Sermon transcripts of pastor Tom Nagy

Know What You Believe

Alright.......we’ve finished the book of Jonah and we’re ready to embark on a brand new study. I asked for input and a couple of you gave some ideas......which you who contributed your thoughts will see that I obviously rejected! What we’re going to do is deviate from the norm on Sunday morning for a bit.......the “norm” being going verse by verse through a particular book of Scripture. We’re about to take off on something of a topical study......for an indeterminate period......to address something I believe we all need to look at and that’s the topic of whether or not we know what we believe.

Do we really understand why we believe what we believe?
Can we defend what our beliefs are to someone who believes quite differently than we do?
Can we give logical and rational explanations for our theology to a world that would mock all that we stand for?
Is what we believe a genuine conviction.......or merely a preference?
Have we equipped our children to leave our homes and our influence and enter the world of academia........which probably hates what they believe.......and given them the foundation to stand their ground in discussing unpopular positions?

There's been a number of times that I've talked with non-believers who almost universally accuse Christians of getting angry every time they talk to them because the Christian can't defend why they believe what they say they believe. Is that true? Do we get defensive? Do we feel stupid because the non-believer seems to have "pat answers" for things and we get confused about how to refute what they proclaim?

So how do we start a study like this. It seems like the topics could be endless. It seems like a lot of us believe differently from one another. Are we going to teach on every possible conversation or point of theology that could come up in a conversation? Well......to answer honestly.......I don't know. I don't know how extensive the study will be......I don't know all the topics we'll discuss.......I don't know if we'll approach every side of every argument that could arise. What I do know is that we'll use God's Word to make our ultimate case .......and as far as how we get started......well, I think a discussion of our "WORLD VIEW" is probably about the best place to start......because it will ultimately determine how we perceive nearly everything we're exposed to.

Let me throw out a few questions here. They're very basic.......really simple......you don't even need to study for them. Answer them the way you would if you were all alone......the middle of the night........and these questions came to mind. How would you really answer them?

@Why am I here? Not here in church.....but the general HERE! Do I have a purpose for being alive? Whatever your world-view is directly impacts how you answer that question.
@Where did I come from? Toledo's not the right answer!
@Is there really a God or did man make Him up for our own comfort?
@Is euthanasia alright......not Youth-in-Asia.....which would be children in Japan! But euthanasia......which is giving old people the permanent dirt nap when they get to be a burden on society.
@Is there absolute truth?
@What happens after I die?
@Are science and religion mutually exclusive?
@What was I before this life?
@Why is there evil?
@Are good and bad......right and wrong.......socially constructed concepts?
@Is it alright to lie? How about if a little lie will keep from hurting someone's feelings?

There truly are thousands of questions that are asked daily by believers......non-believers......children and adults......men and women all over the world. And the answers to those questions are going to be vastly different when you place the filter of a particular WORLD VIEW in front of them.

So.....what is a WORLD VIEW? You hear the term thrown around now and then. You may or may not have given much thought to what it means. You may not even know that you have one.......but you do! What are we talking about? What is a WORLD VIEW?

In the absolute simplest of terms.......your world view is a set of presuppositions which we hold about the makeup and structure of the world.

Let me state that again with a little explanation....... your world view is a set of presuppositions.....that is assumptions which may be true......partially true......or entirely false. OK.......it is a set of presuppositions which each of us hold........consciously or subconsciously.........consistently or inconsistently.........about the makeup and structure of the world. It’s your map of reality.......the framework of beliefs, values, and images within which you make decisions and go about living.

Our worldview influences the decisions we make in life. Some beliefs we steadfastly hold on to.......while others we hardly give passing thought to. As our beliefs change.......so does our worldview. When we change core beliefs within our worldview.......our lives often undergo drastic changes. But just like our beliefs can be false.........so can our worldview. Our worldview can be true about some things and completely false about other things.

The concept of a world-view has been studied by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and theologists for decades and has been, in some cases, reduced to a codified and quantified science......and in other cases to the thought that a world-view is nothing more than a set of feelings and basic attitudes about the world rather than clearly formulated opinions about it.

It doesn't matter what part of your life we talk about....... movies, television, music, magazines, newspapers, government, education, science, art, people.....literally everything we come in contact with is influenced by our world-view. We can't ignore its importance.

Traditionally.......historically, individual societies and cultures share the same world-view with only minor deviations among the people who represent that culture. Take America for example. From the early 1900's through most of the decade of the 50's........how would you identify the world-view of our culture? EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC......GOD-FEARING..... FAMILY ORIENTED........WORK HARD/GET REWARDED. Probably more akin to what would be considered a biblical world-view. Very little changed during those decades.

Then came the latter part of the 1950's and what started to creep in? (ANSWERS?) A bit of teenage rebellion.......James Dean's character in Rebel Without a Cause became something of an icon for the youth of America........ushering in the 1960's when every strand and ligament that held our collective view point together was questioned.......and in many cases.....abandon all together. The cultural world-view began a dynamic shift away from a biblical view point towards one that was more reliant on science and self.......something that would be more akin to a Naturalistic World-view.

One of the biggest problems I see in our present society is that not only individually.......but our culture as a whole......doesn't seem to be able to cope with the unpredictable change........and the overall effects that this change has brought upon us. The sheer speed that our society has changed in its basic tenants seems to have brought about uncertainty and frustration in a majority of our population.

Our minds are overloaded with information........bits of knowledge.....technology and skepticism that has eroded our values and led to a climate of anxiety and despair and stress. We've rejected much of the wisdom of the past that allowed us a clearer vision of the future.......and replaced it with a system that is devoid of the values that our culture was founded upon. The result seems to be a people who have little hope and nothing to guide them.......and it happened fast!

With all the studying I've done on this concept of a world-view.......I haven't been able to get away from the fact that the basic foundation of anybody's thought toward life starts with whether or not there's a God. Every classified world-view in existence seems to hinge upon this one thought and branch out from there.......which would lead one to believe that our world view is not so much a psychology or a philosophy as it is a theology.

We may not be able to put a label on our world-view......but there are a lot of labels out there. In our increasingly complex society.......worldviews are a dime a dozen. Just to give you some examples of how man has attempted to classify individual world-views let's start with a couple of basics. A world-view should answer questions about life and people and relationships and past and present and future.

One particular study on what a world-view is lists seven fundamental components......@stating that it should answer 7 questions.......

“Who are we?”.....
"Where do we come from?”.......
“Where are we going to?”.........
“What is good and what is evil?”........
“How should we act?”........
“What is true and what is false?”...... and the final one really doesn't answer any fundamental questions, but rather......
What building blocks did you use to start with?

Another way of delineating world-views makes no bones about the fact that each and every world-view is classified by what your belief in God is. It lists 7 basic world views all stemming from whether or not God exists and what we believe that God to be. @The model starts with:

1. Atheism: There is no God.....there is no spiritual world. Also included here would be agnostics......a milder form of atheism......"atheism light"......in which God may exist......but is of no practical value to mankind at all.

@2. Deism: God exists, but is not involved with his creation. God is the “cosmic watchmaker” who set the universe in motion but never intervenes...........Evil exists, but God gave humanity the capacity to defeat it eventually.

@3. Pantheism: All is God........literally. The universe and everything within it are just a thought of God.....therefore we are all Him. Only when we “realize” our godhood, will we attain fulfillment.......actually sounds a little creepy!

@4. Pan-En-Theism: All reality is in God. Much like the last one.......the universe is God’s body......and it's growing and evolving. We are not God......we are simply in God.

@5. Polytheism: There are many Gods and spiritual powers. Polytheism says that man is god-like.......with an immortal spirit. Whatever current spiritual powers there are gave rise to humans and therefore man owes his allegiance to these reigning deities.

@6. Monotheism: There is only one true God. This category holds all of the big three monotheistic religions.......Christianity, Islam and Judaism.......and it states that there is one infinite God who is both interactive with humans and transcendent beyond humanity.

@Then the final category is actually a subset of the last one and is defined as Biblical Christianity. There is only one God........Triune in nature......Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And we all have a pretty good idea about the basics of this one.

So......if you think about it.......remember the question that Jesus asked Peter...... “Who do you say I am?” The one where Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Maybe that's still the only question that needs to be asked.....because if you get right down to it......your deep down beliefs in answering that question qualifies what your world-view is.

So......you may be asking yourself, "Why this emphasis on world-view? I thought we were going to study knowing what we believe......defending what we believe!" Well think about it. If I hold a world-view that would maintain that there is no God......would that make me treat people differently than a person who has a biblical world-view? Everything I do is different. The motivation for everything I do is different.

If I believe there are no absolute truths is my moral code or ethics going to be the same as that of a believer? If I believe that when you die you're dead and there is nothing beyond this life.......am I going to live with any hope at all when things are going badly? And how do I......as a believer......address people who find themselves without hope?

The secular world rejects the existence of moral absolutes and the idea of a Supreme Being who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. And unfortunately for all of us.....that world view is taught today through the media.......the school system....... and the government.......and has led to a breakdown of the family......permissiveness....... Hedonism......and a lessening in the value of human life.

So it's not only important to know my own world-view.......but also to know what most of the world thinks about my world-view in order to anticipate the conflicts that may arise when I talk with people who believe differently than I do. I need to know what I firmly believe and why I believe it in order to keep from being made to look like an idiot because I can't adequately defend what I hold to be real beliefs.

So let's look at the state of America regarding a biblical world-view......because I think it may help to understand that we're up against a whole lot more than we might have thought. Not only do we believe radically different than atheists......we actually hold little in common with a vast majority of Americans who classify themselves as "born again Christians"!

The Barna Research Group......who are famous for the polls they conduct on religious views in the United States completed a poll in September of 2009.......so it's been a few years ago......concerning the world-view of a cross section of Americans. Nothing should shock any of us any longer about the spiritual state of our country.......but some of these numbers certainly surprised me.

@For the purposes of the survey.......a person held a “biblical worldview” if they held the following six statements as true......

absolute moral truth exists;
the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches;
Satan is a real being or force......not merely symbolic;
A person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works;
Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.

@For the sake of this poll.......the definitions of the various groups that people were placed in matters quite a bit. "Evangelicals" were defined by the same standard as the requirements for a biblical world-view plus two more criteria......

They believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
They believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;

And when I look at the requirements for an individual to be classified as an "Evangelical"......I would say it is basically the beliefs that most......if not all of us hold in here today.

@Now.......the definition for "Born Again" folks did not include any of the stipulations for a biblical world-view.....there were only two qualifiers for them.......

They had to believe they have "made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important" in their lives and
They will go to heaven because they have confessed their sins and "accepted Jesus Christ" as Savior.

So understand when we look at these statistics that "evangelicals" are defined by specific doctrines. "Born again" Christians are defined by personal.......if not somewhat vague.......spiritual experiences and feelings.

Just so we understand the basic mess we're in.......only 4% of the people surveyed held a biblical world-view. So let's look at how that plays itself out in America......how much influence do God's people have on our society?

@The percentages listed are the percent of people in that particular category that thought it was alright to be involved in the activity listed.......and what I want to point out here is just how far away from God's standards God's people have gotten.

ACTIVITY

Evangelicals

Born Again

Other Faith

Atheist/ Agnostic

Unwed Living Together

12%

49%

70%

87%

Abortion

33%

45%

71%

Pornography

28%

49%

70%

Profane speech

29%

46%

68%

Drunkenness

24%

44%

61%

Homosexual relationships

20%

41%

55%

Using Drugs not pre-scribed by a doc

11%

25%

38%

The people who hold most closely to God's standard are apparently shockingly ignorant of what a standard is. Honestly.......8% of evangelicals think it's OK to get drunk. That means that when you add it up........32% of those people who would claim to be born again believers think that drunkenness is OK. 25% think homosexual relationships are OK......61% of those who would call themselves Christian think it's alright to live together as an unmarried couple! 87% of atheists think that activity is alright. Think about that.....we're only 26 percentage points different in this category than people who don't believe God even exists! Sadly......that's what the "visible church" in America represents to the rest of the world.

The point is that even when we're talking to professing believers we may be speaking a different language. So when we're defending our beliefs......when we're speaking to others about God and Jesus and grace and salvation and God's Word.......we need to be very clear that we're talking not about some things that sound pretty good...... things that might be a good idea.......it's not suggestions that might work out better if we took them. We need them to understand that these are God's desires for His creation. That He made the rules......and we're not free to ignore them without facing His consequences.

The data from this research showed one pattern emerged loud and clear.......young adults rarely possess a biblical worldview. The study found that less than one-half of one percent of adults in the 18 to 23 age group have a biblical worldview........and remember that's from only 4% of American adults. The future generations are in trouble because we've done a horrible job at preparing our young people to ward off the attacks of the world. Rather than maintaining what they've known to be true......they've succumbed to the pressure of the world.......and I can only think that it's because they don't know how to defend their beliefs......because Christianity isn't stupid. It's logical......it's rational.....but if we're unprepared to deal with the onslaught of the world we're gonna get creamed.

Just to take this to a practical point regarding Christianity in America....... depending upon which survey results you want to use.......about 73% of Americans identified themselves as Christian in 2012. And yet a poll that was taken in August of 2012.....a few months prior the presidential election......found that over 80% of the voting population in America said their vote for president would not be affected in any manner by what the Bible says.

So all of these figures.......all of this talk must mean something. What? Does any of this really affect us here at Community Bible Church in Los Lunas, New Mexico? I would classify us here.......the collective "we".......as leaning toward the category defined as Evangelical Christians. Obviously.......most churches would not find themselves in that category. But have we really prepared each other.......have we prepared our children to be able to properly defend our most basic beliefs? Because the statistics are kinda scary........and very challenging.

There's a generational pattern here that suggests even evangelical parents are not focused on guiding their kids to have a biblical worldview.......and the problem is that you can't give away what you don't have. It's my prayer that this study is going to better equip us in this area of defending our faith.......and in realizing how much our world-view has possibly been compromised by the world already.

