Are You Sure About God? (Part 4)

     As noted in previous posts, everyone’s storehouse of knowledge relies on a combination of (a) personal observation and experience, (b) inductive reasoning, and (c) the testimony of others. In our search for the knowledge of God, we have considered these first two and introduced the third. Whether we realize it or not, the vast majority of our knowledge depends on this third source. Otherwise, history books, libraries, universities, and Google would be superfluous! As we consider the testimony of biblical authors claiming to be communicating the word of God, can they be trusted?

What the Bible claims for itself …

     The Bible claims to have come from God and to be all-sufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs (2 Tim. 3:14-17).¹ This record of divine communications and supernatural activities was regarded and revered by early Jews and Christians as having been inspired by God’s Spirit (cf. Acts 1:16; 28:25; Heb. 3:7; 10:15-17). With human instrumentality understood, the heavenly throne is recognized as the ultimate source of biblical revelation (1 Cor. 2:7-13; Eph. 3:1-5; 2 Pet. 1:1-21). Although disclosed in various ways throughout history, the New Testament affirms that the divine will is now conveyed through God’s Son, Jesus the Christ (Heb. 1:1-4; 4:14).

     From the earliest days of the Christian movement, the teachings of Jesus were considered authoritative (Acts 11:16; 20:35; 1 Cor. 7:10; 11:23-25; 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 John 1:1-4). The content of the preaching of Christ’s first-century representatives was not viewed as the “word of men” but rather the “word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13; 4:8). This spiritual message was reportedly not of human origin but came “through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12), was “received from the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:23), and constituted “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

     Granted, these affirmations, in and of themselves, are not absolute proof that the Bible is in fact what it contends to be. But the absence of such claims would be a strong argument against it. The fundamental question is whether or not the testimony of these biblical authors is credible.

The Bible’s verifiability …

     The information provided by biblical writers includes people, places, time periods, and events that can either be falsified or verified in the records of history. Other religions are built on claims of private encounters, or subjective ideas with no basis in any historic occasion, so there is no way to objectively investigate or historically test these assertions. Have you ever wondered why no other religions (or philosophical worldviews) engage in the same kind of reasoned apologetics that Christians do?² Who else provides an intellectual and objective defense of their faith? The Christian movement and its sacred text stand on historically verifiable data.

     The Bible is not merely a single record; it is the compilation of sixty-six separate documents spanning multiple geographical locations and time periods (produced over sixteen centuries!), representing numerous independent sources that remarkably harmonize. The New Testament alone contains over 140 eyewitness details and references to more than thirty historical figures, confirmed by archaeological discoveries and non-Christian writings.³

     Michael Patton observes, “Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.”⁴ The Christian movement began and flourished, not in a vacuum, but among real people in the first century who could readily test its claims (cf. Acts 26:26; 1 Cor. 15:6).

The Bible’s veracity ...

     Until the mid-15th century (when the printing press was invented), biblical documents were copied by hand. While human error inevitably led to variations in the text, the science of textual criticism is committed to thoroughly addressing this issue. The process meticulously scrutinizes every variant reading to determine the precise wording of the biblical writings. Most textual variants involve relatively minor differences (e.g. spelling, reduplication, word order) that can readily be explained. No fundamental doctrine of the Bible is in doubt because of textual uncertainty.⁵

     The probability that the original text of the New Testament has been preserved is based on two significant factors: (1) the vast number of available manuscripts with which to work, and (2) the chronological proximity of these documents to the originals. Before consideration is given to the documentary evidence undergirding the books of the New Testament, what is available to corroborate other ancient literary works?

     The famous Iliad of Homer, after its initial oral transmission, was committed to writing sometime after Homer’s death in the 8th century BC and then edited to remove interpolations and copyist errors in the 6th century BC. The earliest extant fragments of this work date back to the 3rd century BC (about 500 years removed from the original), and the oldest complete copy is from the 10th century AD. In total there are 643 manuscripts of this epic poem (second only in attestation to the NT), with 764 disputed lines of text. Yet Homer’s Iliad is widely acclaimed as one of the greatest literary masterpieces of the western world.

