Understanding the Ontological Argument (Part 1): The Argument Itself

What if I told you that the existence of God could be proven simply through reason alone? Does this sound like a nearly impossible claim? Well, there exists an argument, or rather, a group of arguments, that attempt to do this very thing. An ontological argument attempts to prove the existence of God a priori, or through reason alone, without reference to experience. The most well known ontological argument is the one put forward by St. Anselm of Canterbury. The argument goes as follows (thanks go to the 'Handbook of Christian Apologetics' for the format):

1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.

2. "God" means "That than which nothing greater can be thought."

3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.

4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).

5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought."

6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

Lets take a closer look at the terms and premises of the argument.

First, when the argument says "greater", as in "it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone", we must keep in mind that this is in reference to metaphysical substance. For instance, I can imagine a big fire breathing dragon attacking a medevil village. In my mind he is setting houses on fire and causing all sorts of trouble for the villagers. However, this imaginary dragon has no real metaphysical substance, seeing as how it exists simply as a thought in my mind, but a real fire breathing dragon exists independently of my mind. It has the ability to breathe real fire, and cause real damage to real houses and cause real trouble for real people. So, in this sense, the real dragon is greater than the imaginary dragon because he actually exists. That is what the argument is getting at when it speaks of something being "greater."

Secondly, the argument hinges upon Anselm's definition of God as being "that than which nothing greater can be thought." This description of God is actually very good, but we will explore why later. For now, just know that this definition is crucial to the argument, since the premises assume that it is true (obviously, if the defintion of God that the premises are built upon is false, then the argument is false). But what exactly does the definition mean? Well, by saying that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought", Anselm is saying at least two things. First, that we cannot imagine a greater being than God, because no such being can possibly exist. Again, this conclusion assumes that Anselm's definition of God is true. Secondly, it shows us that whatever God is, He is always what it is better to be (we will get into this further in Part 2).

Thirdly, I would like to take a look at the reasoning of the argument. Essentially, what Anselm is saying through this argument is that since God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" He must actually exist, but why is this? Well, because according to God's very defintion, as given by Anselm, nothing can exist that is greater than God. However, if God doesn't actually exist, then I can imagine a being that is just like God, and I can take it a step further by imagining that this being actually exists. In doing this, I will have thought of a being that is greater than God, since this being is thought of as actually existing . Yet, this would contradict the idea of God. So Anselm concludes that God must actually exist.

Lastly, I would like to address the conclusion. Does it actually follow from the argument that God must exist? Truthfully, no it does not.

Two Famous Critics

The argument has seen at least two famous critics. The first of which was a monk named Gaunillo, who lived at the same time as Anselm. Gaunillo wrote a response to Anselm's argument in which lies his famous "Gaunillo's Island" refutation of the argument. Anselm himself replied to Gaunilo, but his response hasn't left too much of an impression.

(Note: I might do a blog further exploring Guanillo's response and Anselm's reply).

The second critic of Anselm's argument, and arguably the one who settled the matter, was the german philosopher Immanuel Kant, who interestingly enough, is the one who actually labeled Anselm's argument the "ontological argument." Kan'ts criticism consists of pointing out that Anselm treats existence as a further property that something can posses, when in reality, existence is the state of having any properties at all, and is not itself simply another property.

Is the Argument of Any Use to Us?

It might at first seem that since the argument has been refuted, it cannot be of much use to us. However, I would like to point out that the argument wasn't made for the sake of reaching the nonbeliever. Rather, the argument was made in an attempt to create a master argument by which several other arguments about God could be proven. In other words, Anselm wanted to create an argument that proved a bunch of other arguments in and of itself. On this ground, the argument is actually very useful. We will explore this application of the argument further in Part 2.

- God bless and Jesus loves you!!

Outlive Your Life by Max Lucado

            It seems like every time I go to the Christian literature section of a bookstore, the name “Max Lucado” lights up the shelves as if I’d miss it if it wasn’t there. So, admittedly, I began reading “Outlive your Life” with a fair amount of curiosity (I wanted to see what all the fuss was about). What I found was a book that was partly a study of the book of Acts, partly a collection of warm hearted sermons (short and to the point), and partly a collection of inspiring, and sometimes humorous, stories intended to illustrate the simple truths of living for God (which are often the hardest ones to grasp). To put it simply, it is a book about living the authentic Christian life, written for the Christian who wants to make the most of their years; for the Christian who wants to outlive their life.