It seems that Christian churches and Christian schools and para-church organizations are doing a much less than adequate job of educating those that God has given to us. It doesn't seem like a lot of our children are provided with the basic ability to think in ways that line up with foundational biblical teachings. The very core of basic Christian beliefs is being eroded more and more with each generation........and I really don't want my grandkids to have to live in a world that doesn't know Jesus Christ.

We need to realize that because someone calls themselves a Christian......it may not be the same definition that we hold......or that Scripture would maintain. Christianity is not simply a series of unrelated doctrines. Christianity includes all of life. Every realm of knowledge.......every aspect of life........everything in the universe finds its answers within Christianity. It's a truth that holds the entire world in its grasp.

When we decide that our spiritual lives and our academic, social and political lives are all separate we have a serious problem. It's something called Dualism.......an attempt to live by two different world views.........with part of life subject to one master and the rest of life subject to another. It's nothing new.......@Scripture talks so much about this problem....

Joshua 24:15........ If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

@Matthew 6:24........ “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

@James 1:6-8....... 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

We have got to decide what really matters. So much of what Jim talked about last week is so applicable to this study. Are we living a life worthy of the calling of Jesus Christ? I believe this study is going to help us confirm in our own minds who it is that we're really sold out to.......what it is we firmly believe.......and how we can reasonably pass that belief on to our children and others that God sends in our path.

It is incredibly important that we are comfortable with defending what we believe......

KWYB 2

DOES GOD EXIST?

Alright......this is the second installment in a series I've entitled "Know What You Believe".......and the purpose behind going into this study in the first place was an observation that many Christians in our culture cannot adequately defend their faith. For the most part I believe we get uncomfortable.......we get irritated.......and we fall back on saying something like, "You just have to have faith."

Understand that there isn't anything wrong with that answer......but is that all we've got? Are the critics right in saying that you have to "check your mind at the door" when you enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have the churches prepared us to share our faith in a reasonable and rational manner that adequately defends why we believe what we believe? And to those three questions I would answer, "No", "No" and......."No". We have a reasonable defense of what we believe......you don't have to check your mind at the door.....and church has done a miserable job at preparing believers to talk about their faith to those who would mock us.

And after the first session that we had it became evident from your comments that this study is something that is sorely needed in the culture of the church today. Just two weeks ago I was talking with a woman who was trying to defend a biblical position she held......but she said, "I don't know Scripture well enough to write the letter I need to write." And those kind of statements are more the norm than the exception in today's church.

C.S. Lewis once said, "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important." I believe that knowing what we believe........adequately defending what we believe.......is of infinite importance also.

The first time we discussed this topic we dealt with WORLD VIEWS..... and if you were here for that one, probably the biggest shocker of all was just how many Americans possess a Biblical World View......approximately 4% of them......and maybe even more shocking was that in the younger Americans......18 to 23 year olds......about one half of 1% would be in that category. Now we have way too much ground to cover today to do any type of review of the last session.......so let me encourage you that if you weren't here or you want to refresh what was said......let me know after the message today and I'll e-mail you a verbatim transcript of what was said last time.

Just to clarify......one item is vitally important regarding the message on World-view......the very existence or nonexistence of God is the singular key factor as far as what anyone's World-view might be.

So where do we start? We see that there's a real need......but what are the primary topics that need defended? What are the main objections by non-believers toward Christianity? IS SCRIPTURE RELIABLE? WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM? IS THERE OBJECTIVE TRUTH? ISN'T RELIGION JUST MADE UP BY MAN? There's a lot of questions that need answered......a lot of stuff that needs to be covered. But probably the very base question that we need to deal with is, "IS THERE A GOD"? "DOES GOD EXIST"? "HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD YOU CAN'T SEE"?

Some people feel that acceptance of God is entirely a matter of faith......but the Scriptures actually claim that it is the truth which is the basis for this faith (2 Thes. 2:13). Truth is only truth if it's objective truth........if it's true for everyone regardless of time or circumstances. So........God is either true.......and there can be objective proofs to support this........or He's not true and only subjective 'truth' can be offered for 'proof'. So how can we solve this.......where do we start to present evidence for the existence of God to someone who does not believe He exists?

I'll let you in on a secret......only Tish and I know this.....but now everybody will. The hardest part of putting a message together for me is getting a direction. I struggle for weeks with a starting point.......a place to begin......a direction to take any message that will make sense and follow a continuous pattern to an applicable conclusion. Once I've got a direction then it goes together relatively easily......and believe me.....getting a direction for this one was really difficult. Then I got this idea. What class of people.....what occupation in America may be the most cynical......skeptical....... suspicious group that you could possibly think of? Scientists.......Bookies........ Marines......How about POLICEMEN?

Policeman deal with folks all day long that are under stress.......lying......cheating and stealing.......forging, faking and misrepresenting......and hiding the truth. They deal with EVIDENCE. Remember the old DRAGNET T.V. series? What did Jack Webb say anytime he was interviewing a witness? "Just the facts ma'am."

I was in law enforcement for 34 years.......we've got a couple other guys here that still are. Carl.......how many years do you have being a policeman? (34) And Greg..... what's the tally so far on your career? (39) So we have 107 years worth of police experience sitting in this room. 107 years worth of investigating crimes.......gathering evidence......interviewing witnesses. If policemen deal with facts......deal with evidence and eye witness accounts every day they're on the job.......just to prove that some crime took place and who the offender was......then it would seem that using the manner that they investigate crimes in order to investigate our question today would be a pretty good approach at solving the question of whether or not God really exists. So that's my direction for this teaching. Since nearly my entire career was spent as a detective......or an agent......that's the tools we're going to use to solve this dilemma. IS THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A GOD?

Now I realize that I run a bit of a risk here because I know there are committed Christians who are hesitant to deal with EVIDENTIAL FAITH. In many Christian circles......faith that is based on EVIDENCE is seen as a weak or inferior faith when compared to a faith that simply believes without question......rationalizing that blind faith is a truer and more sincere faith. And yet I see Jesus as having fairly high regard for evidence. @Look at John 14:11......."Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."(NIV)

Or how about the first three verses of the @Book of Acts....... 1 "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen. 3 After His suffering, He presented Himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

It's healthy to examine our faith.......Scripture exhorts us to examine our faith. We're supposed to be able to give a defense of the faith that is in us. Evidentiary faith is a reasonable and rational faith......and that's where we want to go with this.

One thing I want to try to do is prevent this from becoming a Criminal Law 101 class.......but there are a few things we need to understand. We're going to use the judicial standard that is held in our country of presenting a case for the existence of God that is "beyond a reasonable doubt"......that is the presumptive standard of evidence that must be reached......and it's a very high standard.

Another legal definition that we must also be aware of is that evidence falls into two broad categories.......DIRECT EVIDENCE and INDIRECT EVIDENCE......or CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as it's sometimes called. Now I don't know how many of you watch shows like NCIS or other investigative programs that always show some kind of direct evidence such as DNA or fingerprints that seem to solve every crime that's ever committed. What these shows have done in our society is given us the impression that circumstantial evidence isn't worth very much.......but that's just not true.

Understand also that science has two branches........experimental and historical.......with two forms of evidence just like our legal system. Experimental science relies on experiments that are repeatable and give direct evidence.......just like direct evidence in law. With historical science........you look for the cause that best explains evidence that comes from the past but is observable today. Archaeology.......the science of origins......the big-bang theory......and criminal science all fall into this category because they do not allow recreating the cause with any kind of experiment.......very similar to circumstantial evidence. So......most of historical science falls into this category.

Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly categorized over the years.......it is not inferior in any manner to direct evidence. In fact......there are times when circumstantial evidence is far more trustworthy than direct evidence. Witnesses can be mistaken regarding their observations......they can lie about their observations......and yet it is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence on the other hand cannot lie......it is what it is......and we can use our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion about its importance.

In our court systems.......jurors are instructed on direct and indirect evidence......and given examples so that they'll realize the importance of each. "If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse.....that is direct evidence that it was raining." On the other hand, "If a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water......that is circumstantial evidence that may support a conclusion that is was raining outside." The more pieces of circumstantial evidence.....the more reasonable the conclusion. We may observe a number of people go outside the courthouse and come back in a few seconds later dripping with water.......and a number of people come into the courthouse with opened umbrellas that are wet which would be additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence......the better the conclusion.

One of the first things we need to realize when dealing with the question of whether or not God exists is that the existence of God cannot be proven with direct evidence......and conversely.......it cannot be proven that God does not exist through direct evidence. Whenever we discuss God's existence......we'll clearly see the circumstantial evidence that can be presented is so overwhelming that any kind of argument against it is absolutely unreasonable.

Which leads us to the last investigative definitions we need to establish. I think we all have some idea of the difference between POSSIBLE and REASONABLE. Let's face it......just about anything is POSSIBLE. Christopher.......it's possible that you may not be sitting here right now. It's POSSIBLE that you were abducted last night by aliens and are suffering from a dreamlike, out-of-body extraterrestrial hallucination of being here at church......and you're actually going to wake up tomorrow tens of thousands of light years away from here in an alien spacecraft! It's POSSIBLE........but it's not very REASONABLE is it?

Using the judicial standard......jurors are instructed that they must use only the evidence that is presented. They are instructed to resist consideration of anyone's opinions or speculations about unsupported possibilities. They must not get involved in "What if.....?" or "Isn't it possible that.....?" type speculations. Our courts place a high value on reasonableness.......and it's important for us to do the same when discussing the evidence of the existence of God.

OK.......with these parameters established......and in discussing this with someone who doesn't believe in God you will need to establish parameters........where do we go from here? Well......what about A UNIVERSE WITH A BEGINNING.......

The vast majority of scientists continue to acknowledge that the universe came into being........from nothing.......at some point in the distant past. Many continue to explain this beginning as "The Big Bang Theory". In attempting to give the simplest definition of the Big Bang Theory I Googled it.......and here's what it said. The big bang theory is a successful television comedy series created by Chuck Lorre in 2007 about four geeky scientists and a waitress neighbor. That's what they believe????

Now......I didn't think that was right.......so I dug just a little deeper and it is defined thusly....... The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is accepted by most astronomers today to define how the universe began. According to the theory the universe began billions of years ago in a single event......similar to a violent explosion of a very small assembly of matter of extremely high density and temperature. The energy and matter expanding from this singular event composes the entire universe.

Now in regard to creation......let it be known that I believe that God created everything in six literal days and I have not been subjected to anything thus far that would convince me otherwise. But I also know of some very devoted Christians who believe in the big bang theory and find no disconnect at all with the Genesis account.......crediting God with creation emanating from a single source expansion that was designed to accomplish all we see. We're not going to deal with that question this morning. All we're interested in is that scientists have some standard consensus that the universe did BEGIN TO EXIST. It had a starting point......and without getting into all the scientific data......it's more than reasonable to believe that the universe had to have a beginning......otherwise it would have “burned out” long ago......which actually deals with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics......so let's take a minute to briefly explain this.

Our universe functions by very strict and undeniable laws that must be obeyed. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

In its simplest form.......the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Basically......the amount of energy in the universe is constant. It can be changed.......moved......controlled.......stored......but it cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Understand that this is a really big hurdle that cannot be cleared by those who refuse to believe in a divine Creator. Energy cannot be created from NOTHING.

Which brings us to the Second Law of Thermodynamics......commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy......or disorder.......or technically.......everything will seek equilibrium. To put a very complicated law into its simplest form it says that equilibrium must increase.......meaning that all matter and energy go from a state of order to a state of disorder.......or more accurately......equilibrium. Let me explain....... @Think of it like this........if there is a jar that is half full of quarters......and all the quarters are neatly arranged in the jar and they are all "heads-up". If you shake the jar what happens? THEY AREN'T ALL HEADS-UP.......some of them are tails up and some are standing on edge right? @And the more you shake them......the more quarters will be "tails-up"......and eventually......there will be a jar of quarters that has reached a state of equilibrium. It went from everything being heads-up to it being about 50% heads-up. The process is not reversible........shaking the jar again won't cause the quarters to go back to their ordered state. That's the simplest explanation I can give.

The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal..........the universe had a finite beginning......and in that beginning state everything was very ordered......a state of low entropy. So.......like a wind-up clock.......the universe is winding down. The theological implications are obvious. Who wound up the clock?

@NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said.........."For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." We can legitimately add these to our list of circumstantial evidence in our quest to seek the truth regarding whether or not God exists.

The important discussion here.......in our question of whether or not there is a God......is that the universe began to exist......out of nothing. So if it began to exist.......who or what "began it"? That's a really important question. We live in a world governed by natural laws of physics that cannot be denied. We live in a world of CAUSE AND EFFECT. If there is an EFFECT it had to have a CAUSE.

If there was a Big Bang......what caused it to happen.......and what brought into existence the matter that expanded from the initial Bang? It has to be an "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE". It has to be something that is eternal and exists outside of space and time and matter. The evidence of a universe that has a beginning points circumstantially to the existence of an eternal.......all-powerful Being who actually does exist outside of space and time and matter. An incredibly powerful......uncaused first cause.......was necessary to bring our universe into existence. It seems the Cosmic Egg......that was the birth of our universe........logically requires a Cosmic Chicken.

It is also commonly believed by the scientific community that the Big Bang started out of NOTHING. Without getting too scientific here I think it makes sense to point out that Stephen Hawking.......the physicist that stated, "The existence of God is unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe."......that Stephen Hawking.....along with George Ellis and Roger Penrose published papers extending Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space that come to the conclusion that both time and space had beginnings.....and prior to the Big Bang space and time did not exist. So.....think about this......because it gets pretty uncomfortable to explain if you are an atheist.......physical space and time as well as all matter and energy were created in that single event commonly known as the Big Bang and it was created out of NOTHING.

A lot of people think that "nothing" is an empty space......but it's not. When you've got nothing.......you don't even have space. It's not an empty room......it's nothing. The best description I've heard of "nothing" came from Aristotle. He said that "NOTHING IS WHAT ROCKS DREAM ABOUT". Nothing has no time, no space, no matter, no energy.......it doesn't exist......it is nothing.

Therefore......since there had to be a cause to bring about the effect of the universe coming into existence.......that cause had to exist outside of time and space......since it created time and space. It must transcend these things therefore it must be immaterial..... not physical.......which concludes that it must be spiritual. The fact is that the causal evidence of the universe is a significant piece of circumstantial evidence for God's existence.

