William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith, has released another excellent video illustrating a major argument for God’s existence. This time it’s the argument from contingency. Of the four released thus far (kalam, moral, cosmic fine-tuning), this is probably the most difficult to follow, but it also has the best graphics. Take a look:
Thinking to Believe 
December 20, 2015 at 9:55 am
This “work” is only more rationalization and exclusion of fact. Bias dressed as “proof.”
IF there is a “god” it is strictly an Impersonal one, at best. “Impersonal” as in only certain Forces at work, not caring, not interested, and non-emotional in the sense of the human condition.
LikeLike
December 20, 2015 at 10:53 am
CONTINGENT AND NECESSARILY: Another pound of feathers as heavy as the lb of rocks in your head.
In order to NOT have to explain the prior cause reference to GOD, you simply add two descriptors for everything that exists. Contingent and Necessarily. BUT one can just as easily state that the Universe exists necessarily as to state that GOD exists necessarily and how would anybody know the difference? We wouldn’t know because it is still a matter of belief, whether the belief is the belief in the premise, belief in the conclusion or belief in both. Where is the star that supernovaed 50 billion light years ago? Why it’s gone; it’s not there anymore, merely cosmic dust and radiation mingling in the universe bed where all novas and supernovas go. As a matter of fact all the other stars and planets disappeared in similar ways; It’s like it never even happened so it hardly a wonder why we cannot look back further than than 13 or 14 billion light years, the previous materialism has already been rendered into fodder for the current cycle the Universe is in; the Universe is cyclic; The Universe exists necessarily. What existed prior to 14 billion years ago is being recycled; it is the “Way It Is”, NECESSARILY! The Universe is alive and teeming with life of all sorts and sizes, makes and models like automobiles, bicycles, bread and religion, remember Diversity?
The contingency argument is just another rack to wack your hat and only accepted by believers who are already there, waiting for another way to say the same thing and conditioned to accept any new semantic game but the conclusion offers only pseudo-support for their belief; it is not logical, it’s not reasonable and could hardly be expected to win any new proselytes for the
Believers’ Side
Would Gravity exist without the material it affects? Or, what came first the Sun, the Planets that revolve around it, Gravity that holds and maintains the planets in place or the energy that propels the planets rotation. And what is the Sun doing just hanging out there in its jealous sky? Does Gravity propel the planets at the same time as holding them in continuous sequence? It’s like the chicken or the egg conundrum, GOD the Egg or GOD the Chicken; well, the contingency argument would have us belief it is GOD the Both.
That “any existence must have a prior cause” seems reasonable until you apply it to the GOD factor but since the GOD factor was invented by Man then the language to explain GOD must NECESSARILY be flexible enough to describe the indescribable. One then has to apply “necessarily” in order to eliminate GOD dependency from holding to the same premise that all other existence is subject to. Because is set apart as man defines GOD.
What came first Man or Man’s Imagination? There is no such thing as “FIRST”, first is a concept that lives only in the imagination of man. It’s like the seed and the soil the seed resurrects and grows in; did one even exist before the other? Impossible.
It’s the same old circular argument used for the last million centuries and still makes no sense out of nonsense.
But the video does have “okay” graphics, not the best graphics by any means Jason; nothing to write home about and certainly not anything worth showcasing at the Festival de Cannes. lol
LikeLike
December 20, 2015 at 2:30 pm
It constantly baffles me when agnostics claim there is no proof, or even evidence, for the existence of God. There is overwhelming proof that there truly is a God. To say that one must “believe” there is a God is to say that one can only “believe” he is looking at a butterfly. If one believes his senses, then one will realize that both are absolutely certain: There is a God. And the butterfly is also real.
LikeLike
December 20, 2015 at 6:07 pm
What is so baffling randy? Good can be easily understood and proven by observation and demonstration; that it emanates from an invisible , external supernatural and personal God cannot.
You cannot prove your God by a showing a butterfly. That is baffling.
LikeLike
December 21, 2015 at 5:59 am
@ I AM here – It would help your case if you condensed the argument succinctly – that mass of text causes my eyes to glaze over.
As I understand it, your problem with the contingency is that whatever can be attributed to “God” can be attributed to “The Universe”.
However, this is not the case – I do not think there is any warrant to apply necessity to the universe. The universe could have a cause. Standard doctrine of God is that He has no cause otherwise He would not be the greatest. In this case, then logically, God would have to be Necessary or Impossible. Given the two choices, I think it is weighed in the theists’ favour rather than the atheists’
LikeLike
December 21, 2015 at 9:31 am
scottspeig:
If a Doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group. Why could the Universe have a cause and God not have a cause? Is this not merely a matter of belief? And if so why should one belief prevail over the other since all beliefs are equal unless proved by knowledge.
This is evident by the thousands of religious cults around the world all believing they have the correct doctrine.
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 5:28 am
All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but YHWH has caused the iniquity of us all to encounter Him. (Isaiah 53:6)
Antony Flew says that he simply: ‘had to go where the evidence leads.’