            Personally, I liked the book and I think that it does very well as a devotional, since it has short and to the point chapters, a personal narration style (as if Max is talking to you), and a good questions section in the back to help you get the most out of each chapter. The book also avoids deep theological waters and focuses instead on the practical aspects of Christianity, which helps make the book very accessible to everyone from the layman to the theologian.

            Overall, I recommend this book to anyone looking for a simple to read devotional that will convict, inspire, and challenge them to take things to the next level.

God and Nonsense

To say of the impossible, "pft, God can do that," is quite a statement to make. Yet, I do not doubt it, for to say God can do the impossible is to say that God knows all possibilities, and that He has the power to actualize any of them as He sees fit. Therefore, all things are possible with God. However, this is not the same thing as saying that God can do nonsense, which I think some Christians believe is included in the claim that He can do anything. But CS Lewis adaquetly points out that nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense because you put God's name in front of it. Not even God can make 2 + 2 = 5...Does this mean that God is not all powerful? Not at all. It is ridiculous to say that since God can't do the ridiculous, that He is less of a divine being. You see, God is a logical being. The laws of logic even apply to God, but before you accuse me of heresy, let me show you why:

The Three Laws of Logic (Aristolean)

1. Law of Identity (A is A)

2. Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not not A)

3. Law of the Excluded Middle (A either is or isnt, there is no other option)

All three of those principles apply to God Himself, and to everything that exists. We must get past this idea that to say God is logical is to say that He is not divine. So seeing as how God is logical by nature (although, on a much higher level than us), we can see that He doesn't do nonsense. Some of you may say, "Well, what about miracles then?" My answer is simply, "What about them?" Miracles aren't nonsense. Rather, they are God acting on the world He has created. For us, we see something that seems to go against everything we know that can happen. For God, He is simply doing what He is able to do.

The reason for me posting this blog is simply to address the idea that God can do anything (even nonsense) because He is God. God can do anything, but He doesn't do nonsense. Arguably, He may be able to even do nonsense in  terms of having the power to do it, but the fact that He is a consistant and logical being would prevent Him from doing it. Thus, 2 + 2 remains four if for no other reason than that God is a logical being.

Note: I can already see this objection coming. "What about God multiplying food?" This is not the same thing as God changing the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That is an instance of God acting on the world in such a way as to make a small amount big. I don't claim to understand how it works, I marvel at it just as anybody who dares to believe that five thousand were fed with enough food to feed a family at lunch time. I just wanted to put this out there to avoid this seemingly obvious objection.

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Insight into Faith and Pain

Perhaps one of the most practical, yet most overlooked, theological questions is simply, "Why does God not reveal Himself to us?" That is to say, why does God seem to work behind the scenes and away from our inquisitive eyes? I believe that at least part of the answer to this question is shared by part of the answer to the Problem of Evil.

The Proud Man and the Loving God

CS Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain', goes over the fall of man and says, I feel very accurately, that the first sin man committed was to take his eyes off of God and put them on himself. In other words, Adam put himself above God, thereby distorting the natural order of creation (at least to an extent). CS Lewis tells us in the same book that pain is God's "megaphone" to rouse a dead world. God allows, at least some, suffering for the purpose of showing us that something isn't quite right with the world. It is a way in which he is able to take our eyes off of ourselves long enough to cast them upon Him. So in other words, pain is a sort of humility that occurs. It makes us realize that we are not perfect, and that the world around us is also lacking. Lets not forget that the men and women in the Bible who were closest to God were the ones who seemed to suffer most. Yet, I would dare say that they gladly chose their suffering, because in their suffering they found God. Blessed are those who mourn...

How Faith Ties In

Since man has become a rather proud beast, he has come to find himself to be very clever. It forgets that the high sciences it has aspired to are like pre-school lessons for God. Science is simply the study of how God's creation works. A study which we have yet to finish!! Yet, even though man is far inferior to God, we are still proud. So how does God humble us? Through pain He shows us that the world isn't what it should be (or once was...), and through faith He shows us that we are not as smart as we would like to believe. In other words, Faith knocks us down and causes us to look up and see God. However, just as it is the case with pain, faith can also push people away. Some people suffer and they respond by building walls and shutting out not only the world, but God. With faith, some people hear about this almighty God who is invisible, and they laugh at the idea. Others, as Kierkegaard points out, are offended by the idea that we are told we must believe in a man who claimed to be God. So we see that both suffering and faith, which are excellent tools for producing the good, may also cause some people to further separate themselves from God. That is one of the miracles of free will, that you can choose to respond to the world as you wish to. God will honor your response, even if it means being separated from Him for all of eternity....the doors of Hell are, as CS Lewis says, locked from the inside.