Richard Lewontin, a highly acclaimed evolutionary biologist admitted that science is skewed to ignore any supernatural explanation......even when the evidence might indicate that natural, material explanations are lacking. @He said...... "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Do you hear what that says? It doesn't matter how absurd.....how extravagant or how unsubstantiated their conclusions are........It doesn't matter how much evidence you present contrary to the material, naturalistic bent that they've adopted. They will not even consider the idea of the supernatural or any divine dimension whatsoever. It will not even be considered. The bottom line is that naturalists reject the supernatural......not based on evidence.....but simply because they refuse to allow themselves any other options......even though the evidence might be better explained by the very thing that is rejected.

I want to mention one more thing that comes strictly from experience.......from observation over the years. Let me throw out a few names here and see if they mean anything to anyone.......Billy Marchiando.......Leon Taylor........Hank Farrah......Paul Kennedy........

They're all rather prominent defense attorneys in New Mexico. They come across as intelligent......articulate......committed and extremely confident. I knew a lot of police officers who would shudder when they'd receive a subpoena that listed one of them as the defense attorney on their case. These guys would grill the prosecution witnesses mercilessly. They'd throw out lavish claims and theories about what happened in a case and do it confidently to the point of arrogance. They'd badger and belittle police officers to the point that they'd begin to believe their evidence must not be sound......and it wouldn't matter to the attorney whether what his claims happened to be were the truth or not.......as long as he demeaned and bullied the prosecution to make jurors think there was no case against the defendant.

There's a particular story that has circulated the legal community for a long time now about a guy who was on trial for murder. The circumstantial case against him was rather overwhelming and his lawyer felt pretty certain he was going to be convicted. In a last ditch effort the attorney resorted to attempting to trick the jury.

He said, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury......I have a surprise for you. Within the next sixty seconds......the person you thought had been murdered will walk through those courtroom doors."

He turned and looked toward the doors. The jurors......surprised by the claim turned and watched the doors with anticipation. A minute when by and nothing happened.

Finally the defense attorney said, "I admit to you that I lied about that last statement......but all of you turned and watched that door with eager anticipation. This clearly demonstrates that you have a reasonable doubt in this case whether anyone was actually murdered in the first place. You must return a verdict of not guilty."

The jury retired to deliberate the case and moments later returned to the courtroom with a verdict of guilty. The defense attorney was shocked. "How could you return with a verdict so quickly? You must have had some doubt......I saw all of you watch that door with expectation!"

The jury foreman replied......"Yes.....we did look......but your client didn't."

Understand.......just like the arrogance and self-assurance that defense attorneys display.......non-believers may exhibit enthusiasm and self-assurance that borders on arrogance also......but it should not be any reason for us to shrink and cast doubt upon our own evidence. The evidence for God's existence is overwhelming.......the other side has no case. They may rely on confidence.....or bullying......and maybe even a little slight of hand here and there......but it falls far short of evidence of any kind.

But let's face it.......when it comes right down to it.......many of the people we encounter who hold a view that there is no God have never taken the time to figure out if their position is one that's rational......based on the evidence.......or whether it's emotional......based on a choice to reject any evidence that may lean toward a spiritual world.

The more we talk with people who don't believe in God the more we find out that no matter how rational and articulate and reasonable the case for our view may be......our efforts seem to have no impact at all on who we're talking to. Many of the people we're trying to reach are willing to deny the truth of God's existence on the basis of an emotional response rather than on the basis of good evidence.

It may be important to ask questions that would lead people to question why they so vehemently reject the notion of God......whether their resistance is based on evidence or an emotional response that denies that your position holds any validity regardless of the evidence you present. Don't expect someone to respond to your reasoned arguments when the evidence wasn't that important to them in the first place.

We're nearing the end of this first edition of defending the existence of God......and I'm sure I've disappointed some of you because I've all but neglected the biblical arguments for God's reality. I've not mentioned at all the fact that God's Word screams of His existence........creation screams of His existence.......and for that let me offer a brief defense. When you're talking to an atheist about whether or not God exists......utilizing something that person has rejected as having any authority at all is not a great way to begin your defense. What I desire to do is to establish a reasonable defense for God's existence before I get into what most of us would declare to be our best defense.......Scripture itself......because God said so!!!!

Probably......in our next session we will deal with defending the veracity of Scripture. Once we've established a reasonable argument that Scripture can be believed......then I think we can bring in just exactly what Scripture declares about God......because one thing I've figured out in studying the entire subject of defending your faith is that all of the questions that come up.......all of the arguments that atheists bring up boil down to whether or not God exists.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about absolute moral law.......good and evil.......Jesus is God or what the theological discussion is......all of it hinges on whether or not God exists. The other discussions are all spin-offs of that one question. So that's how we're going to deal with it here. Everything we talk about will actually be added as circumstantial evidence as to the existence of God. When it all adds up......the case is so overwhelming that I'm pretty certain you will never be intimidated again by talking with someone who doesn't hold your beliefs as truth.

KWYB Session 3

This is the third installment in the series titled Know What You Believe. The impetus behind this series comes from my observations and the observations of people I've come in contact with.....that the Christian community is incredibly inept at being able to defend their most basic beliefs.......beyond saying, "You just have to have faith." Contrary to what much of the world would tell you.....our biblical beliefs are not irrational, unreasonable or foolish.......but we're not very well versed in explaining them to people who are in opposition to us.

This series is presented for two basic reasons.......one is to make us more comfortable with our beliefs as we are bombarded by a secular world that would make fun of us at every turn. The second reason is for us to adequately be able to defend our beliefs to a skeptical world......and on that note I just want to make a cautionary statement........and I don't know who is to be credited for this quote......but it bears some remembrance.......@"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

That statement is something of a debate stopper. For the most part......whenever we engage in these type of debates........both sides have already made up their minds. What really ends up happening is something along the lines of intellectual posturing rather than any flow of information.......which usually escalates into dialog bordering on an all out fight from both sides. These are valid and necessary discussions......but we've got to insure that we're discussing in a biblical manner.......rather than letting pride or arrogance get in the way of Christ being glorified.

A couple of scriptures come to mind.......Psalm 127:1......."Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it, except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain". Unless HE draws men by HIS Spirit......we're just spinning our wheels trying to naturally and intellectually persuade a person of a SPIRITUAL truth. It ain't happenin'.

And one other one........1 Cor.2:14......."The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." The truth of Gods Word.......the Truth of the existence of God and our Lord Jesus Christ as Savior has got to be "Spiritually discerned".......all we can do is start the discussion and allow the Spirit to control the results. We don't have to force anything......we merely need to be able to defend our beliefs and do it in a patient and loving manner.

I make this caution to try to prevent us from getting our shorts in a knot when we tell people about the reasonable and rational evidence for what we believe and they dismiss us or even persecute us. With our wisdom and knowledge.......we're not going to change anybody.......but the Holy Spirit utilizes us if we're willing and prepared.

So.......if you've been to the first two teachings you know that originally we talked about whether or not you believe God exists rests solely upon your world view. There was an editorial in the Seattle Times a while back titled "The Divided Nation".......@and in that editorial the statement was made that "the major factor of division within our country is not socio-economic, it is not politics, race, gender or class. The singular major factor of our disunity is world view." The editorial goes on to claim there are two dominate world views that are competing for the hearts and minds of our citizens. The first is a secular world view that is promoted by Hollywood......the media......and all major colleges and universities. The second is a biblical world view being promoted by Evangelical churches. So.....understand what we're up against here. Three very strong and dominant social structures against evangelical churches.....which are very much on the decline.

A biblical world-view is not a popular position in our culture. We, as a nation, have embraced a materialistic or natural world view which eliminates the possibility of God's existence.

In the second session we got down to some of the meat of where we're headed and that is that any questions someone might have regarding whether or not there are moral absolutes........whether or not truth can be objective.......whether or not Scripture is reliable.........any question one might raise regarding what we believe all center around being able to acknowledge that God does in fact exist. IS THERE A GOD is the critical question that must be answered.

And the approach we're taking is going to be that of a detective. Since it's something that I spent 34 years doing......it seemed like a good method to address the problem. We're going to regard the question quite simply. If we went to court in the American judicial system today.......could we present a case to support the existence of God......and would the evidence prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt? The only evidence that can be presented to answer the question of God's reality is circumstantial or indirect evidence......which is also the only evidence available to someone trying to prove there is no God. I also might add.......God doesn't need us to prove His existence......HE IS......all by Himself......whether or not we adequately present the evidence or not.

What we've presented thus far is the overwhelming evidence that our world......including all matter and time had a beginning. The first and second laws of thermodynamics and all of the best evidence that science can provide points to an origin......it has not always existed. And in this "cause and effect" existence that we find ourselves in......since there had to be a cause to bring about the effect of the universe coming into existence.......that cause had to exist outside of time and space......since time and space are a part of what came into existence. It must transcend these things therefore it must be immaterial..... not physical.......which concludes that it must be spiritual. The fact is that the causal evidence of the universe is a significant piece of circumstantial evidence for God's existence.

The arguments on the other side of the aisle that God does not exist actually center around a presupposition that is passed off as scientific reasoning. It begins with the foundational premise that natural laws and forces alone account for every phenomenon that can be examined. Supernatural forces are excluded by definition. And probably the best indication of the other side of the argument is found in a quote by one of the leading proponents of materialism.....Richard Lewontin, a highly acclaimed evolutionary biologist who said in their defense.......... @"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.......no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Science has agreed almost across the board that the universe had a beginning.......they just won't allow themselves to have The Beginner!

So.....I was looking at where we've been thus far and we've covered very little ground......but have begun introducing some of the very sound scientific evidence that clearly shows the existence of God......but I started to get uncomfortable about the introduction that was made to this series.......that it was quite incomplete. So I'm going to do something akin to what George Lucas did with his Star Wars movies. Anybody see those? I saw the first one......but that was it. But what Lucas did was make 3 movies and then went back to the beginning with the 4th movie. He wanted fans to see where it all got started......and that's what we're going to do this morning. We saw in the introduction that our world view......as a culture......has changed dramatically over the years.....but I don't think it adequately explained exactly how we got to that point......because I think it's important when we're sorting out not only what we believe......but also to understand how those opposed to God got to where they are.......so let's regress to where this thing really begins.

Since probably the 1920's it has become increasingly popular for the cultural elitists of our country to view Christianity as superstitious and anti-intellectual......you have to be kinda stupid to believe it.......you were thought to be hanging on to something very outdated. My atheist neighbor would agree with this sentiment. He actually said to me that he felt he was "intellectually superior" to me because I believed in God. But now......according to J.P. Moreland......a Christian philosopher, professor and circuit speaker......the last 15 years or so we've made a drastic change in that thinking.

He says, @and I quote......."Not only is the religion of Jesus considered to be outdated....it is now considered to be immoral! If you follow the teachings of Jesus today in our culture......you are considered to be an immoral, racist bigot. Because Christianity has been responsible for oppressing women.....minorities and gays.....and this Western Religion is responsible for every evil that afflicts us! So.....not only are we stupid......but we are immoral, oppressive bigots." Which I might add......my atheist neighbor would whole-heartedly agree with! That's the perception of a great deal of America today.

How bad has it really gotten? You might recall Robert Reich, secretary of labor under President Clinton......he also served on President-Elect Obama’s transition advisory board.......educated at Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale......he made a mind-boggling statement not long ago saying...... @"The greatest conflict we face in the 21st century won't be between the west and terrorism.......the true battle we face is not with terrorism.....it is between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance to a higher power........between those who believe in science, reason and logic.....and those who believe the truth is revealed in Scripture. Terrorism can disrupt and destroy lives.....but it is not the greatest danger we face.......conservative religion is."

Going back to J.P. Moreland......he goes on to say, @"In a culture where this thinking is becoming more and more prominent the church will die......unless we recover one thing. It isn't fervency in prayer......it isn't worship.....we have to recover the life of the mind.....where Christians start learning what they believe and why they believe it. Most Christians can't think their way out of a wet paper bag!" We have to recover a desire in Christians to know Scripture well enough to easily refute those things that are raised up against the knowledge of God. And not only is it necessary to know Scripture......we'd be wise to be acclimated to the social and scientific realities as well in order to be the most prepared we can be.

So......how did we fall so far so fast.......how did such a radical change take place? Remember a few weeks ago when Jim was telling us about all the gods of the Roman culture......everybody had one......in fact they probably had 2 or 3. @It wasn't hard to believe in a god back then......in fact.......this pre-modern era was one in which religion was the source of truth and reality. During this era......God’s existence and revelation were the norm and not the exception.

@Then we ushered in the modern era......science became the predominate source for truth and reality. During this period........religion and morality were somewhat demoted to the subjective realm. It was no longer considered truth......especially in the circles of the social and cultural elite. @Then the postmodern era came about.......where there's no single defining source for truth and reality.

In postmodernism.......truth and reality are individually shaped by personal history......social class.....gender.....it all depends on us! There's no universal application.......no universal truth. The new emphasis is on difference and tolerance....... and what it's led to is a much less stable and secure society. Where modernism was optimistic.......based on scientific certainty and technological progress.......postmodernism is filled with skepticism and uncertainty. Modernism celebrated reason and science and human ability. Postmodernism wallows in relativity and the inability to know anything with certainty.

During the 1960’s and 70’s.......there was a huge shift in attitudes against authority........institution and establishment......and it had an incredibly negative affect on our nation. We experienced a massive shift away from the institution of marriage and family. Divorce rates skyrocketed........living together outside of marriage became a norm.

So what was the result? The total rejection of absolute truth. We developed a mindset that there is no objective good and evil......which naturally dismisses any concept of an absolute holy God. But since we're all so tolerant in this postmodern society......God was certainly welcome.......as long as He doesn't try to play God! We may be open to knowing this or that god......but even that has to be on our own terms. That was the post modern era of our culture. But now we've even gone beyond that......we are now Post-Post-Modern......or as some have coined it....... @we are in an age of “Pseudo-modernism”.

