be rational to accept moral skepticism."

So when we hear stories of little girls being molested by their drunk fathers, are we right to feel indignation towards that action? Are we right to cry out for justice for that little girl? Is it really wrong what that father did to her, or is just a social taboo?

Everyone has a sense of right an wrong, regardless of how they came to know that standard, and regardless of whether we agree on what that standard is or how we follow that standard. One of the main themes in the Bible is that human beings cannot follow the law, and the human heart is inherently evil.

3. Therefore, God exists.

If the realm of an objective moral standard exists, then where did it come from? Is "the good" some abstract object that just exists out there? If so, what compels us to align ourselves with it? If it isn't something called "the good", but rather a collection of abstract objects like "justice", "fairness", "truthfulness", "charity", etc, then what binds us to those virtues rather than "maliciousness", "treachery", "oppressiveness", etc.

God is the moral standard. God's nature is what we would recognize as good. This is the only way to have a true standard. There have been attempts to place the standard outside of God, but they lack the transcendent grounding that we seem to want to affirm, namely that something is either right or wrong regardless of your feelings or upbringing.

C.S. Lewis said, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

This brings up a fascinating point: that if we all know the difference between good and evil, then surely the entire human population would be able to recognize that we have all done something wrong in our lives. The story of Jesus offers redemption for those short-comings. Romans 3:23 says "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". If this is true, then we require forgiveness or punishment. It is only just for crimes to be punished, unless otherwise forgiven by the one against whom the crimes were committed. God has offered that forgiveness to all of mankind through Jesus Christ. 

If you feel ashamed for some type of wrong you've committed in the past, know that God loves you regardless of your behavior. There is still time to ask for forgiveness. And the all-powerful, all-loving God of the universe has promised that He will extend His hand of mercy and forgiveness to any that will ask. If you don't know the saving power of Jesus, I urge you to read the Gospel of John today and find out the true nature of God's love.


Here are some more resources regarding objective morality:

The Absurdity Of Life Without God

Our lives seem to cry out for significance and meaning. I know many people who are either atheists (they don't believe that God exists) or apatheists (they don't really care if God exists). Most people I know are just concerned with making ends meet, being happy, and just making it through life. 

Now all of that seems just fine on the surface, but we're not here on this blog to stop at those questions, shrug them off, and get on with our lives. No. We're here for something much more. We want to know the truth...no matter what that entails. And to find the truth, we must keep asking questions until we get to the heart of the issue we are trying to understand. That may lead us to other questions, but we want to know it all.

So the question remains: Is this all that we're here for? To live our 70+/- years, acquire stuff, enjoy it while we can, try to do some "good", try to love some people, don't be a jerk, and then die? If that's all there is to it, then in the grand scheme of things life is pretty pointless.

Some of history's greatest thinkers followed the logical consequences of the absurdity to life if there is nothing past this existence. This brand of philosophy is called nihilism: the belief that there is no ultimate meaning, or that any perceived meaning is illusory.

So is it true? If God doesn't exist, is life really meaningless? I think so. At least ultimately, I think so.

If God does not exist, then there are serious consequences to that notion.

1. This life is all there is. If God doesn't exist, then I don't see any reason to think that our "spirit" lives on, there is any such thing as reincarnation, or anything else like that. No, it would seem that you just die and cease to exist. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, and like a puff of smoke, all that remains is the memory in the minds of those who once knew you.

2. The universe is destined to die out as all of the useful energy is spent and dark matter eventually sends space repelling from itself faster than the speed of light. Most scientists agree that this is the inevitable fate of our universe at some point in the distant future, way past the time that humans have gone extinct on this tiny, insignificant space rock. If this universe is all there is (and there's no scientific evidence to support that other universes exist), then the cold dark reality of a future dead universe is staring us in the face. But, we'll all be gone by then so it's more ominous to think about than any actual consequence we should be worried about.

3. Our actions ultimately have no consequences. This touches on objective morality a bit, but even if we assume that objective morality exists apart from God, it still means nothing in the end. Any good or bad that we do while alive will soon be forgotten as the remaining humans die off and the sun eventually expands to engulf the earth and burn it up. It's not that people won't act like it matters at the time, and it certainly will seem like it matters, but in the end it was just a momentary situation and ultimately meaningless from the perspective of the universe.

Now I've had some atheists tell me that nihilism isn't the default position to take as atheists. But I really don't see why. I mean, if this life is all there is, then whatever strides we've made during our lives was just a means to numb the pain and realization that death was approaching and that all our actions would be forgotten in the heat death of the eventual collapse of the known world.

If this is bumming you out, I'm sorry. My point is not to make you come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, but rather think about what it means if you think that life isn't meaningless! I think we could actually make an argument for the existence of God this way:

1. If God does not exist, then life is meaningless.

2. Life is not meaningless.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Of course this would be a pretty weak argument if you've come to the conclusion that life really is meaningless. And depression is a horrible reality in our culture today. But this would certainly be a reasonable argument for someone who think to himself, "No. It can't be. I really feel as though my life has significance and meaning." Well, then it follows that God exists.

But what if you've come to the conclusion that maybe God exists or maybe he doesn't, but I'm just not sure about this "life has meaning" business. If you can come to believe in God, then you should certainly be able to come to the conclusion that life is full of meaning. And we could rephrase the argument this way:

1. If God does not exist, then life is meaningless.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore, life is not meaningless.

I've never really seen anyone develop these types of arguments before, so I'm ready to be ripped to shreds by some more sophisticated philosopher types. But I think I think I've made my point. And what we need to do from here is examine more evidences for the existence of God to see if it's really true.

More than a year ago, my good friend Boss sent me this video and it sent my head spinning. Ever since watching that video, I've been on a non-stop quest to learn more about what I already thought to be the truth. Because I think I would agree with the first premise of the argument, then I would really want to know if the second premise is true. If the second premise is true, then we have a great hope in front of us to find out about God and to see if he's revealed Himself to us and find out if He wants us to come to know Him. And I think that's the case.