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_antonyflew.htm
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 11:29 am
An exercise in interpretation:
The Infinite/Eternal Universe of Sir Isaac Newton — It’s the very fact that space-time, energy/matter are NOT infinite/eternal that’s used to posit a cause for the beginning of the universe hence a Causal Agent/Creator God.
http://www.marxist.net/sciphil/reasoninrevolt/rirframe.htm?8.htm
Astronomy and the Bible — Note the observations on Hubble and the expansion of space as measured by Redshift and in comparison to the Doppler effect.
Consider too, Max Planck’s work on the finite/indivisible universe:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4688
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 11:51 am
An exercise in interpretation:
The infinite/eternal universe of Sir Isaac Newton — It’s the very fact that space-time matter/energy are NOT infinite/eternal that’s used to posit a cause for the beginning of the universe hence a Causal Agent/Creator God.
http://www.marxist.net/sciphil/reasoninrevolt/rirframe.htm?8.htm
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 1:08 pm
I AM says “I simply had to go where the evidence leads.” There is nothing profound in that statement; it is merely one person describing an opinion.
There is no measurable time before the earlier universe morphed and stars blew off as gas and dust planetary nebulae; more massive stars fall inward until the star eventually becomes a supernova, blowing off gas and dust in a dramatic fiery death. Time only begins when there are measurable points to measure. We cannot measure further than the 13/14 billion light year because the universe is not there any more It’s gone, disappeared re-absorbed into dark matter or background radiation as fodder for the nesting of other formations and so the cycle goes.
When the star supernovas, that point is absorbed into the greater universe, time is gone as far as that star is concerned. The Universe is expanding and disappearing in every direction, spherically not linearly, all of the “TIME”, infinite, eternal, forever. Do the math.
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm
beingreal, why don’t you substantiate your claim by showing where the argument errs? What is wrong with positing a necessary being to explain the origin of all contingent beings (which includes the universe)? And what is your explanation for why contingent beings exist if you reject a necessary being?
Jason
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm
Good comment Randy. Absolutely agree. There are no arguments for God’s existence that provide incontrovertible proof that God exists, but the premises in those arguments are more plausible than not, and thus the conclusion that God exists is more plausible than not. The fact of the matter is that if one is going to say there is no God, then they have no explanation for why contingent beings like the universe exist. Positing an eternal universe not only is contrary to the evidence that the universe began to exist, but it still does not explain what needs to be explained, namely contingent existence. Even if the universe existed forever, it is still a contingent being and contingent beings have to be caused to exist by something outside of themselves.
Jason
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 3:58 pm
I AM HERE, scottspeig is right. You cannot argue that whatever can be attributed to God can be attributed to the universe. The universe is a contingent being, whereas God is not. And you won’t find a philosopher out there who will claim that the universe has necessary existence because it obviously did not have to exist, or exist in the manner that it does (to say the universe is necessary would be to say it not only has to exist, but has to exist in precisely the fashion it does – not one more or one less quark). Contingent beings require causes; necessary beings have no causes. That’s why the universe requires a cause, even if it is eternal. It’s not a matter of belief or dogma to say God needs no cause. As an eternal, necessary being he cannot have a cause. It’s a logical impossibility. Not so with the universe.
Jason
LikeLike
December 23, 2015 at 7:11 pm
Re: post # 10 —
After reading Peter S. Williams’ article I consider how he concludes it concerning Flew.
“It is now clear that Flew has become a philosophical theist, someone who believes in the existence of a God (a transcendent intelligence of perhaps infinite power but not infinite goodness) who created the cosmos and has acted within it; although not to produce any supernatural revelation, or to interact with humans on an individual basis concerning any scheme of salvation or any sort of life after death. The primary reason Flew has become a theist is that scientific evidence has convinced him that the origin of life required intelligent design. In Flew’s assessment, the scientific data indicates that one cannot argue, as he once argued, that ‘it does not seem… that there is any good evidence [to] postulate anything behind or beyond this natural universe’ and that ‘the most fundamental laws of nature, must… be taken as the last words in any series of answers to questions as to why things are as they are.’ Instead, Flew now argues that there is good reason to ‘postulate something behind or beyond the natural universe’ precisely because the ‘fundamental laws of nature’ cannot ‘be taken as the last word in all series of answers to questions about why things are as they are’. Specifically, this can not be done with regard to the origin of life.
On the one hand, says Flew, naturalistic efforts have failed to provide ‘a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities’, and ‘It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.’ On the other hand: ‘The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.’ As Jonathan Witt comments:
Such evidence has drawn Flew from atheism to a non-specific theism. He isn’t ready to accept the God of a particular religion, nor does he believe in an afterlife. The change is, nevertheless, significant. He no longer inhabits a worldview where the miraculous and the irrational are synonymous.
The amazing complexity of even the simplest cell; the information-bearing properties of DNA; the exquisite fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics that make organic life possible… these signs of intelligence do not compel our belief in a God who thundered from Mount Sinai, lay in a manger or hung from a cross. But the evidence does have metaphysical implications, drawing us to a still place of wonder where such notions can be reasonably entertained.”