And who's the star of Pseudo-modernism? I AM!!!! ME!!! I AM CRUCIAL.......IRREPLACEABLE.......INDESPENSIBLE! What happened is along came the Internet.....and “reality television”.......and it made me realize how really vital I am. I have 200 friends on Facebook.......300 people follow me on Twitter........I can "tweet".......I have my own blog,,,,,,heck.......I even voted for the next American Idol. If I pass gas the whole world knows it.......and they're concerned!!! I can read a news article on-line and they even ask me for my comments about the news......and people want to read my comments......they want to know what I said........and dog-gone-it......they like me!!!!

In this new culture.....without my participation......certain things cannot exist. We've developed a culture that makes the world just exactly the way the individual wants it to be. I make the rules......things are dependent upon me. There's no absolute truths.......I can change things. There's no need for God.......I'm Him.

Not only that.......think about our written word. In eras past.....a novel like Moby Dickexisted on its own........it was here a hundred years ago.......presumably it will still be available a hundred years from now. But in our pseudo-modern culture........it's a text......a twitter......an e-mail or a posting on Facebook........that's our method of written communication. It's fleeting......it's momentary......it's discarded immediately after use. There seems to be little permanence in what we do. It's no wonder we've lost our moral compass......it shouldn't surprise any of us that our culture has decayed to the extent that it has. That moral absolutes......that a real knowledge of God.......that traditional family values no longer exist. These are just some of the things we're up against any time we talk to others about Jesus Christ.

Here's one more thing I want to throw out regarding this culture that we live in.....and I think it's important that we understand this and are able to articulate it......because we will face it......I already have on many occasions. This new post-post-modern society has a very covert way of redefining words in order to manipulate the desired social outcome. Think about it.......

What is the definition of TOLERANCE? The traditional definition of tolerance, genuine tolerance, means to put up with, allow or endure something that one doesn’t agree with. Genuine tolerance between the members of society entails a respect of individual differences and the acknowledgement of equality between individuals. We may differ on our individual beliefs about something......but we agree to disagree.

The new definition of tolerance is a completely different animal. New tolerance demands the acceptance of beliefs......and behaviors......and practices one doesn’t agree with. It's a one-way street.......and this is what makes it so valuable to those who use it as a political or social tool. Our redefined tolerance is used to silence particular ideas or groups through shame......ridicule.......and intimidation. We've seen the process lived out in the news lately.

Supporters of traditional marriage in general.......and Christians in particular...... are routinely labeled as intolerant for being open about their belief that homosexuality is a sin. I think you remember last year.......the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A became the target of nationwide protests after the president........Dan Cathy in an interview......expressed support for traditional families. A few weeks ago........Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was indefinitely suspended by A&E for calling homosexuality a sin during a magazine interview. I guess since that time he's been reinstated.......but the truth is our culture has a new definition of tolerance......and anyone who says "homosexual behavior is immoral" is labeled intolerant, hateful, bigoted and homophobic.

So.....understand the importance of word definitions when you're talking to others about your beliefs. One of the major accusations that initially arise is that "I don't like Christians because they're intolerant of everything except their own beliefs." I've heard it before. What you need to do is have them define tolerance for you. Try to get them to understand that their accusation is really an indictment against themselves.

So........why is this happening.......what is the driving force behind this cultural backlash against Godly standards?

I have no intention of politicizing this message at all. My intention is to give you information that is accurate and informative in order for you to be able to responsibly speak to others about the reason our country is where it's at in its belief about God, Scripture and Jesus Christ.

If I were attempting to control a particular social agenda in any society......the one thing that would be necessary for me to control would be the media.......because if I can control what you see and hear then I can control your beliefs. I don't think that's particularly hard to understand. If I don't hear anything about a particular event......then I don't have any reason to believe it happened.

Likewise......if I read the newspaper, turn on the TV or the radio or get my information from the internet and all I see are stories depicting things to be different than the way I always thought they were.......then maybe I've thought wrong.......and maybe I'll be influenced to change my stand or opinion on a particular subject.

Let me give you an example. Last Saturday morning I turned on my computer to do some research on a message and to read the current events. If your internet service provider is MSN then this is @ one of the highlighted news topics that appeared on your page........."40 sweet gift ideas to surprise your Valentine" was the title......and it has a picture depicting a lesbian couple exchanging gifts. Now I ask you.......is that picture what mainstream America would have in mind when they thought about giving out Valentine's gifts? No.....but it is what the mainstream media has in mind for all of us to surrender to......and the more and more we see it depicted as a "norm"......the more and more our society is going to run from the teachings and principals of a righteous God.

The problem is that here in the United States the mainstream media is manipulated and virtually controlled by a "Progressive" agenda. For those of you unfamiliar with the term......it is characterized by left wing, liberal, pro-abortion, pro same-sex marriage views that are aimed at the very foundation of biblical thought. And I'm not making this up......it comes from their own mouths.

How many of you are familiar with who George Soros is? He's a multi-billionaire who is quoted as saying...... @ “I fancied myself as some kind of god. If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble. It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

Yah......that guy. Anyway he is a multi billionaire atheist who has said over and over again that he has a leftist, socialist, anti-religious agenda that he is willing to spend his fortunes on promoting through every journalistic avenue available to him. And in that light he currently funds......at least partially.......nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the group Media Consortium. That organization advertises itself as.......'a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' There's that word "progressive" again.

A recent report by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created what they call@.........an "echo chamber" of outlets "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times." According to the report........"if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy."

So......if they do this right.....if they can get their message out on enough media outlets.......they will shift an entire society to their way of thinking.......and all they have to do is purchase influence in the right places.

By the way.......the word "meme" that they use to describe their message....... originated with Richard Dawkins......probably the most influential Darwinian biologist alive today. For Dawkins it is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because there is a determined........ aggressive.....intentional plan in our society today to do away with any and all things that point to an all powerful God that has created us for His glory.......and if we do not educate ourselves and stand firm in our faith.......Christianity will be something our great grandchildren will never even hear about.

I was listening to a lecture recently by J.P. Moreland......who I quoted earlier and he was talking about spiritual warfare......and what he said really hit me. We have got to understand that spiritual warfare is real......and that's what we are facing.......that's really what this whole message is about. And it's time that we pulled our collective head out of the sand and started to prepare ourselves for battle. Christians have got to learn to think critically.......we've got to utilize not only Scripture......but reason and logic and science that is clearly on our side......and prepare to go to war against those in opposition to God's ways.

And let me make it plain......I'm talking about actually KNOWING this stuff. I'm afraid we've gotten so high-tech in our approach to life that we're comfortable with just GOOGLING the answer. The concept of hiding Scripture in our hearts is almost a forgotten element of our walk. We need to be able to say, "This is what I believe and why I believe it." Without apology......without hesitation.......without an I-phone to look up the answer. Spiritual warfare is real......and we've got to really be prepared.

Now Ephesians 6 is probably the most quoted passage on spiritual warfare that I can think of.......but 2nd Corinthians 10:3-5 may be the key passage for what we're discussing today. It is widely neglected and I believe widely misunderstood. Who's got that?.......3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

@So it says that we don't war according to the flesh.....which means we don't take up guns and do physical battle with other people on behalf of the church.......no godly missiles or guns or anti-tank grenades......that's un-cool. What are our weapons designed for? What does the text say? FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF FORTRESSES. That's what our weapons are to be utilized for......the destruction of fortresses.

What is a fortress in our society today? Darwinian evolution......the idea that you can only know what science can prove.....and if science can't prove it then you can't know it......the idea that there is no spiritual world......that the institution of marriage is no longer relevant......even the idea of political correctness......all sorts of things that we can think of.

Our text tells us what a fortress is.......a fortress is an idea or a theory that is raised up against the knowledge of God. Look at the next verse......we are destroying speculations...... some translations say "theories"......we are destroying speculations raised up against......not the POWER of God.......Satan can't do anything about that......but raised up against the KNOWLEDGE of God. We live in a culture that is methodically disassembling any teaching and evidence that shows God's existence.

We can readily see that there's a specific agenda in our society that desires to control what we think......how we perceive events......even the knowledge we possess. If I can control what you think......then I can control you.

It is a war that we're in......and we have got to be warriors who are prepared. Our weapons are God's Word......our knowledge......and love. And without any one of those weapons......we lose. That's why we're in the study that we're in. And next time we are going to get back into the evidence for God's existence......and I've already been working on it......and it is overwhelming.

KWYB Session 4

Intelligent Design

Just a few months ago.......Amarillo College in.....of all places.......Amarillo, Texas planned to offer a class entitled “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design” as one of its continuing education courses. Now keep in mind that this class was not part of the school’s degree programs........but a not-for-credit elective course. It was advertised under the heading of “Philosophy.” Dozens of eager students signed up.

Yet when the president of an Amarillo-based group of atheists complained........ the college reversed its decision and canceled “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design” saying the topic was too “emotionally charged and could invite a disruption in the classroom.”

According to internal communications........campus administrators feared that disgruntled atheists would stage a “disruption” if the Intelligent Design class went forward. The atheist leader got so “intense” in arguing for Darwinian evolution over intelligent design that college staff called the police on him.........concerned over their own safety. The reports used a variety of adjectives to describe the small group of protestors that arrived on campus including.......“VERY intense”........“obsessive”..... “fanatical”.........“aggressive”......and "looking for a fight". The person representing the group indicated his intent to enroll students in the course to create a disruptive environment in the classroom. Who was this group? Well......they call themselves "The Freethought Oasis Group of Amarillo". You can't make this stuff up!!! One of the administrators said, "Free thought? Yes......as long as your thought agrees with theirs!"

The fact is that they don’t want to engage different ideas with reason and evidence. How far do you think atheists would go to silence people who disagreed with them? Face it.......in an atheistic universe......there's no DESIGN for how humans ought to behave. There's no moral guide to tell you that people need to be respected. In an accidental universe anything is permitted. You can celebrate successful bullying.

One of the things I think we need to understand is that most of what fuels the anti-scientific sentiment regarding Intelligent Design in our country today is done by a select few aggressive, argumentative and arrogant individuals who clearly have a bias that just does not hold up under scrutiny.......they simply will "not allow a divine foot in the door."

There's a prominent American historian of science named Ronald L. Numbers. He was awarded the 2008 George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society for "a lifetime of exceptional scholarly achievement by a distinguished scholar". Currently he is Professor of History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin and is a self described agnostic. So he's not in our corner.

@In 2006 he published a book titled Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. The book has been described as "probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism to date"...... receiving favorable reviews from the academic community.

In an interview on PBS he said, "Rarely do creationists display hostility towards science. If you read their literature, you'll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science. They love what science can do. They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution. The public often gets the impression that most scientists are non-believers. But, that's not true.........I think there's a powerful mythology today suggesting that science and religion are enemies, and it is fueled by some of the most public and popular of scientists, such as Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins, who have gone out of their way on occasions to present that view." The fact is that today.......Darwinism functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory.

So in our quest to Know What You Believe.......this morning we're going to take up the subject of intelligent design.........which is an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. It forwards the idea that biological life and the universe display evidence of having been designed.

We need to understand that intelligent design does not appeal to any religious texts or make assertions about who the designer might be.......it simply addresses our origins from a scientific and mathematical probability standpoint.......recognizing that the complexities of our universe and life itself have a different origin than what Darwinian evolution suggests.

And we're not trying to fool anyone here.......we're not dealing with semantics when we talk to people who don't believe in God and tell them about Intelligent Design outside of any religious application. We're merely attempting to argue that life is too complex......and far to specific in its makeup and function to have stemmed from random selection........that it was designed......and that means it had to have a designer.

First......what Intelligent Design is not........it is not Creationism! The theory of Intelligent Design is simply an effort to scientifically analyze whether the "apparent design" in nature......which is acknowledged by virtually all biologists.......is in fact, genuine design.........or is it simply the product of a random process such as natural selection.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the evidence of nature and tries to figure out what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence.......and remember......this entire study is being done from the standpoint of "presentable evidence". Unlike creationism........the scientific theory of Intelligent Design doesn't claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. @Ronald Numbers.....the guy we just talked about......when asked, said that he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the Intelligent Design movement." So why do staunch Darwinists keep trying to combine intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers.......it's because it's "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." You can actually criminalize design theory without addressing the merits of its case.

So......What is intelligent design? By definition.......Intelligent Design refers to both a scientific research program.......as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.......not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components......a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance......natural law......intelligent design........or some combination the three.

The research is conducted by just looking at the types of information that are produced when intelligent beings act. Scientists then try to find objects which have those same types of informational properties that we know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in a number of areas of science including.......irreducible complexity.......the complex and specified information contained in DNA.......and the physical structure of the universe that allows life to be sustained. There's a number of other areas that we find evidence of design......but this morning we're going to deal with two of the three I just mentioned.......irreducible complexity.......and the complex and specified information contained in DNA. These things might sound incredibly complex and scientific and nearly impossible to understand.......but I'm going to attempt to break it down to its simplest form and just talk about the basics that you need to know in order to have an intelligent conversation with a non-believer about why you believe what you believe.

But before we do that let me just make an explanation that the scientific method is commonly described as a @four-step process involving observations.......hypothesis...... experiments.......and a conclusion. I think we understand that a hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested. So be forewarned that the first claim an Evolutionist or Naturalist will make is that Intelligent Design doesn't have hypotheses that are falsifiable......which is one of the basic tenants of science. They then conclude that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. Though this claim is prolific among Darwinian theorists......it's also conveniently false.

What is a falsifiable hypothesis? For example........someone might make the scientific hypothesis that, “It never snows in July.” This statement can be proven false by evidence that it does snow in the southern hemisphere in July. @An example more on subject would be from Charles Darwin, who wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”Therefore...... if it could be shown that an organism could not evolve by numerous, successive, slight modifications.......it would show Darwin’s theory to be false.