In Closing

I hope that this has been of help to you. I do not claim to have given all the possible answers to these two theological problems. I have simply shared with you CS Lewis' ideas coupled with my own insight.

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Faith and Reason

I think that it is safe to say that many people have accepted the idea that faith and reason are these separate things that are in conflict with one another. The debate between scientific naturalists and some, not all, christians is evidence of this. However, I believe that this is a very mistaken position to take on. For in reality, faith is actually an act of reason.

Faith as an Act of Reason

What exactly happens when you believe something? Well, assuming your faith is intellectually honest, and therefore genuine, you at one point or another encountered evidence (such as a proof or an experience) that convinced you that something was true, or that it was likely to be possible. I do not believe that any human being can objectively prove God's existence, for this would, as C.S. Lewis points out, go against our free will. How can I freely choose to reject God if I am faced with the undeniable reality of His presence? For those of you who would disagree with me here, I simply ask you to consider why God requires faith. He could, theoretically, come down and prove Himself once and for all. Yet, He doesn't. Instead, He requires faith. Therefore, I do not believe God wants us to be able to say objectively that He is real or not. However, regardless of the lack of full proof demonstrative proofs for the existence of God, there are many arguments that together form a strong case for Christianity. I like to think of it as a trial. The only people who fully know the truth of what happened are the people who were there, yet they cannot just say, "I was there, this is how it happened." No, they must prove their case with evidence. From there the jury must look at the case presented by both sides and decide beyond a reasonable doubt which side seems more likely to be true. So they have faith based on the evidence presented. In other words, they use their reason to arrive at faith. It is the same way with Christianity. Faith is simply accepting with your reason something that you cannot fully prove, but that you can believe beyond a reasonable doubt. As humans we are naturally equipped for examining the world around us. We have our reason, our senses, and our experience. It is time we got to using them.

Hopefully this has been of some help to you.

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

The Cannon: How Did We Get It?

Hello everybody, today I want to talk to you about the Bible Cannon. For those of you who do not know, the Cannon is basically the list of books that are accepted as Inspired scripture. In other words, they are the books that are accepted as having been inspired by God. There is a cannon for both the Old and New Testament, yet they both follow the same criteria for being accepted. In this blog I want to share with you the criteria that must be met for a book to have been accepted into either cannon.

The Criteria

1. Author had to be a recognized Prophet or Apostole, or a known associate of theirs.

Basically, the author of the book had to be a recognized man of God (so to speak). One very good reason for this is the fact that God often demonstrated His power through these individuals and made it clear to their hearers that He was with them. So it makes sense that we should accept their writings.

2. Cannot Contradict Another Part of the Revelation

We must remember that the Bible is essentially one book written over the course of about 1,500 years and through about 40 different authors. So in order for a bok to be accepted it cannot contradict any previous revelation. This means that no where in the Bible will you find a contradiction. Often times people will claim that one verse contradicts another. However, claims like these are often based on a misunderstanding.

3. Had to be accepted by the Church

Lastly, the early chuch had to accept the books as scripture. For those of you who may feel a bit uncomfortable about this one, let me remind you that the church has had many scholars and has invested alot of time and energy into making sure that the cannon is sound. With the first two principles in play and a general consensus of the Church, I'd say the cannon is pretty solid.

Answering a quick objection:

Some may have noticed that the first principle is that all the books had to have a recognized author, yet some of the books are annonymous. In these cases the text is so in line with other scripture that it is still accepted. For instance, the book of Hebrews is one book of which we do not know with absolute certainty who the author is. Yet, its teaching is so in line with the rest of scripture that it is still accepted.

In Conclusion

So rest assured, the Bible is a well put together book. Hopefully this has helped to instill confidence in you, and hopefully it has stirred up your curiosity about the Bible as well. It's history is very rich and definitely worth studying. Hope it helps!!

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Lewis's Trilemma

Hello everybody, today I am going to talk to you about an interesting argument devised by (to the best of my knowledge) CS Lewis. It is known by some as Lewis's Trilemma.

The Trilemma

Lewis's Trilemma is basically a response to the idea that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the Son of God. Lewis thought that this idea was ridiculous and attempted to refute it by means of the trilemma. The argument goes as follows:

One of three things must be true about Jesus:

1. He was a liar

2. He was a lunatic (or)

3. He was the Son of God

Option #1: Liar

Lewis points out that if Jesus made all the claims that He did (i.e. the ability to forgive sins and to get people into Heaven) and did so knowing that they weren't true, then He was a liar. A person who lives a life of lies, and trys to get others to believe them, is hardly a good moral teacher.