Given Flew’s longstanding reputation and the gulf he crossed by moving from the constraint of the natural to acknowledgment even acceptance of the miraculous supernatural while preserving the integrity of his faculty of reason one cannot underemphasize the personal discoveries, transformational prospects and broader applications of his journey. After long years of searching he finally found a rational path to lead him in the direction of his own origin.
LikeLike
December 24, 2015 at 9:34 am
scottspeig:
I agree I need to hone my editing skills. Sorry for making your eyes “glaze over”. lol
Jason:
One attributes “contingent” and “necessary” where one wants so they form a statement that is made on the assumption that it will prove to be true. But whatever one says about that matter thereafter does not make the posits true. Implied Absolutes without qualification or question other than theosophical musings. It’s what Philosophers and Theologians do. Like the TV commercial says If you want to save 15% on car insurance you go to Geico, it’s what you do.
Origin
mid 17th century: from Latin posit- ‘placed,’ from the verb ponere, placed wherever you want to describe whatever conclusion you have already reached; it’s working backwards: Okay, here’s the conclusion so let’s manufacture the premises, if this, then that…Boom there it is.
LikeLike
December 24, 2015 at 11:25 am
For a cogent comprehensible explanation of the matter, go here:
LikeLike
December 24, 2015 at 11:54 am
Re: post # 14 —
In support of Antony Flew:
MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!
LikeLike
December 26, 2015 at 11:04 am
All generalizations are false, including this one. – Mark Twain
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:17)
LikeLike
December 26, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Post 17 is so much proof of so much bullish that we hear again and again from the pulpit.
Miracles can be observed everyday by David Copperfield and Chris Mind Freak and don’t forget the great Houdini and the Pharaoh’s Court Magicians in Exodus turning staffs into snakes; I mean miracles have been going on since the burning bush and the bubbling oil sands that were refined by nature to combust like lighter fluid and extinguish quickly without consumption. And we all remember the playing deck of cards where miracles are a dime a dozen to use an old adage.
Trying to push miracles onto populations using smart phones shows the world just how backward religion has remained for thousands of centuries and why The Exorcist is such a blockbusting money maker for Hollywood and the Zombie phenomenon all the rage. Cecil B DeMille Ten Commandments originally released in a silent movie classic in 1923, is a 1956 American religious epic film produced and directed by Cecil B. DeMille where the miracles come alive! when women were not allowed in church without covering their hair with a bandana and who could not attend a bar without a male escort, and when the laws changed to admit women they had to divide the bar into two sections, one side for men only and one side for women with men escorts only, sounds rather Islamic.
LikeLike
December 26, 2015 at 1:34 pm
Re: post # 10 —
“I AM says ‘I simply had to go where the evidence leads.’ There is nothing profound in that statement; it is merely one person describing an opinion.”
LikeLike
December 26, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Everything we believe is based on the existence of God.
God does not speak to anybody, except what one hears in the brain,
God does not answer prayer, except what one imagines in the brain,
God doesn’t suspend the Laws of the Physics, except what is imagined in the brain.
God is invisible and nobody has seen God
We don’t have time to spend on this but let me just point out one or two very obvious things: The last chapter of the first of his two epistles, to Timothy, the sixth chapter in the 16th verse Paul said that God is invisible. He dwells in a light that no man can approach unto, who no man hath seen or can see.
What little child could have jumped into his arms? None for no man can approach to that light and live.
But Jesus doesn’t talk about belief in God but the knowledge of God and that knowledge is something you can know but you need to know Jesus first; otherwise, you’ll remain stuck in the imagination of belief about the invisible supernatural. How?
What the Lord Jesus meant in the 8th verse of 8th chapter of John, when he said, if you will abide in my word, you will know the truth, He did not say you will believe, he said you will KNOW, and at last discover the principle that governs a man’s relationship to God and God’s relationship to man and when you discover that truth, that truth( that knowledge, not belief)) will set you free. Free. And if the son shall make you free, you’ll be free indeed.
The Lord Jesus said, I’m free. I’m free. Because in the sinlessness of my humanity I’ve entered into no contract, I have submitted myself to no obligation, I have indebted myself to nobody in such a way that I could not at all times do only exclusively what pleases him. That’s freedom. You are free ladies and gentlemen when you have entered into no contract, indebted yourself to nobody, or any organization or denominational group, you’ve entered into no alliance that would make it at anytime impossible for you to do other than please him, then you’re free. Free. That’s perfect freedom.
As man we are part of the universe and everything that exists in the universe is available to the man who is available to all there is in the universe, this is LifeForce utilizing everything in the universe consistent with the good of the LifeForce utilizing the life forces and lifeforce operates like a bacteria; AKA, building blocks of life.
So these little bits of the universe through forces of universe interactions including the laws of nature, gravity, electricity. In other words what ever is in the universe the LifeForces seek out that which is compatible and consistent with the particular building block.