There are countless scientists who know Intelligent Design to be more than adequate in explaining the origins of life......Lee Strobel...... Stephen C. Meyer......but one of those at the forefront of research in the area is a biochemist from Lehigh University named Michael J. Behe......who wrote a book titled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challengeto Evolution. In his research Behe has found that numerous biochemical structures are what he refers to as irreducibly complex. These "structures" that he refers to are such things as cells......blood clotting.......bacterial flagellum.....mostly it's called "life".

In simple terms.......the idea of @Irreducible Complexity "applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.”

The argument here is this.......if Darwin admits that if someone can come up with a complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications".......then his theory would be proven wrong.

Behe utilizes a number of examples to illustrate the idea that biological structures cease to function if every element is not in place all at once. @He uses a mousetrap as an illustration. It is basically made up of a base, hammer, bar, catch and spring. Remove any one of them and it can no longer function as a mousetrap. Each and every part had to be in place at the moment it was made for it to be a mousetrap.

It's very important to understand that each of these parts have exact shapes......and strengths and functions that have got to come together at exactly the same time. Take the "bar" for example.......it can't be used in any other way......and for it to undergo "several successive slight modifications".....wouldn't help. The fact is that intermediate modifications aren't useful.........each of the complex parts need to be ready at exactly the same time to form a mousetrap. Irreducible complexity boils down to complex parts coming together and forming a complex product.......not eventually.....but at the same time.

Let's look at real life and this whole argument regarding Irreducible Complexity. How many cells are there in the human body? Any guesses? Well......let's see.....there's a brain cell......and I must have a bone cell........

I'm not sure why this number matters......but I guess if you want to impress people with the smallness of cells and the complexity of life........it's probably worth pointing out. All the calculations that have been performed by scientists and others who perform calculations.......they've come up with approximately a comfortable estimate of about 50 trillion cells.........give or take a few trillion. The Intelligent Design community of scientists claims that the cell is one of those biological structures that is irreducibly complex.

I am not in any manner attempting to turn you folks into scientists.......so don't run out of the room bleeding from the ears when I show you this next slide.......because it contains some of the stuff we find in a typical cell........things like DNA.......RNA and PROTEINS. We're not even gonna deal with the real names of these things.......we'll just call them by their initials. @But I want to make a simple point from a very complex biological system. We're going to take a quick look at the basic human cell. DNA, RNA and proteins cannot do their jobs without the help of at least one of the other two.

Look at DNA as kind of a library of detailed information for the various parts of a cell........it has the blueprints.....the drawings for the manufacture of each protein. RNA in turn copies the instructions that DNA has........and is the messenger that takes the information over to the ribosomes for making proteins. Living cells need all three molecules at the same time. The chance.......simultaneous natural appearance of the three distinct........interdependent complex systems is just not possible. The cell itself is a fantastic example of irreducible complexity. Darwin’s theory of numerous, successive, slight modifications simply doesn't work.

Here's another real life example......@the bacterial flagellum.......it can easily be seen as having irreducible complexity. It's an organ that's used by some bacteria to move around in liquid. It's embedded in the cell membrane and acts like a propeller or whip giving the bacteria speed and direction. @The flagellum moves by means of a very complicated "organic motor"........not by a simple vibrating mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed along the same mechanical principles as an electric motor.

The inner workings of the motor are extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. If one single molecule in this incredibly complex structure were to disappear.......or become defective.......the flagellum wouldn't work or be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum had to have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence.......which completely dismantles the idea that it could have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.......as Darwin insisted.

So......what's the counter point to Behe's irreducible complexity......what does the other side have to say in response. Well......obviously it's been criticized on a very large scale by Naturalists claiming the same arguments that they do for most things that come from the Intelligent Design community.......it's not science......it's pseudo-scientific......it can't be presented as a falsifiable hypothesis. The fact that there are so many lengthy articles and books written to dispute irreducible complexity only demonstrates that it's falsifiable.

I'll borrow a phrase from a friend of mine....."just because they say it.......doesn't mean it's true!"

@There's probably no more vocal opponent to Irreducible Complexity than Kenneth Miller.......a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University. The American Association for the Advancement of Science recognized Miller for his contribution to the public education of evolution in the United States. In a recent publication by Miller called The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"......he goes to great length attempting to discredit Behe's theory by pointing out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within the bacteria........so you could actually remove some of the proteins and the bacteria would still function. Sounds like science......right? But the flagellum itself would lose function......it wouldn't make the bacteria move. It's an argument that if stated boldly and loudly enough sounds like you've discredited the other side. Again....."just because they say it.......doesn't mean it's true!"

@The bottom line on his argument which he claims collapses the Irreducible Complexity issue.........“Living cells are filled, of course, with complex structures whose detailed evolutionary origins are not known. The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one.” Really? That's your argument? We haven't figured it out yet......but we're gonna. All we know is that it wasn't God!

OK...... @let's look at the second item on our list.......the complex and specified information contained in DNA. We already looked at its interdependency on RNA and Protein......this time we're only going to deal with the information it contains. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.......remember that phrase.......complex and specified information........which means that you start out with a hypothesis that if something was designed it would contain high levels of complex and specified information. So.....the hypothesis is that if a natural object was designed........it will contain high levels of "complex and specified information".

Think about this for a minute.........human DNA contains more complex and specified information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space........what would we think? Well......most people would see it as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature.......when seen in biological structures and chemical reactions........it's explained as random forces coming together by pure chance.

The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a programmer. The information in a book ultimately came from a writer.......an author who caused the information to be recorded on the pages. It didn't just happen. This natural and logical connection between information and prior intelligence makes it pretty easy to infer that if there is complex and specified information that it comes from a designer........even if we weren’t there to observe it coming into existence.

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information........whether it's scratched on a rock in hieroglyphics........written in a book or encoded in a radio signal........is always traced back to an intelligent source. Bill Gates said, ‘DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.’ What does that tell you? Let's face it.......at Microsoft, Bill Gates uses intelligent programmers to produce software........he didn't just put a bunch of random code in a bucket and dump it out on the floor hoping it would produce Microsoft Office.

Ever since 1953 when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA......the scientific community has had to find an alternative to Darwinian concept of random selection. All of a sudden there is an incredibly complex code engineered into the basic cell structure of living beings that contains information of such a complex and specific nature that random selection is not even presumed possible.

@I had studied......and was prepared to present to you a great deal of the scientific data that shows the genetic information in DNA.......which is spelled out by the chemical letters A, C, G, and T.......and how those pairs form bonds and write the instructions for proteins......and that the precise sequence in which those 4 chemicals bond is the language or code that dictates the structure and folding of that particular protein. But the scientific complexity of the presentation even got me staring off into space wondering why I was here.

Let me just summarize.......according to Stephen Myer.....author of Signature in the Cell......"to build one protein, you typically need 1,200 to 2,000 letters or bases sequenced perfectly.......which is a lot of information.” Proteins are long molecular chains made from the 20 basic building blocks of life......amino acids. Some proteins are chains consisting of over 26,000 amino acids placed in a very specific order. Because the 20 amino acids can be connected up in arbitrary sequences.......the total number of possible proteins is exponential......a number somewhere around 2050,000. What Stephen Myer claims is that "the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived.......is a number estimated to be approximately one thousand million."

@He goes on to say....... “Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find that the probabilities of forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That’s a ten with 125 zeroes after it! And that would only be one protein molecule......a minimally complex cell would need between three hundred and five hundred protein molecules.

Alright.......I believe we've shown with certainty that DNA......the pattern and the makeup are incredibly complex........remember what Intelligent Design deals with is complex and specified information.......specified means it has purpose......or function.....or meaning.....that it fits a predetermined pattern. The specification for DNA is that it has function.......which is to prescribe a sequence of amino acids that are to be built into a protein. So clearly.......both complexity and specification are shown beyond reasonable doubt. Life has design.

What naturalists would have you believe is that this all began billions of years ago in what is described as "pre-biotic soup". Anybody ever heard of this......pre-biotic soup? The idea started in 1871 when @Charles Darwin wrote a letter where he speculated that life might have originated when “a protein compound was chemically formed ... in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present.” That's where it started......a musing of Charles Darwin. He speculated that all the basic organic compounds necessary for the formation of a living cell accumulated in the primeval oceans........creating a nutrient rich broth.......the so-called “prebiotic soup.”

Stephen Meyer explains.......“If this prebiotic soup had really existed, it would have been rich in amino acids. Therefore, there would have been a lot of nitrogen, because amino acids are rich in nitrogen. So when we examine the earliest sediments of the Earth, we should find large deposits of nitrogen-rich minerals. Those deposits have never been located.

Think about that........scientists routinely talk about the prebiotic soup as if it were a given. @ Michael John Denton........biochemist and doctor......and author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.......a self-described agnostic......and evolutionist who openly rejects biblical creationism commented on this phenomenon by saying.......‘Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.’

As a side-light to this pre-biotic soup theory......there's another thing that's in all the textbooks........that every high school biology student is exposed to.......that's taught as if it were fact and "that all scientists agree." We can make amino acids in the laboratory......and that's just a step away from life!

You're going to get that response......but here's the truth. In an experiment done back in 1953 two scientists simulated what they thought was the make-up of the early atmosphere in a laboratory experiment.........I doubt that it really was the original makeup of the atmosphere......because it was much different than our atmosphere now and contained hydrogen.......methane........ammonia........and water vapor.......but no free oxygen.......which was necessary to be successful......because oxygen destroys non-living amino acids at a much faster rate than they could possibly form. By sending an electric spark through the mixture.........simulating lightning........they succeeded in producing some simple amino acids......claiming a great triumph for evolution. This concept continues to be propagated today in literally every science textbook in America in support of evolution.

But the problem is.......that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen......because water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. The claim is that it doesn't happen today because the atmospheric conditions are all wrong for life to form.........so conditions must have been different in the past in just the right way for complex organic molecules to come together.

To bring this forward in time........amino acids can be produced in the laboratory today......but they are incredibly simple and for the most part unusable in life sustaining operations. But we are not without a myriad of theories to deal with blaming anything but God for life.

In March 2011......Scott Sandford, a research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California.......working on a theory that life on Earth got a jump start from organic molecules when they arrived on the planet from outer space is quoted as saying......."In the end, if life was trying to get started, my guess is the process wasn't very picky about where the molecules came from."

Seriously? Is that a legitimate scientific concept? "If life was trying to get started"........how do inanimate objects try to do anything?

In short.......no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information necessary to life’s origin arose by naturalistic means. As @Francis Crick........the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.......a materialist.......has conceded: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

What's the other side of the argument? Random chance? Self-organizing Principles? @Robert Shapiro......not O.J.'s attorney......the other one.......was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University.......and is best known for his work on the origin of life. In books and published accounts.......Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory as follows:

The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds.
These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations.
By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

Experimentally......you may be able to reproduce steps 1-3......but even that's pretty unlikely.......but look at Step 4........it might as well read "then magic happens".

There's no way to get around the fact that evolution is a belief system.......for a naturalist to believe in Intelligent Design would be like you or I thinking that "Allah" was the right course to take for our lives. It's unheard of.......couldn't happen. And yet.......as testimony to the power of the Intelligent Design position.......in 2004.....the staunch atheist and legendary debater for atheism.......Anthony Flew......Oxford professor and Darwinian supporter........gave up atheism and came to believe that there must be an Intelligent Designer.....stating.......@ “The argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it. The most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." He points to DNA as irrefutable proof that there is a Designer.

@Francis Collins.......head of the Human Genome Project.....and the physician currently serving as Director of the National Institutes of Health......said DNA was “our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

That's as far as we'll get today........but what do we know so far......what scientific evidence has been presented that would hold up in court regarding God's existence? First we have the fact that the universe had a beginning.......the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics has shown us that. If it had a beginning.......it had to have a Beginner.

Second.......irreducible complexity.......pretty tough to rationalize the concept away. Biological structures require a bare essential number of components to function......to live. If you remove any one of them the function ceases. For all of these components to have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is just not possible.

Thirdly........the complex and specified information contained in DNA. Seriously? It just happened by random process? It would be easier to throw a million Scrabble tiles on the floor and expect a novel to emerge.

We know God exists because He placed that knowledge in His creation.......science only affirms it.

KWYB 5

MORE INTELLIGENT DESIGN

This is the fifth presentation in our series titled Know What You Believe.....and the whole idea behind doing this series is an attempt to get all of us to a point that we can easily and intelligently discuss what we believe with non-believers. Because one of the first areas that atheists......or naturalists attack when they encounter Christians is from a scientific point of view. They believe that a belief in God and the scientific disciplines cannot co-exist. The naturalist would say that Christians have to "check their minds at the door" when they accept Jesus Christ......and that real science will never allow a "divine foot in the door" when it comes to any explanation of how the universe works.

So far we've looked at a number of areas that clearly show God as the Creator and Sustainer of everything we see......including our very lives. In fact, we've found that science cannot refute them......but instead even strengthens our positions. For most of us the Scriptures are sufficient within themselves to explain "everything pertaining to life and godliness" - as Peter would put it........but to the non-believer.......Scripture carries no weight. So if we're going to intelligently discuss the origins of life......where everything came from........Who sustains it.......we've got to be prepared to discuss these topics on their level.

We won't review everything that we've discussed so far......but I will remind you that all of the previous messages are in their entirety in Word format if you want them e-mailed to you........but the last time we met........the topic was Intelligent Design.......and we'll briefly go over what we talked about last time.......because it's the same topic we're discussing this time.

First of all.......What is intelligent design? By definition.......Intelligent Design refers to both a scientific research program.......as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.......not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components......a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance......natural law......intelligent design........or some combination of the three.

The research is conducted by just looking at the types of information that are produced when intelligent beings act. Scientists then try to find objects which have those same types of informational properties that we know come from intelligence. @ Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in a number of areas of science including.......irreducible complexity.......the complex and specified information contained in DNA.......and the physical structure of the universe that allows life to be sustained. There's a number of other areas that we find evidence of design......but for the sake of this presentation I've picked out just these three......and last time we dealt with irreducible complexity and the complex and specified information contained in DNA.......so this morning we're going to deal with the last one.......the physical structure of the universe that allows life to be sustained......otherwise called "FINE TUNING" of the universe. This really is incredibly complex and scientific and nearly impossible to understand.......but I'm going to attempt to break it down to its simplest form and just talk about the basics that you need to know in order to have an intelligent conversation with a non-believer about why you believe what you believe.