     The Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar is preserved in only ten surviving manuscripts, the earliest of which is about nine centuries removed from the original. There are merely seven extant copies of Pliny’s Natural History, with a gap of around 750 years between the initial work and the oldest available manuscript. The History of Thucydides and the History of Herodotus are known from only eight copies each that are separated from the originals by approximately 1,300 years. And despite the scant textual evidence supporting these ancient works, one would be hard pressed to find a reputable historian, classicist, or even theologian who would dare question their historical value and credibility.  

     In comparison, the number of surviving manuscripts of the New Testament is exceedingly greater than that of any other ancient literary work. Not counting texts inscribed on potsherds and amulets, there are no less than 5,735 Greek New Testament manuscripts, the earliest of which date back to within decades of the originals. To this can be added the thousands of documents translated into Syriac, Latin, and other languages, plus plethoric quotations from early ecclesiastical writers. The unique challenge of New Testament textual criticism is not the scarcity of the documentary evidence but the unparalleled quantity! As the late F. F. Bruce has pointedly observed, “if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (New Testament Documents 10).

Conclusion:

     We attain knowledge of God the same way we attain knowledge of anything else. We begin by carefully observing the world around us, and then draw reasonable conclusions. If we are willing to look beyond the narrow confines of anti-theistic naturalism, we can easily concede a powerful, intelligent, creative force far greater than ourselves. If we are then open to the prospect of the Creator having communicated, and if we are willing to investigate (without prejudice) the one-volume collection of writings claiming to be from him, there is a wealth of knowledge we would miss out on otherwise.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ There are approximately 130 occurrences in the Old Testament of the expression (or one comparable to it), “The word of the Lord came to …” (Isa. 1:2; Joel 1:1; Micah 1:1; etc.).

     ² Note, for example, Apologetics Press <Link>, Apologia Institute <Link>, Focus Press <Link>, Warren Christian Apologetics Center <Link>. 

     ³ For a non-exhaustive list, see N. Geisler and F. Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist 270-71.

     ⁴ Michael Patton, “Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion,” credohouse.org (07-08-2013), <Link>.

     ⁵ See Changes in the Bible? Part 1 <Link>. With respect to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the most significant changes merely affect the order of the respective books and how they are classified. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures produced in the 3rd–2nd centuries BC, and the Massoretic Text (MT) is the standard Hebrew canon revised, copied and distributed between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. With the discovery in 1947-1956 of nearly a thousand biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can be confident that the text of the OT has been faithfully preserved.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Are You Sure About God Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Argument Against God

Related articles: J. Wallace's Raised in a Christian Culture?, Michael J. Kruger's Can We Believe God's Word is True Because Our Parents Told Us?, Eric Lyons & Kyle Butt's Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhtPRxJ1Z1C-6o4DO6nY5jdw8_1Nlqy90H2reA06dw8cTpv2tSBbY9m9KiYTiqaVQzZvu3pjfczwOumLU0Apex8Ugi5AHw0Xb857bAosrOmAaN-diiPhiv1Tq7tHxalZamZB2co_s3s2a-/s1600/1+John+5-14+%252803-05-2016%2529.jpg

Are You Sure About God? (Part 3)

     To affirm that “God does not exist and cannot exist,” and “the physical universe is all there is, was, or ever will be,” is to make faith claims that cannot be confirmed scientifically. To begin with these presuppositions is to limit oneself to only naturalistic explanations, thus missing out on a wealth of knowledge outside the narrow purview of experimental and observational science. The evidence points beyond the natural world – to the supernatural (outside of and superior to nature). In our search for the knowledge of God, there are certain things we can know simply from observation and inductive reasoning that move us in the direction of faith.

Compelled to look beyond nature …

     When we carefully observe the amazing world around us, reasonable inferences can be drawn. How do we account for its incredible beauty and our innate capacity to appreciate it?¹ How do we explain its wondrous design, from the tiniest microscopic organisms to the vast solar systems? We can’t help but marvel at the mystery of life. Unless we’ve missed an elusive piece of evidence, there is no way this colossal “miracle” could have arbitrarily appeared from a void of nothingness. If there is no supernatural, intelligent, creative force (if there is no God), why is there something rather than nothing, and why is it so far beyond our ability to replicate or even explain? The more we learn, the more incomprehensible our universe proves to be from a strictly naturalistic worldview.