Option #2: Lunatic

If Jesus really believed that He was the Son of God, yet in reality wasn't, then He must have been a lunatic. If Jesus wasn't really God, but sincerely believed that He was, then He would have been on the same level as somebody who, as Lewis puts it, believed he was a poached egg.

Option #3: Lord

The third option is that Jesus really was who He claimed to be.

In Conclusion

This argument, on its own, doesn't prove that Jesus was God. However, it prevents people from simply saying that Jesus was a good moral teacher and then calling it a day. It forces the hearer to either choose to reject Jesus or accept Him. I believe that this argument is good for pointing out the seriousness of the question, "What do you believe about Jesus?" Since, as Lewis points out, if Christianity is true, then it is the most important thing in the world. However, if it is false, then it doesn't matter at all. It cannot be moderately important, that is not an option. Lewis's trilemma forces us to look at the options and decide which one we really believe, thereby imposing the seriousness of faith in God on us. Which option do you believe?

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Pascal's Wager

"If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

In the world of apologetics there exist at least two kinds of proofs: theoretical and practical. Theoretical proofs attempt to establish God's existence, while practical proofs attempt to show that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him. Blaise Pascal has developed one of the most popular practical proofs out there; it is known as Pascal's Wager. In this blog I will explain the wager to you and will attempt to show you its use in modern apolgetics.

The Wager

Pascal's wager simply says that it is better to believe in God then to not believe in Him. Here is a breakdown of Pascal's reasoning:

For the believer:
If God exists, then you gain everything.
If God does not exist, then you lose nothing.

For the non-believer:
If God does exist, then you lose everything.
If God does not exist, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things.

Basically, if you wager on God's existence and He ends up being real, then you have gained everything; if He ends up being fake, then you have lost nothing. However, if you choose not to believe in God and He ends up being real, then you have lost everything; if He isn't real, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things that you will lose at death anyway.

Analysis of the Wager

Pascal's wager is, at least to my mind, an interesting argument. Rather than trying to appeal to data, as many apologetics arguments do, the argument asks the reader/listener to consider the stakes involved with making a decision about God. As we can see, the believer has everything to gain, while the non-believer has everything to lose. There are a couple of objections to Pascal's wager, but for times sake I will omit them for the time being (I may choose to touch up on them at a later time).  The main point is this: if you are someone who is on the fence about God, why not take a chance and believe? You may think to yourself, "well, wouldn't my faith be fake then?" Not exactly, as Pascal himself points out, sometimes you have to start off by going through the motions. Imagine a child who likes to pretend, and then one day ends up living out what he used to pretend. If you sincerly desire to have faith in God, yet you cannot get past some objections you may have, take a chance. God will honor the faith you place in Him, even if it is as small as a mustard seed.

(Note: I am not saying that religous motions are all it takes to be saved. I am simply saying that we all have to start somewhere, and if the best you can muster is to go to Church, or attempt to pray, then do it. I believe that God will honor your attempts to reach out to Him. The important thing is that you make the attempt.)

How can I as an apologist make use of this argument?

In my opinion, this argument is good for skeptics who want to believe. It won't do much to an atheist who is convinced that God isn't real. However, to the skeptic who wants to believe but cannot get past some objections, it may not be a bad idea to remind them of the stakes. If we cannot be 100% sure either way, then why not take a chance? What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?

In Conclusion

Hopefully this has been useful to you. Please understand that I am a supporter of good reasoning and good evidence. However, I also think that sometimes we have to make choices where it is hard to be 100% sure of any of our options, and in those instances it isn't a bad idea to consider the stakes.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Forgiveness: What exactly is it?

"And if we forget this we shall go away imagining that we have repented and been forgiven when all that has really happened is that we have satisfied ourselves with our own excuses." - CS Lewis

We hear alot of talk about forgiveness. Jesus Himself even said that if we didn't forgive others, then God would not forgive us. So we can see that forgiveness is a big deal to God, and He wants it to be a big deal to us. This leads me to the main point of this blog: what exactly is forgiveness?

Forgiving and Excusing

I think that CS Lewis is spot on with this one. He begins by pointing out a mistake we often make regarding forgiveness. Namely, that we often confuse forgiving with excusing. To this some may say, "Well, is there really a difference?" The answer is yes, there is a very big difference. When we excuse something we are essentially dismissing it. "Well, you hit your wife because you were angry, so its not completely your fault..." That is excusing, something that most of us are very familiar with. Forgiveness on the other hand looks more like, "You were very mean to your wife, regardless of circumstance you still did what you did, but I forgive you. I will make every effort to erase it from my heart and mind, and I will love you as though it never happened." That is forgiveness.