As we easily saw the last time........breakthrough technologies have shown that life at the cellular level is complex beyond anything Darwin or any 19th century biologist could have predicted. From the incredible number of functions a cell performs.......to the complex information transmitted in the gene........many outstanding scientists recognize that the math just doesn’t work. Intelligent Design represents only one portion to the statistical impossibility that random chance caused the life of simple cells. That's our take on the whole thing.

On the other hand.......you have the naturalistic point of view.......and that side of the argument is entirely based upon what they hope will one day be discovered. ........

@Christian de Duve..........an atheist and a Nobel Prize winner and a non-advocate of Intelligent Design.......prior to his death last year had abandoned random chance as the agent of upwards evolution. Recognizing that the odds of random chance were impossibly against the formation of a single cell.........let alone man........he had ceaselessly been searching for the string of chemical reactions that led to mankind........he didn't have any luck.

@Ilya Prigogine.......former president of the International Academy of Science......and another Nobel Prize winner for his theory that biological life self-assembled from inorganic non-life. One of the most decorated men in the areas of chemistry and physics........he abandon random chance for the notion of an outside force somehow energizing evolution. His "self-organizing" theory won him high acclaim even though he was never able to explain what caused inanimate objects to self-organize. He died still searching for that unidentified force.

@Bernd-OLAF Küppers a German physicist, philosopher, and theoretical biologist........deals with basic research in natural sciences and philosophy of science, especially in the context of the origins of life questions. Now this guy is highly regarded in his field and has had numerous scientific awards bestowed upon him......and a member of all the right scientific organizations. He has come up with the molecular-Darwinistic approach to the origin of life. He states that "inanimate matter organized itself of its own accord into animate systems."

He also forwards the thought that all biological phenomena can be explained totally within the framework of physics and chemistry. @He "assumes that there is no essential difference between non-living and living matter....."........and that @"Restrictions in our current understanding are merely the result of the complexity of the problem and its computability. The fine structure of biological boundary conditions reflects the historical uniqueness of the underlying evolutionary process and these, by definition, transcend the powers of natural law to describe." That's a lot of words to essentially say, "I don't know what did it.......but it wasn't God!"

@The big problem here for scientists who refuse to believe in a transcendent God is this......irreducible complexity.......the complex and specified information contained in DNA.......and the physical structure of the universe that allows life to be sustained.......each provide overwhelming evidence for a creator God in their mathematical impossibility alone. It is statistically impossible to even remotely assume that random chance accounts for even one of the three factors we're looking at regarding Intelligent Design. So.....let's get into some of the numbers that define the fine tuning of the universe that supports life.

First of all......what is "fine tuning"? Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants. To explain the present state of the universe.......scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature..........like the strength of gravity............have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in a universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. @To date......science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life to exist on earth. Four of these physical constants must be fine tuned to a precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Can you imagine what the chances are of all 63 of these characteristics all lining up at the same time would be?

Now.......if you're like me......those numbers don't have a great deal of meaning......they just sound pretty big. But to give you some measurement to try to put a scale to what we're talking about...... @the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington made a calculation that is accepted by scientists today that is called the Eddington number......which is the number of protons in the observable universe a value of about 1080.

Now I wasn't a great student of math........so if you're like me at all that still doesn't make much of an impact to you......so let me give a very brief explanation as to the power of 10......

It's just a very useful way of writing down large numbers. Instead of having lots of zeros.......you show how many powers of 10 you need to make that many zeros...... @for example......5,000 = 5 × 1,000 = 5 × 103........which means 5 thousand is 5 times a thousand. And a thousand is 103. So 5 times 103= 5,000. An easy way to think of it is that it shows you how many places to the right you need to move the decimal point. So numbers like 1080 means you add 80 zeroes to your number. A number that big, is in all actuality incalculable.

And I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here.....but I want to make sure that we understand the depth of the evidence we're dealing with.......because when we present evidence in a court of law.......probability is something that is considered......especially when the probabilities approach zero.

Now......probabilities are often shown as a decimal or fraction. So.....using something as simple as tossing a coin we should be able to figure out the probabilities of getting a head on the first toss because there's only two options......heads or tails. So what's the probability of tossing a head when you flip a coin? @50% Right? As a decimal: 0.5.......As a fraction: 1/2........As a percentage: 50%.........Or sometimes like this: 1-in-2.

So......if I want to calculate the probability of tossing 3 heads in a row what would I do? Since each toss has a probability of 0.5 coming up heads...... then it would calculate like this.......... @

And so the chance of getting 3 Heads in a row is 0.125. Why is it unlikely to get, say.......7 heads in a row......when each toss of a coin has a 50% chance of being Heads? @Because the likelihood of that happening is multiplied by itself each time you throw the coin. So 7 heads in a row is: ½×½×½×½×½×½×½ = 0.0078125 (less than 1%).

Now understand that we're dealing with a problem here that has only two possible outcomes and the probabilities decrease greatly each time. What happens when you start dealing with the physical constants of nature that have an almost infinite number of possibilities? The probabilities are staggering.

Here's a bit of circumstantial evidence we can present for our case. The practitioners of DNA profiling......those people who testify in court when a subject's DNA matches that of the offender of a crime....... @they routinely cite match probabilities of 1015. Since there are less than 1010 people in the world.......there is very slight chance that two people can independently match DNA. A DNA match in the United States judicial system is considered irrefutable evidence.......and we're talking about 1015.

@Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 10123. That’s ten with 123 zeros after it! @Our National debt as of about 3:00 on Wednesday was $17,526,150,566,305......and we view it as absolutely insurmountable......and we can hardly calculate the fraction it is of the probabilities of a life friendly universe appearing by chance.

@ As an atheist cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle.......the man who coined the term ‘big bang theory’..........was one of Britain’s best-known mathematicians and astronomers in the last half of the 20th century. He spent decades searching for answers to questions of the origins of life and the origin and age of the universe. Now understand......he wasn't on our side here......and yet here are some notable observations that he made....... @"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." —Fred Hoyle

@"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of." —Fred Hoyle

Hoyle.....who was an atheist and Darwinist.......said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken."

In his book.......Evolution from Space Hoyle @calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of electrons in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison.....1080.........he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out.

@Hoyle compared the random appearance of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Earlier we talked about science having identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be finely tuned for life to exist on earth........and that four of these physical constants must be fine tuned to a precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Are you starting to get an appreciation of how truly impossible these probabilities become?

@To put it in another perspective.......if you are an "old earther"......which I am not......you would believe that the Earth is roughly 15 billion years old. @How many seconds do you think there are in 15 billion years? Well......if the Earth truly were 15 billion years old......@there have been 10 to the 16th power in seconds that have elapsed in that time period. That's a lot of seconds........but it doesn't come close to the kinds of numbers we're talking about in the "fine tuning" of the universe.

Until I was studying for this message I never had a real appreciation of just exactly how phenomenal the odds of that happening by random chance really were. Science would say it is not impossible.......because unless the odds were actually zero they would hold out for a possibility. But I think we can easily see how absurd the probability becomes when we really look at the numbers.

I've avoided taking too scientific an approach to this fine tuning characteristic of the universe for two reasons. Number one.......I have to admit......I find the science of numbers a bit boring........and number two.......I don't understand all that the scientists are talking about when they state things like...... @".......the polarity of water molecules having to fall in such an infinitely small parameter or the Earth would be uninhabitable."

Or that @"the slightest change to either the strong nuclear force or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels of atoms which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. If those forces were altered at all it would result in immensely reduced production of carbon and ultimately an uninhabitable universe."

@Alister McGrath currently holds the Professorship in Science at the University of Oxford. Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford..........he's also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College......and holds three doctorates from Oxford.......so he's no light-weight when it comes to knowing stuff!

He has pointed out: @ "The entire biological evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information, especially DNA.........The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." Now I'm not exactly sure what all that means.....except that life wouldn't exist if the chemistry of carbon were not exactly what it is.

Fred Hoyle......who we just talked about.......recognized the precision of this energy match up.......called carbon resonance.......and made the following observation: @ "The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." —Fred Hoyle

Those who advocate intelligent design clearly cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. The scientific community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist in favor of Intelligent Design".

Just so you're not mislead......Hoyle didn't mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up to produce carbon. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

Before you all lose consciousness from thinking about all these numbers......I want to give you one more graph that you don't even need to understand......because I certainly don't.......but it's clear evidence showing that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. @ Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in this table.......and what it shows is the maximum deviation that could be allowed for the parameters of the physical constants that allow life to exist in our universe. We have a clear understanding that the exponential factors of the ratios is an incredibly large number........and this is how close the tolerances have to be on each of them. Now think about the possibility of all of these factors coming together at the same time and the number far exceeds anything that could support probability.

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe

Parameter

Max. Deviation

Ratio of Electrons:Protons

1:1037

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity

1:1040

Expansion Rate of Universe

1:1055

Mass Density of Universe1

1:1059

Cosmological Constant

1:10120

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Now, I admittedly do not know what half of all that means......but I know enough to realize that it didn't happen by random chance.......or self-organizing matter.....or any of the other theories that are forwarded rather than acknowledging that the Creator God of this universe designed it and sustains it.

With all of the evidence that can be submitted that clearly testifies to the fine tuning of the universe that could only come from a "Fine-Tuner".......non-believers are ripe with alternative ideas of how all of this came to be......and we'll end with this.

@Sandra Moore Faber..........a University Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz who works at the Lick Observatory. One night......while observing galaxies through the 10-meter Keck II telescope located atop the summit of the Mauna Kea volcano in Hawaii.......was talking to a reporter.....and in the conversation she was taking comfort in the fact that the universe was so perfect. She said the laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem to be “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.

That night in Hawaii....... @Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber........an atheist.......divine intervention is not the answer.

“The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

What she's talking about would be the multiverse theory. In a multiverse......the laws of physics and the values of physical parameters would be different in each universe.......each the outcome of some random pull on the cosmic slot machine. We just happened to luck into a universe that is conducive to life. If the number of these universes is extremely large.......or infinite......it would be less surprising that one of them would happen to provide the specific conditions for life.

At first glance........the proposition of many other universes sounds impressively scientific.......but think about it......the multiverse theory is just made up......it's not provable......it's not falsifiable.......it is purely made up for the sole purpose of not recognizing an infinitely powerful God who created all of this with the fine tuned parameters that allow for life. Though the number of universes prescribed by this theory could be infinite......and the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the necessary conditions for life......the beauty of this theory is that it doesn't require intelligent design as the only explanation for our existence.

@Paul Davies.........an English physicist and professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of the Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science......wrote an article in the New York Times titled A Brief History of the Multiverse where he offered a variety of arguments showing that multiverse theories are non-scientific........that they can't be tested.....and that more and more must be accepted on faith......and less and less is open to scientific verification. In that article he makes the charge that @".......invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

In the sciences......since the 14th century.....there is a principle known as @Occam's Razor. Is anyone familiar with this principal? In philosophy.......a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is...... @"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." Other......more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but......the fewer assumptions that are made, the better......the simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.

@Stephen Hawking......I think most of us are familiar with him.........sometimes hailed as "the world's smartest man"........is an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. Listen to what he writes in A Brief History of Time:
@"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

Now understand that Hawking has totally dismissed a God of creation.......but he concedes that the laws of nature appear fine-tuned to permit the existence of life: @“The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.”

Now I want to show you the absolute absurdity and hypocrisy of the scientific community when it comes to acknowledging God. Stephen Hawking has blessed the multiverse as an acceptable theory to explain fine-tuning of the universe.

Think about that.......utilizing Occam's Razor he dismisses the concept of any supernatural being having been involved in creation.......and yet does not apply Occam's Razor to the multiverse theory......in fact he assumes the multiverse theory to be true......which is a far bigger stretch than anything Scripture has to say.

Now.......Occam's Razor is by no means a cast-in-concrete principle of science.....but more a guiding light to get to the truth the fastest. It's pretty easy to see why critics of the multiverse theory argue that to propose a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor......and absolutely contrary to science. Let's face it......the whole idea seems to be put into place to avoid acknowledging a Creator God.

I found this quote several weeks ago and I cannot find who to attribute it to.......but he was one smart guy.......and in the case of what we're studying right now.......it probably sums up the manner that those scientists who "refuse to allow a divine foot in the door" respond to this information....... @"Tradition dies hard in every generation. Ignorance is not a lack of information; it is willfully ignoring knowledge. It’s time to tell the kids: it is statistically impossible that Darwin’s explanation of the origin of life is correct.”

KWYB 6

Objective Morality and Consciousness

Alright......we're at the 6th installment in our series Know What You Believe......and thus far we've discovered what I would consider significant evidence in order to answer our initial question of DOES GOD EXIST? And if you've been here for the series you know that we are attempting to present evidence of God's existence apart from what I would consider the ultimate evidence......THE BIBLE. But our journey here has been how to talk to someone who doesn't believe the veracity and authority of the Scriptures......is there sufficient evidence apart from Scripture to lead a sane individual to a conclusion......BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT......that God does in fact exist. And I believe that once one concedes to that single fact......then talking about Jesus Christ and the Gospel should be a pretty easy transition for us.

Again......we won't have time this morning to review the past evidence that has been presented.......but I think you would agree with me that it has been more than substantial and would easily hold up to the BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT standard that has been established by our judicial system here in the United States.

I would like to remind you that you're going to run into people who absolutely will not believe anything that you might relate to them concerning creation or God or even the clearest scientific evidence that opposes what they believe......that's going to happen. Many of them will tell you that there isn't any way you could know that God exists.......or that He created everything from nothing.......or that Jesus Christ is in fact "the Way, the Truth and the Life." They will say that you don't know everything there is to know about it......that you don't have all the facts.......that there isn't any way that anybody could know exactly what happened. And you know what........THEY'RE RIGHT!