As the block moves around and encounters other components of which some are useless, others incompatible, some that have reactions or allergic symptoms or others that are sweet, compatible and the engagement takes place then the two blocks roll along seeking and searching as force will have it over periods of time and eventually accumulate other blocks that eventually learn by accumulation how to replicate and grow when the sum total of the parts grow stronger than any single part of the components. And so the life forces go and grow over thousands of years, millions of years and billions of years until the structure contains 37.2 Trillion cells and that is the evolution engineering of the Adams and Eves Lifeforces of Earth. While at other blocks rolled along searching, seeking and adhering to those blocks compatible with their essence and all the other LifeForms grew according to the LifeForces combinations compatible with their style thus Flora, Fauna and Biota evolved. Natural Evolution in conjunction with Laws of Universe Engineered everything the universe consists of, while Man in his curiosity, explores, pioneers, seeks, asks and knocks, makes boats to float and oars flagelling unto the doors of knowledge in order to explain and name and understand the LifeForces for every formation in the realm, past, present and into future genetic manipulations now we the brains of knowledge to direct instead of depending on which way the wind blows or the current runs or obstacles present.
WOW! Knowledge is such a magnificent magnificence, significant significance, giving mankind the Freedom to unlock Liberty. Don’t stop knocking, asking, seeking and each day is the new beginning in another round of questions building on the shoulders of giant questioners who found answers yesterday, yesterweek, yesteryear.
LikeLike
December 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
Miracles are rare occurrences on planet earth otherwise we could not call them miracles.
Naz
LikeLike
December 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Miracles are magic tricks, sleight of hand and deceitful attempts to hoodwink people, to capture their imagination and emotion and once you capture their imagination and emotion you capture their mind and with their mind you capture their will and you can control them to do what you want them to do.
The religious are fervently and permanently hoodwinked by belief. Miracles (magic tricks) are the psychological tools practiced by cults of all kinds. Popoff uses the tool of miracle water in his church seances for healing and for testimonies of financial gain after praying with the miracle water and following the ketchup like instructions on the package. I’m assuming the ketchup like packages have instructions on them, I have never seen one except on his TV show.
Miracles as a rare occurrence has no such characterization. God calls magic tricks miracles in Exodus and Moses tells Aaron to throw down his staff that will turn into a snake, and it does and then the Kings magicians do the same thing. With miracles described like this how can you not understand the deceitfulness of magic tricks to be miracles as god declares.
Do you not have a bible Naz? Go on line and read the magic tricks of Moses as he tries to persuade Pharaoh to let him and his people escape from the enslavement of the Egyptians.
Here Exodus 7: 7 So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. 8 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 9 “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Show a miracle for yourselves,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and let it become a serpent.’” 10 So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and they did so, just as the Lord commanded. And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12 For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents.
Can you defend this magic trick as a miracle from the Lord, Naz? Please tell me why this “rare occurrence” miracle is not a magic trick?
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 1:57 am
Little understood scriptures easily passed over with little or no particualr significance attached to them.:
Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then?
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king.” This was the same nonsense when the Pharisees asked Jesus if he was the son of god; his pat answer was always. “Thou sayest it”; it is you who say it.
Jesus replied to Pilate, “Thou sayest it”. In other words, Jesus acknowledged the labels were given to describe him but he never confirmed the label, he simply acknowledged that “they (you) say it” but it didn’t make the label true just because they said it; it was a label he neither sought, endorsed or accepted. But then, Jesus continued and plainly stated what his true label was:
“To this end was I born”, he said, “and for this cause came I into the world: (this is the end and the cause and message throughout his entire life from the beginning of his campaign when he stood up in the Synagogue and read from the Book of Isaiah, the words that started his mission.)
THAT I SHOULD BEAR WITNESS UNTO THE TRUTH.
Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.”
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 10:17 am
I don’t have to defend or qualify what the Lord does or how He does it.
Ask Him.
Naz
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 11:22 am
You are the one who said “Miracles are rare occurrences on planet earth otherwise we could not call them miracles.”
That is a statement from you not the Lord. Therefore you need to defend the scripture that calls magic tricks miracles; otherwise, your statement is rendered bullish.
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 11:23 am
If you can’t explain what you accept, then why bother writing about the Flying Pasghetti Monster?
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 11:38 am
“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45)
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 11:47 am
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Does this scripture also apply to the suicide bomber who motorcycles into the enemy circles and detonate?
Example of a moral injury happens when the soldier seeing a youngster coming toward their group wearing a suicide vest has to decide to shoot or not to shoot the child. To stop the death threat to himself and his colleagues though the child had no part in the scheme, he must shoot the child. A moral injury that will never abandon him in a lifetime.
Such shows the dilemma of war and the humanity that necessarily must endure it. The problem of evil for which there is no recourse from any God, in any religion, at anytime, since the foundation of the world and yet we ritually ask for God’s guidance?
“I don’t have to defend or qualify what the Lord does or how He does it.”
Please show the common sense that justifies that position.
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Frank:
You are out of your league and hour long video preachers can never bring you into the fold. Forget the ideas of demented patriarchs from the past who used magic and trickery for brownie points.
If you’ve got a head full of scripture you can’t explain then what you’ve got is a head full of ideas that have stopped growing; that’ll be a head full of dead ideas then. And you have no right to have those ideas taken seriously. You’re simply not entitled to it and you’ve certainly got no business using them to tell other people how they should live their lives because you don’t know anything.