God and Us

Often times when we enter our prayer closet and ask God to forgive us, what we are really asking Him to do is to accept our excuses. We look for every factor, every detail, and every circumstance that somehow makes our sins less our fault. To be fair, sometimes there are factors that may lessen the blame. Surely we are more sympathetic to someone who says a hurtful thing after being hurt than to someone who says hurtful things just to say them. Regardless, there is still that bit that is our fault, and even if it is only one percent it must still be forgiven. When we go before God we must be humble. We must mean it when we ask God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." We must tell God what we have done, and we must ask Him to forgive us. This is a much harder task than simply rattling off excuses, and I believe that if we get in the habit of consistantly asking for forgiveness that we will gradually see a decrease in our sins.

My Brother and I

Not only must we learn to ask forgiveness from God, we must learn to give it to our fellow man. CS Lewis points out that we are so quick to give our excuses to God, yet we are reluctant to accept them from others (even though they may very well be the same ones that we have offered to God a hundred times). When our brother comes to us, even seven times seventy, we must forgive them. I understand that this is not always easy, and so does God. I believe that if we desire to forgive others, and that if we make every effort to do so, that God will provide us with every help to ensure that forgiveness is given. It is not an easy task, but I believe that forgiveness is an essential part of sanctification.

The Hard Stuff

Some of you may say that there are some things that you cannot seem to forgive, even if you want to. I would tell you to take it before God. He loves you, and He will teach you how to forgive.

In Closing

Its easy to read a blog like this, but to actually apply it is a very difficult task. I pray that we will lean on God for strength, and that we will remember how God has forgiven us. I also pray that we will take very seriously the part of the Lord's prayer that says "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Argument from Desire

"There comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, "Is that all there is?" - John Paul Sartre

Hello all, today I would like to take a look at one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God. It is an argument that CS Lewis develops in his book, 'Mere Christianity', and it is still heavily used by Christians today (whether they realize it or not).

Argument from Desire

Here is the argument (thanks be to Peter Kreeft's website for the format):

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.



2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.


3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.


4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."


 
Analysis
The Argument from Desire is what I would consider to be a very effective argument for two reasons: 1.) It is a logical argument; it appeals to reason. 2.) It is a personal argument.
 
The argument's logical nature is revealed in the first premise, in which Lewis states that every desire has some form of fulfillment in the natural world. For example, we get hungry, there is food. We get thirsty, there is water. This seems to be the case with every natural desire we have. Once having shown this to be true, Lewis moves on and does a little bit of inductive reasoning (an impressive bit I might add). Lewis observes that there appears to be a desire within each of us that nothing in this world can seem to satisfy. He then, through inductive reasoning, comes to the conclusion that humans as a whole are trying to satisfy a desire, yet they cannot seem to do it. From here, Lewis concludes that there must exist something beyond this world that can satisfy his desire, or as he himself says, "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world."
 
Answering an Objection
 
Is Lewis right to assume that everybody has this desire?
 
I believe that he is. My reason for this comes from the fact that I myself can attest to what he is saying. No matter how much I love apologetics, or music, or philosophy, or people, it all seems empty compared to my love for God. In other words, without God in my life, those things would be meaningless. I also feel that an observation of human history can, at the very least, imply this truth to us as well. However, part of what makes this argument so beautiful is the fact that you must answer it for yourself. You cannot say, "Look over there, that man has money and seems to be perfectly happy with life. Therefore, the argument is flawed." That will not suffice for the simple fact that you yourself are not that man, and as a result, you cannot know the deepest workings of his mind and heart. You can only know yours. This argument is very personal, and as such it must be addressed on a personal level. You must look within yourself and ask whether or not what Lewis says is true.
 
In Closing
 
As always, I hope this was helpful to you. I believe that this is a great argument to know for yourself, and for the people around you who may not believe in God. I also highly encourage you to read, 'Mere Christianity, which is the book that this argument is found in. The reason I recommend this to you is because Lewis is able to convey the argument so much better than I can. You simply got a summary here, the book will give you real deal.
 
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
 
-Jon

Practical Wisdom from the Sorites Paradox

Hello all, today I would like to try and share with you a practical piece of advice for your Christian walk. As stated by the title, the wisdom will be derived from the Sorites Paradox.