But it's important to remember that truth can be known even when some of the facts are missing. Let's face it.......I don't believe any one of us has ever made a decision with COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of all the possible facts......there's always going to be unanswered questions.......whether we're presenting a murder case in court or evidence for the existence of God. As you present the evidence piece by piece.......you're giving them pieces of a puzzle that slowly reveals the truth.

How many people here have done a jigsaw puzzle? Is there anyone who has never done a jigsaw puzzle? Alright........@so let's look at this picture here.....who is this? What is this a picture of? @ (Abraham Lincoln on a five dollar bill.) There's plenty of pieces missing......but if we had all of them filled in would it alter the picture at all? Would we have some kind of new revelation as to who this is? NO.

There isn't any criminal case that I've ever presented in court that had every possible piece of evidence. Sometimes there are blank spaces in a chronological time-line.......sometimes there are unexplained absences of a murder weapon......but if the picture is clear enough the jury realizes that even if the missing pieces were there.....it wouldn't significantly change the identity of the bad guy.

The only thing that we can do is present to them our valid reasoning on these topics......and present it in such a way as to provide pieces to the puzzle that they are trying to solve. And every piece that we add makes the picture a little bit more clear. We've given some very identifiable pieces so far......and we'll add to it this morning.

We've been taking a scientific approach to most of what we've dealt with in this series.......and I want to just point out What I read recently in a book @by C.S. Lewis regarding science. In the book the statement is made that "Science cannot be set up on its own as the supreme arbiter of truth and value.......science, to be worthwhile, depends on the validity of reasoning - and this makes science subject to the requirements of sound critical thinking." And I believe that is the base of everything we've presented thus far......it's sound critical thinking.

But there's something else that bears repeating in the book...... @"A clear, reasoned argument will not penetrate the mind muddled by disordered emotional and moral attachments. Many of our intellectual problems with truth and reason are not intellectual problems at all-they are moral and spiritual problems that have gone looking for a rationalization to justify them." And we've talked about this before......some people would rather try to rationalize God away than to acknowledge Him.

So......what we've dealt with so far in our discussions have largely been rooted in what are known as the "natural sciences" or also called the "hard sciences"......which would consist of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, and Earth science which can be categorized as Geology, Atmospheric science and Oceanography. There are a number of subsets of each of these.....but generally categorized as "natural science". And if you remember correctly......we've been presented with hard evidence in nearly all of these categories. So.....this morning we're going to deal with two topics that we may not even think to discuss when we're talking about God's existence.......but are firmly rooted in what are known as the "social sciences"......still considered scientific......but would be labeled as "soft science".

Now the Social sciences include anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. The two topics we're gong to cover this morning will deal mainly in the areas of psychology and sociology......and I guess touch a little bit in the area of anthropology.

When the term PSYCHOLOGY is mentioned......what's the first thing that comes to mind? ANSWERS? @ Yah......me too. Most people associate psychology with clinical psychology......."Lie down here on my couch and say stupid things......and I'll analyze what you said and give you drugs." Because clinical psychology focuses on problems of individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental illness. But that's really not the overall field of psychology......because it also deals with the study of behavior and mental processes.......which I think our topics come closer to being associated with.

So the two things we're going to discuss this morning are @Objective Morality and Consciousness.......which probably sound kinda deep.......but I think we'll be able to get it down to understandable language and see how readily it becomes real evidence in our quest to determine if in fact God exists.

The first topic we're going to talk about is Objective Morality......also known as Moral Universalism........Moral Objectivism or Universal Morality. @And the definition would be something along the lines of there being a universal ethic that applies to "all similarly situated individuals regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality........or any other distinguishing feature." In other words.......certain actions are absolutely right or wrong........regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. For instance........murder......the unlawful taking of a human life.......might be considered to be always immoral.......even if done to promote some other good and regardless if such a good does in fact occur. The other side of that coin is subjective morality where every action is considered good or evil on the basis of several factors including......the negative or positive affect it may provide, the ultimate outcome, the action's legality and a myriad of other social factors.

One of the things I'd like to do upfront here is to make some lines of definition in what we're addressing here.......because if there is objective morality......if there are things that are always good......then there must be EVIL.......and if there is EVIL.......then one of the main arguments atheists bring up in this area is that our "all powerful God allows evil to exist......in fact......if He created everything.....then He created evil". Another way to put it is that if God exists then why would He allow people to do evil things? Either God is unable to stop people from doing evil......in which case He's not all powerful.......or He is unwilling to stop them.....in which case He's not all loving!

There's a lot contained in these questions......or accusations......or whatever you may call them......and they really need to be addressed in a rational manner.......and not by getting mad and saying, "Don't you call my God unloving you big jerk!!!"

First......let's talk about evil. Is evil a "created thing"? What is the source of it......where does it come from? And one of the more practical analogies that I've seen in recent years deals with an illustration of comparison which I'm sure many of you have heard before.......in fact Jim used it during the sharing time last week. Our perceptions are based on contrast........so that light and dark......hot and cold......good and evil, are imperceptible without each other. We view them as opposites.......but they aren't.

So I'll ask you a few questions here to get the idea out there. Does LIGHT exist? Sure it does.......in fact we see it in the first couple of verses in Genesis when God created it.......of course it exists. What about darkness.......does darkness exist? DARKNESS isn't a thing......in fact it's the absence of something. You can have low light......normal light.......bright light.......flashing light.......but if you have no light........you have nothing and it's called darkness. In reality.......darkness isn't. Light can be measured in "LUMENS"......we can measure the amount of light that anything is giving off......but we can't measure DARK. We have FLASHLIGHTS........but we don't have FLASHDARKS! We can't construct anything that casts a beam of darkness onto a surface that is otherwise well-lit. Darkness only appears when sources of light are turned off...........it doesn't have a physical presence of its own. The fact is that darkness isn't the opposite of light.......it's the absence of light.

The illustration goes on with regard to HEAT. Is there such a thing as HEAT? Sure there is. Something can be hot........and then you can make it hotter.......you can have super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat.......but there isn't anything called COLD..........cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat can be measured in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat...........just the absence of it.

It's pretty easy to see where this goes. God is total righteousness.......no evil exists in Him at all.......you see.......GOD IS........and what He is is GOOD. Evil does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It's just like darkness and cold......a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God didn't create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man doesn't have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there's no heat or the darkness that comes when there's no light. So God didn't create evil........it is merely what is there when God is gone.

If evil......like darkness......does not truly exist.......but is only a name we give to what happens when goodness is removed.......then its appearance in our world doesn't preclude the possibility of a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. So when someone starts a discussion out with the idea that God made evil......or that God isn't loving because He lets evil exist......it's pretty easy to turn the direction of the conversation to show that man can take God away from anything and evil is what's left.

Besides......there's another side to this whole discussion of evil that really should be mentioned.....and it's that of "free will". You see......there is evil because people have removed God from their lives......and God gave them the ability to do that when He gave us free will. That's what a loving God does. Let's face it.....which is more loving.......a God who creates a world in which love is possible......or a God who creates a world in which love is impossible? Pretty reasonable to assume that a loving God would create a world where love is possible......and can be experienced by human beings who are designed in His image. But a world in which love is possible can be a pretty dangerous place.....because love requires freedom. Real love requires that humans have the ability to choose freely. Love can't be forced if it's real love. The problem is that people who have the freedom to love often choose not to love.....which makes the freedom He gave us so dangerous. A world where people have the freedom to love and perform great acts of kindness.......is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit great acts of evil. You can't have one without the other.

So when you're confronted by this type of argument......understand that it may have some emotional appeal to it......somebody may think they have a legitimate reason not to believe in God.......but it's baseless......because it lacks any rational foundation..... YOU have a reasonable explanation.

So all of this discussion so far just lays the groundwork for our discussion of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Does such a thing exist? Are there certain activities that are wrong regardless of the circumstances.......and wrong for everybody regardless of where you live......how you were raised or what your socio-economic status in society may be? Certainly there are.

An argument from reason would ask if objective physical laws exist. Do they? Are there laws of physics that hold true whether or not you believe them or you understand them? Certainly. I may not believe in gravity.......but if I jump off a high building......the objective law of gravity will be put into motion and I will end up a crumpled mass of chemical and biological goo on the sidewalk. Reason itself would dictate that if objective physical laws exist......then objective moral laws would exist. That may not be convincing proof......but it certainly is a just argument.

So what's the evidence that you would present to show that there is in fact objective morality? Well.....the easiest evidence would be God's Word of course...... @Who's got Romans 2:14-15......"14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,....." And for most of us.....that's proof enough. But what about those who don't believe Scripture to be true.......what do we offer to them?

First let's look at what they believe.......what are the arguments that they will forward to show you that there is no such thing as absolute morality? Evolutionary biologists believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolved by natural selection. In this case....... @morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species. They would go on to say that evolution......and indeed, life itself........is due to the ability of a complex chemical compound to sense a threat to its continued existence and to react upon such impulse with an attempt to negate that threat. We know this instinctive......automatic interaction with the environment as the survival instinct.

They would go on to say that deeply imbedded instincts and emotions govern all animal behavior........including human behavior. However, during the past two million years man has developed a new mental faculty that sets him aside from other animals. This ability superimposes rational, logical thought processes on our primitive emotions. That is the naturalists explanation for why morality exists......so all morality is subjective to the culture and society that formed it.

The bottom line is that any race or people or culture that expects to survive has developed a set of moral standards for the entire population to adhere to which will bring about the survival of that culture. Let's face it......any society that does not deem murder and stealing and lying as wrong will disintegrate very quickly.

From a purely logical standpoint I can find a lot of fault with this line of thinking. The first thing that comes to my mind is that if all of life is dependant upon the concept of "survival of the fittest".......which is a basic premise of Darwinian evolution......then why does "altruism" exist in every culture throughout history?

@Altruism is just a fancy word for selflessness......which is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone with no expectation of any compensation or benefits........either direct, or indirect. It's basically an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others........which is contrasted with ego-centricity.......which is defined as acting to the benefit of one's self.

But if naturalists are right and natural selection means that only the fittest individuals survive to pass their genes on to the next generation.......then selfless behavior shouldn't exist.......and yet it does in every culture in every part of the world......at every time in history.

What is it that makes a man jump off a bridge into icy water to save someone he doesn't know from drowning? What makes a perfect stranger run into a burning building to save someone who has yelled for help? Why would someone respond to a plea for a kidney and offer a perfect stranger one of theirs just because they need it? All of this flies in the face of survival of the fittest. It is in direct opposition to the entire thought that goes along with naturalist thinking.

The fact is that there is something that was placed within every one of us that tells us that we were made to do good things.......that there is an objective morality that exists whether certain individuals adhere to it or not.......that we have a conscience that readily tells us the difference between good and bad.

Let's face it.......the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be read as assuming some kind of a moral universalism. The drafting committee of the Universal Declaration assumed a "universal" approach to articulating international human rights. The Declaration has undeniably come to be accepted throughout the world as a cornerstone of the international system for the protection of human rights that are basic to every person.....no matter where you live.......no matter what you believe.

The fact is that the argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. A moral order exists in humanity.......and the best or only explanation for this fact is that God must exist. It is impossible to scientifically prove there is an objective morality placed in humans by God Himself.......but the noted @ German philosopher Immanuel Kant devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. Rather than proving the existence of God.......Kant was attempting to demonstrate that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists. Kant argued that the goal of humanity is to achieve moral virtue and happiness.......where happiness arises out of virtue. He accepted that it is not within the power of humans to bring this about.......because we cannot ensure that virtue always leads to happiness.......thus concluding there must be a higher power who has the ability to create an afterlife where virtue can be rewarded by happiness.

@In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." Lewis argued that the mere existence of human reason could not be valid without reference to a higher cosmic moral order which could not exist without a God to create it. He further argued that those who accept evolutionary naturalism still act like objective moral truths exist.....making it easy to reject naturalism in this area since it acts inconsistently. As an alternative ethical theory........Lewis offered a form of divine command theory that equates God with goodness........goodness as an essential part of reality........therefore, God exists.

@Dr. John Henry Newman.......a 19th century Anglican priest and philosopher argued that the conscience itself supports the claim that objective moral truths exist..... because it drives people to act morally even when it's not in their own interest. Newman argued that.......because the conscience suggests the existence of objective moral truths.......God must exist to give authority to these truths.

There are a whole line of atheist philosophers that would admit to a moral absolute within humanity and yet deny that it must be based on God. They would argue that morality is based on reason and reason is a byproduct of the entire evolutionary process. To deny absolute morality would deny causality.......the fact is that actions have consequences that arise because of natural social laws. If you stop eating......you will die. If you stop drinking water........you will die even faster. If you break the natural social laws of decency your life will be affected and even endangered. Without such values.......you would have no capacity to manage your life. Causality is universal........actions have consequences.......causes have effects.......but all of this would fall into the naturalistic viewpoint of evolution. There's a problem with this whole line of thought however.........which ties directly into our final point in this discussion......that of CONSCIOUSNESS.

So......if the materialists are right.......consciousness arises from matter......but it would seem natural to ask when it first came to be. Is an animal such as a dog conscious? Well.......as far as we know......dogs are not self-conscious as we are.......they don't think to themselves in words......and they probably don't reason as we do. Now.....those of you who have pets......dogs......cats.......little furry things that have names and poop on your carpet.......you would argue that your pet has a consciousness of the world around it. You might even say little Fluffy understands you. @ But Gary Larson with the Far Side actually has it right......despite what pet lovers may think. (Cartoon depicting dog/owner)

So.....what we've got to do is to distinguish between two broad but distinct senses of the term ‘consciousness’. @ First of these is consciousness as a faculty......being mentally aware of the inner mental world in which life's experiences take place. The contents of our consciousness may vary widely........we see different things, think different thoughts, feel different emotions, hold different values..........but common to all of us is the fact that we are aware. If we aren't aware......then there would be no consciousness.

@Distinct from the Faculty of Consciousness is the 'Content of Consciousness'........those various subjective phenomena and events that we experience.........our perceptions of the world around us.......our thoughts, our ideas, our beliefs, our values, our feelings, our emotions, our hopes, our fears, our intuitions, our dreams and our fantasies...... these would be called ‘the contents of consciousness’.