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 1:53 pm
The Prophets were solely educated from schools established to teach about God and the Law like Rabbinical Schools, Madrassas, Seminaries, Monasteries, Schools and Universities for religious studies today. Prophets were nothing special other than having an education that the masses were not privy to. A Prophet was merely someone who attended and eventually graduated from, such a Prophet School. And who performed magic tricks as miracles as part of their course. We think a prophet had some special divine rights when in fact was just a graduate of a religious school without any special powers apart from a bag of magicians’ miracle tricks used from time to time to trick and allure proselytes, as Moses himself was tricked by the burning bush.
In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people. The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy. One can claim anything one wants; claims are not uncommon as ridiculous and ludicrous as many of them are.
The schools of the prophets were established by the prophet Samuel. The first mention of the “sons of the prophets”, as all the young men educated that way were called, we find it in 1 Samuel 10, when Saul is anointed as king. (1 Samuel 10:5) In the days of Samuel there were two schools of the prophets, one in Ramah, where the prophet Samuel lived, and one in Kiryat Yearim, where it was the ark of the covenant. Later on some more schools of the prophets were established in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3), Jericho (2 Regi 2:15), Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38).
The bible was written by the theologians; AKA, Prophets, Ministers, Preachers, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, who were taught in making claims as intermediaries for God.
But a Prophet is only someone set apart to perform certain functions in the community in sanctification.
We get a bit frightened at the word Prophet and Sanctification because we’ve sort of given them a musty connotation. We made the words sort of drip religion. There’s nothing pompous or pious about prophet in sanctification. Sanctification, beautiful word. It simply means set apart. That’s what a saint is: not a stain glass window, sort of, with a halo hanging around his neck; a prophet, a saint, same root word is somebody set apart in sanctification, set apart for the intelligent purpose for which intelligently educated, designed or created, that’s sanctification.
Anything can be sanctified. When I put my shoes on my feet and walk down the street with them on my feet, I sanctify them. I could of course put them on my head and go barefoot; you’d think I was a little unusual; you’d be right.
When you look at your watch, you sanctify it; you use it for the intelligent purpose for which it was intelligently created, to tell you how late it is. You’ll probably sanctify your watch several times before this night is out.
I could use my glasses to stir my coffee in an emergency but that wasn’t really in the mind of the person who made them; his idea was that I’d stick them on my nose so that I could see the better. Now I’m sanctifying them. These glasses are a little unusual because they have double vision lenses and I don’t need the top half when I’m reading so they’re only half sanctified when I wear them.
The word sanctification simply means that you recognize the intelligent purpose for which something is made or educated and you understand the intelligent way in which education directs you so you can implement that intelligent purpose and then you let your education that created your direction for that intelligent purpose, use you to that end; that’s sanctification.
Now you see, we’re without excuse because the Lord Jesus deliberately chose to sanctify himself, so that we in him would know the truth whereby we too may be sanctified. Sanctify them through thy word, they word is truth; in other words, truth contains a principle; it’s a principle to live by. I don’t mean pretty little bible stories that you simply know, textually, so that you can tell the story of Daniel and the lion’s den; or, David and Goliath, all part of biblical word but you see if you just memorize bible stories or for that matter memorize bible verses but you don’t understand the truth, the principle being communicating, then you might just as well recite three blind mice and this is the tragedy with countless evangelical, born again believers, they have a bible that they’ve come to know textually but they’ve never learned the truth!
Said the Lord Jesus, your word is truth. It contains those vital principles that must govern man’s relationship to humanity and humanity’s relationship to man. And if they can’t grasp the truth, if they can’t just understand what it’s all about, all they have to do is look at me. And they’ll see demonstrated in my humanity and in my disposition that I adopt toward others that let’s truth, be truth, in the man. Sanctified.
LikeLike
December 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Know God and make Him known:
But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)
1 Corinthians 15:25-28
For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you. Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah is in you–unless indeed you fail the test? (2 Corinthians 13:4-5)
2 Corinthians 13:6-8
LikeLike
December 31, 2015 at 9:56 am
REASONABLE FAITH:
Leonard Cohen says it best:
Now I’ve heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don’t really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don’t even know the name
But if I did, well really, what’s it to you?
There’s a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn’t matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I’ll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah
ENTER …………2016
LikeLike
December 31, 2015 at 9:57 am
LikeLike
December 31, 2015 at 10:37 am
THE LONDON LIVE LYRICS VERSION:
I’ve heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don’t really care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Now, maybe there is a God above,
As for me all I’ve ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you.
But it’s not a cry that you hear at night,
And it is not some pilgrim who has seen the light
It’s a cold and it is a broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Music break ……………………..
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Oh people I’ve been here before.
I know this room, and I’ve walked this floor.
You see, I used to live alone before I knew you.
And I’ve seen your flag on the marble arch,
But this ‘in love’ is not some kind of victory march,
No, it’s a cold and it’s a very lonely Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
There was a time when you’d let me know
What’s really going on below,
But now, now you never even show it to me, do you?