The Sorites Paradox

Simply put, the Sorites Paradox asks the question, "how many grains of sand make a heap?" Is it one? No, it can't be just one grain of sand. How about two? No, we are still lacking. On and on the questions go until an agreement can be made as to exactly how many grains of sand are in a heap, or until some other thing occurs. Another variation of this paradox involves hairs on a head, but I personally like to think of rain, and that is the illustration I will use in this blog.

What is a Storm?

I would like to convey an idea to you that I first learned from CS Lewis. An idea that is of very significant importance to any free being, but even more so to those of us who struggle with using our will for good or evil. The idea, or rather, the piece of advice that I wish to give to you is simply that everything we do matters. Every action you make, good or bad, big or small, makes a difference. Not only does it affect the world around you, it affects you. Lets take for example, a man named Aldous. Lets say that Aldous one day wakes up and is evil, does this seem right? No, because people don't just randomly wake up as evil beings. Instead, a series of experiences and choices add up and, having left their mark on his soul, produce an evil man. Please understand that I do not wish to get into a heredity vs. environment debate here, I am simply illustrating a point that I think most people will agree with, and that is simply that the things we do and experience affect us. We change because of the things that happen in our lives. Every action and experience is like a rain drop (for the most part anyways, since it is true that there are times where a single experience can change everything), seemingly insignificant on its own, but when take together with all of the other rain drops, you get a storm. Think about this principle and how it applies to sin. A boy may decide one day to look at a magazine that he knows he shouldn't, but just once. After all, will one time ever hurt anybody? Well, one time turns into a hundred and before he knows it he is hooked on pornography. Another good example is smoking. "One more cigarette won't kill me." You may be right, but the sum of cigarettes smoked will. The point here is that having a "just one more time" mindset is very dangerous. We cannot help but be affected by what we do, wheter good or bad.

An Encouragement

Keep striving to do whats right, even little things, because just like with a storm, every rain drop contributes to the whole. Every good act you do contributes to making your soul good. This is not to say that salvation can be achieved through hard work, but good character can be. Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus. He will give you every help you need, but you must will yourself to move that cross. If you stop doing evil, which will be tough, and begin to do good, then you will gradually notice that you yourself are becoming a better person. Every action counts, so don't say things like, "just one more time." That just may be the one time to many, when some damage is done that cannot be undone. This principle works wonders for the good, but great evils for the bad (good and bad refer to actions, not people, in this case).

Closing

Hope it helps! God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Can God Sin?

This is a question that was brought up to me by someone on Facebook, and I felt like it was something that should be talked about. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

A Distinction

For starters, I would like to make a distinction between God in His fullness (which I would imagine goes far beyond our world and/or experience) and Jesus Christ; God in the flesh.

Can God Sin?

If God can do anything, does that mean He can sin? The answer is a simple and resounding no. So does this mean that we have found something God cannot do? Yes, but this does not diminish God's greatness at all. Consider this, yes God is omnipotent (all powerful), but He is also omnibenevolent (all good), which means that even though God has the power to do anything that He wills, His will is good. Meaning that anything He does will be good. Also think about this, can God force someone to accept salvation? No, for if God did this He would have to violate the free will He has given to that person; the free will to accept or reject Him. There are some things that God cannot do simply because He allows that He cannot do them (as in the case of human free will). If reason fails to sway you on this point, then let me appeal to God's own revelation, the Bible. In James 1:13, we are told that not only does God not tempt anyone, but that He Himself is not tempted by evil.

(Note: I do not wish to imply that reason is greater than revelation. I think that reason should be used to defend scripture, and the God who inspired it.)

Can Jesus Sin?

This question is, admittedly, trickier to answer. We know that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. So could the part of Him that was fully human cause Him to sin, even though He is also fully God? I have to say that I don't believe so, simply because God cannot violate His own nature. The difficulty with this answer arises in the form of the question, "if Jesus could not have sinned, then wasn't his temptation arbitrary? If so, then doesn't this mean that His human walk was incomplete?" My answer to this question is also, quite simply, no. I will now attempt to prove this point to you. For starters, let us consider the reason why God allows temptation. In James 1 we learn that trials help us to mature in Christ. Temptations are a form of trial through which we grow to become more like Christ. So, if God is already fully Himself, why does He need to experience temptation at all? From the outset Jesus was fully human. We are merely human, in other words, we are trying to become fully human (as God intended us to be, and as Adam was in the Garden). So why would God need to be tempted? I believe it was for experience. Jesus came down to earth for at least three reasons: 1.) To reveal the truth about God to us, 2.) To die for our sins, and 3.) to experience our humanity. I assume that the first two reasons are common knowledge to most people (even non Christians), and so I will focus on the third.