     Nobel Prize winning physics professor Steven Weinberg candidly observes, “Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know.” Weinberg goes on to say, “I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question ‘why?’ …. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.”² In other words, after millions of years of human evolution (so we’re told), with the most brilliant minds and scientific and technological advances, we still don’t have a clue!

     Surely we are compelled to acknowledge there’s more to our universe than meets the eye. Are we willing to look beyond the restrictive confines of humanistic naturalism? Where can we find answers to life’s most fundamental questions? Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? How should we live? Within the evolutionary arena of mindless forces governed by nothing and going nowhere, there are no answers.

Seeking a reasonable explanation …

     Seeing that humans are intelligent, purposeful beings, it is only reasonable, maybe even intuitive, to suspect that the primal cause/grand designer of the universe has intelligence and purpose. Since none of us is omniscient, we have to accept the fact that there are a number of things we cannot know unless that information is revealed. Fallible human reasoning will only get us so far. Is it possible that the primal cause/grand designer has provided an explanation that we are incapable of devising or discovering by ourselves?

     The thoughts, the will, and the desires of someone else are unknowable apart from communication. My friend Richard Parr shares this helpful analogy.³

I can use logic to determine that my wife has performed activities around the house. I see the clean kitchen, the made bed, and the wet shower floor …. Yet no amount of applied logic can make me sure of what she is thinking, how she feels, what she wants... unless, that is, she communicates her thoughts and feelings to me …. But then we have moved from logical explanations, to relational experiences. I then know because she made me know, not because I deduced it.

Could it be the same with our Maker? Beyond the limited reach of scientific investigation and our capacity to reason is a relationship – one that is actuated by communication through which God’s existence and purpose are more fully realized.

Has God Communicated?

     The Bible claims to have come from God and to be all-sufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Former district attorney Robert C. Veil comments:

I recognize that critics will object that the Bible’s own claim of inspiration cannot be considered on the ground that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.” But such an objection would be overruled, for it ignores standard and accepted practice in other proceedings. We routinely allow the accused in criminal cases to speak for himself ... Even in civil cases, where the burden of proof is much lower, we allow the defendant to speak in his own behalf when his character is called into question. If the Bible is to be accorded a fair trial, its own claims of inspiration must be carefully considered along with all other evidence.⁴

Conclusion:

     Although any religious writing can claim divine derivation, can it be proven? What kind of evidence would substantiate such a lofty claim? Is there any other document or collection of writings (religious or otherwise) comparable to the Bible? We will consider this further in our next post.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ For example, even though there is “nothing evolutionarily beneficial about flower-producing plants,” they comprise approximately ninety percent of all plant species today (Himanshu Sharma, “10 Fascinating Mysteries of Life that Science Can’t Explain,” Listverse [10 April 2015],<Link>).

     ² Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?,” Physics & Astronomy Online (2016), <Link>.

     ³ Richard Parr, “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.

     ⁴ Robert C. Veil, “A Prosecutor Looks at the Bible,” Apologetics Press (2016), <Link>.

Related Posts: Are You Sure About God? Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

Image credit: http://mymomsfridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/contemplation.jpg

Are You Sure About God? (Part 2)

     In our previous post <Link>, we briefly noted the three ways of attaining knowledge: (a) personal observation and experience; (b) inferences drawn therefrom (inductive reasoning); and (c) the testimony of others. We then considered the first of these: what can be known about God (or anything else) from observing the world around us? The physical universe is something we can all see and examine, so how is it to be explained? Everything we know by observation and experience leads to the conclusion that the cosmos is real and had a beginning. As we examine the evidence further, what more can we learn?

Here’s what we know from inductive reasoning …

     Everything that comes to be (an effect) must have an adequate cause outside itself and superior to itself. The physical world consists of matter (rocks, dirt, water, etc.) but also complex living organisms. Life is more than materials. Consciousness, thought, rationality, and purpose are not comprised of materials. Lifeless matter does not generate life, unconscious matter does not effect consciousness, nonintelligent matter does not yield intelligence, nonrational matter does not produce rationality, and amoral matter does not create morality.

     Consistent, complex, functional design does not happen by accident. Where there is design, according to all that is known about how the world operates, there must be a designer. Specified complexity is inherent in all known living organisms. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the code of genetic information – the exact hereditary instructions in every life form.¹ Even the “simplest” life form, the one-celled amoeba, has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete (33-volume) sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.² Specified complexity does not result from mindless randomness. Only intelligence produces information, logical arrangement, and deliberate order.