I remember when I moved in you,
And the Holy Dove, she was moving too,
And every single breath that we drew was Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I’ve done my best, I know it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I learned to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come here to London just to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I’ll stand right here before the Lord of Song
With nothing, nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
LikeLike
January 3, 2016 at 5:58 am
It’s not all that surprising that Leibniz would invoke God as the first cause. His contemporaries, including Isaac Newton, often did that when their math or science was too inadequate to provide alternate explanations. Modern day discussions on this subject leave it open to include such options as the big bang, provided one can get past the qualifiers of the space-time of physics versus the metaphysical timelessness of God.
What is more interesting in my mind is what qualifies as God. Is the God of Abraham the only option? Or can we get past the “my God is better than your God” case, which usually takes the form of “my God is the one true God”, and include Shiva as a viable option? I’m not an expert on Hindu mythology, but if I understand correctly, Shiva creates with one hand and destroys with the other in a never ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. This leaves the option open for an always existing, never ending, repeating series of universes, not unlike the big bang/big crunch option of physics, depending on whether there is enough matter in the universe to reverse the expansion of the big bang.
But, then, maybe it doesn’t much matter. On this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy amongst the billions of other galaxies in this particular universe, mammals have a time to extinction of about 500,000 years, meaning that in about 300,000 years, the next generation of hominids will replace us. Since there is now way of knowing if previous hominids cared much about their place in the universe, including those that initially coexisted with homo sapiens (Neanderthals, Denisovans and homo erectus(?)) and there is no way to know if the next generation of hominids will care either, this entire discussion, while an interesting mental exercise, would essentially be moot.
LikeLike
January 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Bob,
Working from the premise of a Supreme Causal Agent who got this whole shi-bang underway at an indeterminate point in the past; seeing what’s been produced so far I come to the realization that it all revolves around righteousness. If we are to be joined to God Himself whose very nature proves pure absolute righteousness then how are we in our fallen corrupt state to be reconciled to Him so that we may be one with Him? I know of no other way than that provided for us by the God of the Bible. God becomes man thereby enters His own creation to vanquish lethal sin. Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It’s theological and completely pragmatic when we examine the historical Messiah of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He said it Himself during His ministry that He was sent by God to pay our ransom. Jesus/Yahshua said nobody comes to the Father but by Him. He’s our propitiation for sin. He was crucified, died and rose on the third day according to Scripture. John 17 encapsulates His purpose in coming for God and for us. He’s the only One who could accomplish our essential reconciliation because He is entirely God and entirely Man. Messiah serves as our Kinsman Redeemer to our Holy Righteous God and in so doing goes on as our everlasting Mediator/Intercessor. There’s only One Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus/Messiah Yahshua. He provides redemption for us by His Righteousness. No one else can do that. God’s provided us with His revelation through Scripture & His creation.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/dead-sea-scrolls-history-looking-back-on-the-last-75-years/?mqsc=E3821908&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E6B104
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Matthew 5:6)
Have a Blessed New Year 2016,
Frank
LikeLike
January 5, 2016 at 6:15 am
“Is the God of Abraham the only option? Or can we get past the “my God is better than your God” case…”
Bob, that is a good question. For the sake of scriptural evidence, I can site 3 instances where this sort of questioning or “challenge” was observed and the result was that the God of Abraham is the one true God.
1) Moses proved to Pharaoh that the God of Abraham was more powerful than his little gods when Israel was delivered from slavery.
2) Elisha proved that the God of Abraham was greater than Baal when God brought fire down from heaven to consume the sacrifice.
3) Daniel’s friends were saved from a fiery furnace when they called on God to save them at the astonishment of the king who then proclaimed that the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was to be honored. (Daniel 3).
Happy New Year !
Naz
LikeLike
January 5, 2016 at 9:32 pm
I AM,
No, what one labels “contingent” and “necessary” is not arbitrary. Anything that comes into existence is by definition contingent since it did not (at one point in time) exist. You can’t say something’s existence is necessary and at the same time say there was a point in time when something that must exist didn’t exist. The universe is clearly contingent, and you won’t scarcely find a philosopher out there who would dare to make the claim that the universe is necessary. Since the universe is clearly contingent, it requires a source for its existence. To stop the infinite regress (which is philosophically impossible) one must finally arrive at a necessary being. Such a being is the source of all existence. This is what theists mean (in part) by God. So you can’t just hand wave this away. You have to deal with the contingency of the universe.
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2016 at 9:33 pm
Bob, I think you are confusing this argument with a God-of-the-gaps (GOG) argument. The GOG argument appeals to God to plug a gap in our ignorance. The contingency argument is not committing that mistake. It’s based on what we know about (1) the kind of thing our universe is and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress. Contingent things require explanations outside of themselves, but such explanations (sources of being, cause) cannot go on infinitely. There must be a stopping point. It can’t be an arbitrary contingent being since that contingent being also has an explanation for its existence. It has to be a being whose very nature requires that it exist eternally. It is the ground of being for all other contingent beings.
The Big Bang cannot be the necessary being because the BB is an effect, and it is contingent since it is not eternal and came into being. It’s not at all equal to the God explanation.