Why Experience Human Life?

We learn from the book of Hebrews that Jesus is our high priest, and that He experienced human life so that He could sympathize with us. So, having said that, I believe that the reason God allowed Himself (Jesus) to be tempted was so that He could experience Human temptation for Himself. This doesn't make his temptation arbitrary at all, it simply means that it served a different purpose than ours does. He had no need to be made perfect, He just wanted to intimately understand what we went through in our own lives. The question that might now be raised (even in some of your minds) is, "If God is omniscient (all knowing), then why would He need to experience our human life?" I think that the answer lies in the distinction between knowing and experiencing. Maybe to God, just as to us, there is a difference between knowing everything simply as fact and possibility, and actually knowing it through experience. Maybe thats part of the reason why God made us, so that He could actually know us, and not just the possibility of us.

In Closing

I hope this has been a blessing to you. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to let me know either on here or on facebook. God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

A Response to the Euthyphro Dilemma

The Euthypro Dilemma is an attempt to show that the Divine Command Theory is false. In this blog I will attempt to show that this dilemma falls short of accomplishing this task.

The Euthypro Dilemma:

The Dilemma begins by posing a question that is intended to show that the DCT is false. The question is, "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?" Lets take a look at these alternatives.

If They Are Good...

If the theist attempting to defend the divine command theory were to answer the dilemma by saying that God wills morally good acts because they are morally good, then he seems to fall into a trap. This trap is called the independence problem, which basically says that if God wills moral acts because they are morally good, then these acts must be morally good prior to God willing them, which means that they are good independently of God's will. The full implaction of this is that moral goodness is independent of God, which means that God is merely a messenger for the moral law. This is not good for Christians, seeing as how they hold that God is not subject to anything outside of Himself. Yet, if the moral law exists independently of Him, then it appears that He is subject to a law outside of Himself. So this answer cannot be correct.

If God Wills Them...

On the other hand, if an actions moral worth is based solely on whether or not God deems it moral at that moment, then all moral commands are arbitrary. To illustrate this point, imagine that God, right at this moment, decreed that wearing sandles with velcro straps was a moral evil. Well, as far as we know, it has never before been a moral evil to wear velcro strap sandles. However, all it takes for an action to gain moral worth (or to lose it) would be for God to say, "thus says the Lord." Even though this option could answer objections to some of God's seemingly immoral conduct (such as His command to have Abraham sacrafice his son Isaac), I highly doubt anyone would really give full support to this idea.

The Dilemma

So, it would appear that we have reached a dilemma. If God wills good acts because they are good, then He is not as great as we had thought, and if an acts moral goodness is dependent upon God's decree, then morality is arbitrary. However, I believe that this dilemma can be answered with a variation of the first option.

A Look at God's Nature

We must first take a brief look at the nature of God in order to understand how this solution will work. For starters, we must remember that God is absolute. In other words, He is the ultimate reality. There is nothing that can exist independently of God, not even a concept or a quality. Lets take the quality of beauty for example. Is God beautiful? No, God is not beautiful. Rather, God is beauty. What I mean by this is that God does not merely possess the quality of beauty, but rather the quality itself exists because God is beauty. Likewise, God is not good because He adheres to a standard of morality outside of Himself, but in actuality God Himself is that standard. So when God says that it is wrong to do something, He is not saying it because He has a scroll that He found sometime during His eternal existence that tells Him what to do. Rather, God's decrees of right and wrong are a reflection of His own moral character. So in reality, when we do something immoral what we are actually doing is acting contrary to God's character; we are in a sense, rebelling against Him. We must remember that we are made in the image of God, and so we are held to the very standard of God Himself. Every time we do something wrong (like steal, kill, lust) we are violating the image of God that He has given us, and likewise, we are sinning against God Himself. Lets look at an example:

Lets say that you are a father, and you have a beautiful daughter. Now lets say your daughter has a problem. Everytime a guy asks to have sex with her, she agrees, and you have to watch. Over time, you would probably see that she begins to change drastically. She may begin to hate herself, and act out accordingly. Her sin affects her very soul, and she begins to deteriorate. However, her sins also affect you, her father. That is how it is with God. When we sin we are affected personally (and so are the people in our lives), but God is also offended deeply by what we do. The reason for this, as said before, is that we are made in God's image, and are expected to live accordingly. Our failure to do so is what is known as sin.

(Note: I understand that this may be difficult to understand, and if you want me to I will be more than willing to go more in depth with this subject in another post. The main point is simply that we are made in God's image, and as a result, we are expected to live accordingly. When we sin we are not violating some law that exists independently of God, we are sinning directly against God, who is the standard.)