     The universe demonstrates remarkably fine-tuned patterns of activity, including precise and interdependent environmental conditions (known as anthropic constants) essential for supporting life on earth. There are approximately 122 of these constants, including oxygen level, atmospheric transparency, moon-earth gravitational interaction, carbon dioxide level, gravity, water vapor levels, earth’s rotation and axis tilt, et al. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that all of these constants would exist by chance (without purposeful design) for any planet in the universe, concluding that there is one chance in 10¹³⁸ (1 followed by 138 zeros)!³ In other words, for all practical purposes, it is impossible.

The will to disbelieve …

     While evidence is all around us, how the evidence is interpreted is not always determined by the mind but by the will. No one is neutral; we all have presuppositions. Although many just don’t care, there are many others who have the will either to disbelieve or to believe.

     One morning Andy discovered Scrabble^® letters on the kitchen table arranged to spell, “TAKE OUT TRASH – MOM.” He recalled learning in Biology class that life arose spontaneously from nature, so perhaps the cat knocked over the box, causing the letters to just randomly fall into place. He didn’t want to take out the trash, so he attributed the apparent “message” to a freak accident. Going to the beach to find Amanda (a girl he liked), he saw her in the distance walking with Tim. He noticed written in the sand, “Amanda + Tim xx.” He couldn’t imagine that she liked Tim, so he reasoned that maybe the tide or a sand crab was responsible for the unusual markings resembling words. He then noticed Amanda giving Tim a big hug after Tim had pointed to the sky, so Andy looked up and saw “I LUV U” written in white smoke. Just an unusual cloud formation?⁴

Could there be another explanation?

     What is the alternative to a supernatural, intelligent, purposeful designer? Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking argues for the possibility of an infinite number of universes (the multiverse theory), and given enough time with so many chances at least one life-friendly universe is bound to appear.⁵ Well, while we’re at it, one could also reason that it’s within the realm of possibility that the apparent “messages” Andy saw resulted from a cat knocking over a box of letters, a crab’s random sand tracks, and a freak cloud formation. This is reminiscent of the scene in the 1994 movie Dumb & Dumber, where Lloyd asks Mary what the chances are of them getting together. She responds, “Not good,” and Lloyd asks, “You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?” Mary replies, “I’d say more like one out of a million.” Then Lloyd says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance…”  The sad reality is, the odds of Andy’s and Lloyd’s assumptions being true are substantially more favorable than Dr. Hawking’s.

Conclusion

     An effect cannot be greater than its cause. The ultimate source of the universe has to be outside of time, space, matter, and finite energy, capable of creativity and design on a magnitude we mere mortals cannot fathom. Any attempt to comprehend (and to judge!) the supernatural within the restrictive confines of nature is pretentious, unreasonable, and misguided.

     By observing the natural world with no anti-theistic presumptions, we can easily conclude the existence of an original cause/grand designer. Yet within such a limited scope we cannot know much about the original cause/grand designer. In our next post we will continue the investigative journey, introducing the third way of attaining knowledge – testimony.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences” (“What is DNA?” Genetics Home Reference [25 Oct. 2016], <Link>). Can there be information without intelligence?

     ² Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watch Maker (New York: Norton, 1996): 116. Each volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica is comprised of roughly 1,000 pages, and an entire set contains approximately 40 million words in nearly 65,700 articles, not counting the index volumes.

     ³ Hugh Ross, “Why I Believe in the Miracle of Divine Creation,” in Why I Am a Christian, ed. N. L. Geisler and P. K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006): 138-41.

     ⁴ Adapted from N. L. Geisler and F. Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004): 113-14.

     ⁵ Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010).

Works Consulted:

     Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.

     Parr, Richard. “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.

     ---. “Big Questions of Life: Relating with God,” HubPages (8 April 2014), <Link>.

     Stokes, Mitch. How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.

*See also John R. Baumbardner and Jeremy D. Lyon, "A Linguistic Argument for God's Existence," JETS 58/4 (2015): 771-86.

Related Posts: Are You Sure About God? Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2013/02/thinkingfyi.jpg?itok=5DXKOYXW