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2016 at 11:28 pm
The point I AM making is that the terms of reference are your terms and not my terms of reference so they are arbitrary. Whether a dozen Theists choose to use the same terms for the same reference as you or a million philosophers does not make the contingency and necessarily more or less viable because you or a million people assign arbitrary terms that you think others have to comport to. You don’t know if the universe is contingent. How could you know? So just because you state it does not make it so.
On the other hand, I don’t know that the Universe is necessary as the cause of its own effect but I believe that it is because it makes more common sense to me than looking for another “necessary” deity source from the supernatural world that I believe does not exist except in Hollywood and Religion.
You do know know if the Big Bang actually happened because it is a theory based on the expansion and residual radiation and temperature. But nobody knows the shape of the measurable universe; it could be a giant inner tube, donut shape with two circumferences, the outer circumference appears to be expanding while the inner circumference that is not visible to us would show itself to be contracting and as the rotational universe within the donut takes xxx light years to go from the outer and inner circumferences our short life spans would only be in one part. If we are reconstituted/reincarnated in a few trillion years we might be on the inner circumference when the opposite effects would be measurable and the doppler effect would hue blue or hue red whatever the effect shift at that time. Meanwhile the stars are still nova-ing and emitting huge gas and radiation and cloud dusts for the nursery that appears to be residual heat and radiation from a collapsing universe and so on and so on. And the black hole theory is that they are swallowing up parts of the universe which could explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics while the First Law states that energy and matter are one and the same thing in a constant conversion states:
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.
So I have a theory, you have a theory and scientists and Stephen Hawkings have a theory. But there is knowledge that’s impossible for us to know at this time and so we speculate according to the comfort zone in our brain. Psychics, prophets, miracles, ghosts, goblins and gods are not where it’s at with me.
LikeLike
January 6, 2016 at 5:53 am
Jason, I may be mistaken, but I don’t think I’m confused. Leibniz thought God was the First Cause. Newton would probably have agreed with him, but unless I am indeed mistaken, Hawking thinks the Big Bang is the First Cause.
Is what Hawking proposes just a mathematical model? Yep, but so is relativity and space-time and the predictions one can make from that model have been verified by experiment and observation.
Is such a model counter intuitive? Sure, physics at the extremes of the really big (the Big Bang) and the really small (quantum mechanics) can indeed seem counter intuitive. Just because they are outside the realm of normal, day-to-day human experience doesn’t mean they are a lie. Why should creation ex nihilo be the sole province of theology?
Is physic’s ex nihilo model just the figment of an overactive mind desperately trying to justify its place in the universe? Maybe. But then, one could make the same argument about a God, Yahweh, Shiva or otherwise, who is conveniently timeless, by definition, and thus can’t be confirmed or denied, except in the minds of men.
Different education backgrounds, different magisteria, different approaches to the same questions. I prefer the physics model but I won’t go out of my way to ridicule and belittle someone who prefers another approach.
LikeLike
January 6, 2016 at 6:23 am
I might, however, go out of my way to ridicule and belittle someone who wishes to invoke psychics, miracles, ghosts and goblins to justify their position. I won’t make such an effort for prophets or gods, but that doesn’t mean I accept their validity either.
LikeLike
January 6, 2016 at 11:29 pm
Bob Mason,
There is a difference between First Cause arguments (such as the kalam argument) and Leibniz’s argument. The kalam argument says there must be a first cause. Leibniz’s argument goes beyond that. He says that there must be a source and ground of being which gives being to everything else. Contingent beings must derive their existence from something else. Their existence is being “borrowed” from some prior existing thing. But this process can’t go on forever. There must be some ultimate source of being from which all contingent beings derive their being. This is a necessary being.
From my understanding, Hawking attributes everything to the law of gravity, not the Big Bang.
As for the rest of your comments, I’m not sure what they are aimed at. This has nothing to do with physics or mathematics. The issue is contingency. The universe is a contingent being, and hence the explanation for why it exists must be in some other source. One could postulate some other contingent being as its source (such as the law of gravity), but ultimately one must arrive at a necessary being who is eternal and has existence in himself.
Jason
LikeLike
January 6, 2016 at 11:40 pm
I AM,
Just because you refuse to use standard terms with standard definitions does not make them arbitrary. These are clearly defined concepts and they must be grappled with. You can’t just dismiss them by saying they are not your own.
Yes, I do know the universe is contingent. First, it began to exist. Anything that comes into existence cannot be necessary, but must be contingent. And to be contingent means that its being is derived from something else. Second, even if the universe was eternal, there is nothing physically or logically necessary about our universe. To claim the universe is necessary is to say that it must be composed of quarks, leptons, etc., and that they must be in the exact arrangement they are and there could not be a single quark more or less. That is preposterous, which is why no one thinks the universe is necessary. If you are going to claim it is or could be, you must show grounds for that belief.
“The cause of its own effect”? That is nonsense. That’s like saying you gave birth to yourself. Only an obstinate fool would entertain such a notion as a serious intellectual possibility.