The Solution

In a sense, answer one is correct. God wills good acts because they are good, but the source of their goodness is found in God's own being. He Himself is the moral standard by which we are held accountable. The dilemma fails to recognize this as a possible answer, and for that reason fails to conclusively show that the Divine Command Theory is false.

In Closing

I apologize for any confusion you may have encountered. I was expecting this blog to be much shorter, and much simpler. However, in order to make my point I had to talk a bit about God's nature (which is a thing of wonder and amazement). Hopefully this has been a blessing to you! Until next time,

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

The Problem of Evil: Evidential Problem

Hey everybody, today I am going to focus on the evidential problem of evil.

The Problem:

I am not going to put the evidential problem into a formula like I did for the logical problem. Instead, I am going to tell you the difference between the two, and then I will attempt to show you why the problem is flawed.

As you know (if not, please read my post on the logical problem), the logical problem asserts that a contradiction exists between God's existence and evil. As a result of this supposed contradiction, the argument concludes that God is not real. The evidential problem, however, takes a different approach. Rather than saying that God does not exist, the argument says that the existence of evil serves as strong evidence against God. In other words, it says that God's existence is unlikely. The argument uses the vast amounts of seemingly useless suffering (i.e. animal suffering, natural disasters) in the world to support its conclusion, and at first it appears to have a pretty good case. Think about it, what good reason could God have for allowing children in third world countries to starve to death? Why would he let natural disasters take so many lives? What reason could there possibly be for all of this evil and suffering? At first, the argument seems to have a good point. Even though its possible that God would allow evil for a greater good, it seems unlikely that all of it works towards a greater good.



The Assumption:

Even though the argument seems to work pretty well at first, it rests upon an assumption that, at least to my mind, greatly weakens it. The argument assumes that either: a.) we are God's equals, or b.) we are greater than God. How exactly does the argument assume this? Well, the argument uses the fact that we cannot seem to find good reasons for why God would allow certain evils to exist as evidence against Him. This line of reasoning is flawed. We must remember that God, if He exists, is greater than us. So we should not expect to be able to discern all of His reasons for doing or allowing something. Furthermore, we should not use our lack of understanding as evidence against God. That would be like me saying that since I cannot picture someone running a mile in five minutes, it is very unlikely that it can be done. In reality, all I've proven is that I cannot picture someone running a mile in five minutes. Likewise, all the evidential argument really proves is that we do not understand all of the reasons for which God allows evil, and that is hardly an argument against Him.

In Closing:

Hopefully this been helpful to you. I also ask that you please remember that I am not claiming to have solved this problem. It has many different aspects to it that make it a challenge. I am simply trying to show you that these arguments are not as strong as they might be made out to be.

The Problem of Evil: Logical Problem

In this post, I would like to take a look at what is known as The Problem of Evil. More specifically, I want to look at the Logical Problem of Evil.


The Problem of Evil is a philosophical argument against the existence of God. It comes in two main forms: The Logical Problem, and the Evidential Problem. For now we will focus on the logical problem.


Here is the Logical Argument:


1. God is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good).


2. So this means that God is aware of evil, is able to stop it, and would be inclined to do so. Yet evil exists.


3. Therefore, God does not exist.


Solution to the Logical Problem


The Logical problem of evil asserts that a contradiction exists between these three qualities of God and the existence of evil. However, this argument can be refuted rather easily. All one has to do is show that God could allow the existence of evil for the sake of a greater good. What could that greater good be? One suggestion is that it is free will. Human free will is a valuable thing, and in order for it to exist, the possibility for evil must also exist. Aside from that, we also see instances where evil ends up working out for the good. For example, a person who experiences a rough time in their life and ends up having faith in God because of it. I would also like to point out the fact that many people seem to agree that suffering helps us to become better people. It is often a sort of fire that tests us and helps us to become better people. So for these reasons (and possibly others as well), it would seem that the logical problem isn't as difficult as it at first may seem.


The End?

Of course not, this is only the begining of our study of this problem. I will attempt to deal with the evidential problem shortly.


-God bless and Jesus loves you!!


PS: Remember to ask questions if you have any!!

Welcome!!

Hello, if you were previously following my Bebop Philosophy blog, then you have come to the right place.I have decided to take my ministry/blog in a new direction. I will be focusing on Apologetics, and this is the blog that I will use for that purpose. Also! I will be starting a facebook group with a focus on apologetics as well. So if you have a facebook, be sure to look it up.

-God bless and Jesus loves you!!