One does not arrive at a necessary being because of Hollywood or religion, but because of philosophy. Existence is derived. A gets its existence from B, B gets its existence from C, etc. This can’t go on forever. There must be a source of existence. It would be like me asking you if you have a certain book I can borrow. You don’t, but ask your friend if he has it. If he does, he’ll let you borrow it and you’ll let me borrow it from you. If your friend doesn’t have it, but asks his friend for it, and the process of asking more and more people for the book continues on infinitely with no one ever having the book to lend, then I will never receive the book. If I do receive the book, it’s because someone along the chain of friends had the book to lend. A borrowed it from B, who borrowed it from C, who borrowed it from D, who borrowed it from E…who borrowed it from Z. The only way contingent beings can exist is if there is at least one being that is not contingent, but exists necessarily. That necessary being is the source for all contingent beings.
Jason
LikeLike
January 7, 2016 at 7:28 am
I suspect we are talking past each other. You’ll never accept that a godless singularity can be the first cause and that the universe just is. I’ll never accept that a 2500 year old piece of priestly Hebrew scripture, interpreted to imply that God is timeless, can be extrapolated to make God the first cause creator of everything we see today. Just different approaches to the same question as to why we exist.
LikeLike
January 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm
Taking the approach further …
LikeLike
January 7, 2016 at 4:41 pm
Given the many propositions, random speculations and outright ludicrous absurdities held by some scientists & philosophers concerning the origin of life and the universe, we should in the interest of objectivity and open-mindedness, hear a theologian’s consideration of the matter as well:
LikeLike
January 7, 2016 at 5:45 pm
Frank, where do you get these videos? Do you have them stored on a 1000 gig hard drive, or do you dig them up as you go? I can spend 2 hours watching videos, or 2 hours reading Karen Armstrong’s History of God. Can’t do both. A 200 word or less summary of the vids would be nice.
LikeLike
January 7, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Bob, whatever videos or written excerpts I’ve included in my posts are in the public domain online. This is the Information Age. When I was a kid you’d research the Encyclopedia Britannica. Now it’s the world wide web (where I think you’ll find the Encyclopedia Britannica also) of mega-databases in the “clouds” literally at your fingertips. Where everyone (unless you live in someplace like China or North Korea) has freedom of access to robust search engines for images, videos, books, maps etc. Be attentive & creative. Try going to youtube or google and explore for yourself. Did you know there’s a selection called “Google Scholar” https://scholar.google.com/? Ask your kids and grandkids. See what’s out there. There’s a good chance you’ll find something that stirs your curiosity and is worth sharing. Summaries don’t do justice to content especially when it comes to the Word of God. Editing Scripture doesn’t work. When someone does want to view or read them they should always be afforded full opportunity to receive them intact. If you have interest by all means view at your own pace. Otherwise, simply scroll on by.
LikeLike
January 8, 2016 at 2:19 am
I like it. Better than a simple Google search. Thanks.
LikeLike
January 8, 2016 at 6:17 am
Direct and to the point:
Did Jesus/Yahshua ever declare Himself God?
The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus/Yahshua said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” (John 4:25, 26)
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/psalm110.htm
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/psalm110p2.htm
LikeLike
January 8, 2016 at 6:39 am
Further as pertains Hebrew Scriptures; Who is Messiah?:
http://jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm
LikeLike
January 14, 2016 at 5:51 am
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Romans 5:8-9)
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)
LikeLike
January 15, 2016 at 11:08 am
Frank:
I submit that Paul was suffering under the illusion of his Pharisaical upbringing that promoted the erroneous dogma that a blood sacrifice was necessary for the remission of sins, diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ campaign which showed us how to live and love. That is the true takeaway of reconciliation to the divine kingdom within our humanity. To say that Jesus died for us is to misrepresent the life and messages of Jesus and to follow the false Pauline doctrine.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 8:51 am
Re: post # 55 —
Everyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Messiah, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)
LikeLike
September 5, 2016 at 11:06 pm
[…] https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/contingency-argument-illustrated-by-reasonable-faith/ […]
LikeLike
July 6, 2019 at 4:56 pm
Bob Mason writes:
There are lots of things in our day-to-day experience that are counter intuitive as well, but we don’t argue that mere counter-intuitiveness entails refutation. Science simply cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe. Thus, science cannot, in principle, invalidate cause and effect.
But also notice that we’re no longer discussing flying spaghetti monsters or HIcksville theology. We have atheists falling all over themselves to deny the intuitive in favor of speculative mathematical models. If all you’re dealing with are a bunch of ignoramuses, why rest on counter intuitive arguments and models? Atheists are now denying logical laws at the quantum level to avoid the implications of the causal principle. The self-proclaimed lovers of reason over superstition are now appealing to non-reason to justify their denial of theistic arguments. It does no good for you to appeal to a naturalistic creatio ex nihilo, because theism does not affirm spontaneous generation. They who endorse universes popping into existence without a cause should be less inclined to cast the “mythological” stone at theists who insist that things don’t pop into existence without a cause.
And “infinite regress” or “that’s just the way it is” would be laughable if its proponents weren’t so serious.
LikeLike