@Probably a good analogy is that of a painting. The canvas on which it is painted corresponds to the faculty of consciousness. The picture would be the contents of consciousness.......and there's an infinite variety of pictures that can be painted on the canvas........but whatever the pictures........they all share the fact that they are painted on a canvas. Without the canvas there would be no painting.

Where dogs differ from us is not in the faculty of consciousness but in what they are conscious of.......the contents of their consciousness. Self Consciousness....awareness of being aware........is possessed only by humans. Dogs are not self-aware........and don't think or reason like we do. They may have keener senses of hearing and smell than us.....but in regard to consciousness they are much less aware than we are...... @which means the picture is not very detailed.....it might be a few colors and look like abstract art. The fact is that they just weren't made like humans.......their conscious state does not contain any self-awareness........they possess something called Simple Consciousness.

Where the line is distinct is in God consciousness. Man is the only species that has that ability to know that there is something beyond himself that has authority and power and control. "Consciousness" as far as man is concerned deals with the relationship between the mind and God........the relationship between the mind and deeper truths that are thought to be more fundamental than the physical world.

Science doesn't have a really good explanation of this thing we call consciousness. Those who are dyed-in-the-wool naturalists would claim that as living beings evolved eyes......ears and other sense organs they naturally produced more information that needed to be processed. To process and use this information nervous systems evolved.......and as the nervous systems grew more complex new qualities emerged—free-will, cognition, intention and attention. With the appearance of human beings, consciousness gained an entirely new dimension........thinking.

But there is an argument from reason that would seemingly put to rest this notion that the advanced analytical processes that humans are capable of actually evolved from a random chance environment. If we believe everything to be physical......material..... natural.......whatever label they may want to be called by......then how can a random firing of neurons within a physical brain produce patterned thought? If it were capable of producing any kind of thought......wouldn't the thought pattern be random as well?

@Thomas Nagel......an avowed atheist and currently University Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University......where he has taught since 1980. He's published numerous books on philosophy.....he's a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and also of the British Academy......recipient of all kinds of awards in philosophy, logic and moral philosophy....... @and the author of a recent book called MIND & COSMOS......subtitled, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.......and by its title you can probably deduce that he is not the most favored author of the those who espouse scientific dogma. This is a guy who has consistently been viewed as the upper echelon of the scientific field of philosophy and law......and like I said.......not on our side. Regarding his latest book he has been railed against by the scientific community to the point of one reviewer asking....."What is it like to be an eminent philosopher accused of giving aid and comfort to creationist enemies of science?"

In fact........advocates of intelligent design have been enthusiastic, with Mr. Nagel’s apparent “de-conversion” from Darwinism. The response has been vicious...... with the Harvard psychologist.......and avid Darwinian........Steven Pinker to dismiss the book as “the shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker.” And what was Mr. Nagel's great sin against the scientific community you might ask.......He had the gall to question the modern scientific view of Darwinian theory regarding consciousness...... @in fact he calls their viewpoint, a “heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense.” What he's saying is that consciousness and moral value aren’t just incidental features of life on earth which came about by natural or materialistic means........instead the universe itself (which sounds eerily like "Mother Nature" produces certain outcomes, like consciousness......but without any help from a Godlike agent.

Nagel readily admits he does not know how it works......but says about the current scientific view........ @"the different attempts to accommodate within it mind and related phenomena all appear as attempts to reduce the true extent of reality to a common basis that is not rich enough for the purpose." He goes on to admit @"........it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those aspects of our physical constitution that bring with them the mental cannot be fully explained by physical science." In his conclusion Mr. Nagel declares that @the present “right-thinking consensus” on evolution “will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.”

This is a man who has spent his life trying to figure out a very real problem that exists if you don't believe in God. The problem that naturalists have with all of this is that they somehow need to jump a chasm that just can't be cleared. By their own design.....the world is totally material......it's physical.......the product of chemical reactions that are responsible for all that exists. @But wait......a thought isn't physical.....it isn't chemical......it isn't something that can be gathered up and put in a Petri-dish and analyzed and experimented upon......because it is not material......it is not natural.....which means that it is what? SUPERNATURAL. No......it can't be!

For this message I have studied more than I have for any other......because I'm trying to approach it from not only a scientific viewpoint......but from the vantage point of presenting the opposing side's arguments as well. I've read about "conscious integration consensus"..........the dynamic core hypothesis........differentiation and unity. Despite the large amount of information available......despite the theories forwarded.....the most important aspects of consciousness remain a complete mystery to science. Intelligence, awareness, adaptability, critical-analytical skills, overall cognitive functions......are a part of the consciousness debate.......and yet the one simple explanation that has been available for thousands of years goes disregarded. MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

@The bottom line in all of this discussion is that absolute morality is truth.........Relative morality is opinion.

KWYB 7

The Veracity of Scripture

Today in our study of 'Knowing What You Believe' we're going to get into an area that probably gets the most attention from critics of Christianity. We've seen over the course of this study that there is an abundance of folks out there who don't believe in God......our God.......the Creator God of the Scriptures.......and of those people we certainly wouldn't expect them to have any fondness for the Bible. Now there are also a lot of people out there that say they believe in God.......but he is a god of their choosing.......a god of their own design......and of those people they would have to agree that Scripture is not anything they would put any stock in.

And then there is "WE".......the "US" of the world who say we believe in God...... the God of the Scriptures.......but unfortunately.......in that group called "US".....there are a lot of folks who tend to believe that the Bible is a book of antiquity that has very little relevance in our world today......that it contains a lot of myth and legend that was meant to keep the less enlightened masses in line during the dark ages.

In a world that is continually moving away from the standards of Scripture.....how do we defend our position that the Bible is God's revealed will for His people......that it is the standard for life and godliness......that it's the owner's manual for the creation known as human beings?

Of all of the messages in this series.......I have to admit.......I enjoyed studying for this one the best because I haven't been allowed to used Scripture in the first six presentations.......because atheists don't believe Scripture. But when we're trying to prove the veracity of the Bible......the one thing you have to do is look at the Bible!!!

Another benefit of this study is that it kinda kills two birds with one stone......in that......if you are proving the veracity......the believability of Scripture......you naturally take on the person of Christ. If the Bible is proven to be believable then you can't help but show that Jesus is exactly who He said He was.

I think we realize that the attacks against Scripture are not exactly subtle.....not really hidden in our society.......in fact.....it seems that our culture has declared open season on Christianity. You can't speak ill of Islam or Mohammed.....no matter how ironic it might seem that all of these deaths in the Middle East stem from a religion of peace. Christianity seems to be the only belief that can openly be mocked by Hollywood and the media. I found some examples of the blatant manner in which Scripture is scoffed at...... @"The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality." -Richard Dawkins

@"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein.

@"I think that the people who think God wrote a book called the Bible are just childish." -Bill Maher (Television host and political commentator)

So......what about Scripture? It seems that if we're to believe it......there should be some supporting evidence to show there are rational reasons why it should be accepted as true. Because the Scriptures are more than just a collection of words related to moral living. The Bible is a claim about history. It contains eye witness accounts telling us that something happened in the past in a particular way.......at a particular time......and it had particular results.

If these accounts are true......then they aren't merely legends, myths or childish stories. Let's face it.....there are a lot of miraculous......supernatural......incredible events recorded for us in the history of God's people.......so it shouldn't surprise us to find that those who reject the supernatural would reject the claims of something miraculous happening. They'd want to see proof......they'd at least want the claims corroborated.

Now remember our approach to this study has been that of evidence......it's been looking at every topic through the eye of being able to present the evidence in a court of law and having it pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of our judicial system.

Those who cast stones at the Scriptures have a lot of things to say.....but are they true? Is it true that Jesus was just an invented myth that never really existed? Is it true that the Gospel accounts were written as late as the 4th century by people who weren't anywhere near what is written about? Let's face it......these folks tell us they're eye-witnesses to stuff that happened.......were they?

I have to admit that when I was a detective......it was always nice to have an eye-witness account of the crime I was investigating. It was a good feeling when you would conduct a line-up......@or put together a "six-pack" photo array of your suspect and 5 other similar looking people and have the witness say..... @"That's the guy that did it right there!" But you don't always have that luxury......and even when you do have an eye-witness......you still have to support their statements with other pieces of evidence that give credibility to what the eye-witness claims to have seen.

I was going to conduct something of a demonstration regarding the reason that other evidence is needed besides just an eye-witness account this morning......but after I thought about it......if I surprised you with three or four guys coming in and committing a crime to illustrate what the difference in the eye-witness accounts would be.....well.....I think we have enough concealed carry permits among you that it could have proven to be a real bad deal.......for our play actors. So I'm going to have to just tell you a story to get the point across.

Back in the early 70's there was a bar at about 3rd and Atlantic in Southwest Albuquerque call the A&P Bar. It's clientele was almost exclusively illegals from south of the border. On Saturday nights the place was always packed......wall to wall......no room in the parking lot. On one particular Saturday night there was a fight that deteriorated into a couple people pulling out knives......which further deteriorated into a homicide......for the sake of this story.....the victim's name is "Juan"......and he had suffered a fatal stab wound to the heart.

At the time I was working the south Broadway area and was able to get across the tracks and was the first unit to arrive......but by the time I got there the place looked like it was Sunday morning at 8:00......nobody in sight. To make a very long, complicated story as short as I can......3 witnesses were finally rounded up. The combined description of the offender was @a Spanish male between 20 and 60....... @5'2" to 6' foot...... @wearing either a white T-shirt or a dark colored jacket. That pretty much narrows it right down.

One particular witness.......a female......who we'll call "Maria"......seemed to actually be trying to be helpful and was certain that the offender was wearing a dark colored long coat......and then she added, "I think he didn't have one arm." Apparently, she thought she saw one of the sleeves of his coat flapping around like there was no arm in it. A few days later a suspect was identified and brought in for questioning......his name was........"Pedro". It just so happened that Pedro had his left arm in a sling from an earlier injury. At the time of his arrest he was wearing a dark blue Navy style P-coat......with a large slash across the front of it......where it had been cut.

Now I tell this story for a couple of reasons......one to show how truly different eye-witness accounts can be. In fact.......I've noticed over my career......if eye-witness accounts are absolutely the same......the people got together and made a story up so that they'd be the same. Eye-witness testimony in our courts really holds a lot of weight......but it's not always completely accurate......and eye-witnesses may focus on different aspects of the scene in front of them to the exclusion of seeing other things.

The other reason for the story is to explain that corroborating evidence regarding an eye-witness statement can be both "internal" and "external" in nature.......and both are very helpful. In this particular case......Maria's testimony was that she thought the offender had only one arm. When Pedro was picked up........he was not only wearing a dark colored coat......but he had an injury that required his arm to be in a sling......which explained something critical in Maria's statement. That's internal evidence......it was included in her statement. To add to the case......the coat being slashed in the front was not in Maria's statement.....but it added some credibility to Pedro being in a knife fight......that would be external evidence.......together the internal and external evidence agreed with Maria's claim as an eye-witness.

I tell you this because the Bible is replete with eye-witness accounts of events...... and these accounts have similar corroboration when we examine what the writers of Scripture have to say. Some of the evidence is internal......evidence from within the gospels themselves that are consistent with other claims......and some is external.....evidence that is independent of the eye-witness accounts but still verify what the Scriptures say.......and that's part of what we want to look at this morning.

As a detective......it was my job to listen carefully to the statements given by multiple eyewitnesses as to what they might have observed at a crime scene......and then to assemble a complete picture of what happened. No single witness would have seen every detail.......so a lot of times you can assemble the various accounts and get the whole picture. That's why it's always important to separate the eye-witnesses before they're interviewed.....because true and reliable accounts are never completely the same. ......something is different......one person saw something that others didn't see......one person was concentrating on a different aspect of the crime in front of them......so they all have different pieces to the puzzle which many times unintentionally support the other's statement.

This same thing happens as you go through Scripture......especially the Gospel accounts. If you compare events recorded by more than one Gospel writer......often times they inadvertently support what the other account contains.

It seems like there's only two explanations for this. The first is that the writers worked together at the same time......same place to devise a very clever lie to fool all of us. The other explanation is that the Gospels were written by different eye-witnesses who observed the events and included details that they observed that either the other writers didn't see......or didn't seem important to them. Over the years a lot of scholars have combed over the Gospels to try to verify whether or not they are true accounts. In doing so they have identified over forty places in the New Testament that this phenomenon of unintentional support is revealed.

For instance...... @Look at Matthew 4:18-22......"18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 And He *said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. 21 Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. 22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him."

I don't know if anyone else had the same reaction when they first read that passage as I did......but I remember reading it the first time and I thought, "Seriously? Who would do that? They immediately just dropped everything and followed Jesus? Who was this Guy? Why would they follow Him?" And if Matthew's account was the only testimony available to us I think we'd remain pretty puzzled by this event......but Matthew has inadvertently given us a clue...... @and when we combine his account with the Gospel of Luke we begin to answer our questions.

Luke 5:1-11........ Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; 2 and He saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake; but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. 3 And He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the land. And He sat down and began teaching the people from the boat. 4 When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon answered and said, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets.” 6 When they had done this, they enclosed a great quantity of fish, and their nets began to break; 7 so they signaled to their partners in the other boat for them to come and help them. And they came and filled both of the boats, so that they began to sink.

@8 But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” 9 For amazement had seized him and all his companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.” 11 When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him.

OK......you're the detective......what do we have? ANSWERS......

The disciples didn't just drop everything and follow Jesus on a whim......we can see a lot more when compared with other accounts that fill in the gaps. The disciples heard Jesus preach.....they saw and experienced the miracle of the abundant catch of fish......it was so large it broke their nets.....and only after they returned to shore.....while John and James were mending their torn nets.....did Jesus call them to follow Him. They left everything because they had ample proof through Jesus' teaching and miracles that He was the real deal. Matthew was interested in telling us about how the disciples were called.....but Luke was interested in providing a little more detail which gives us unintentional and independent support for what the other writer said.

When Jesus was brought before Caiaphas and He was being slapped and punched and someone says, "Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?" recorded in Matthew 26......did that ever strike you as an odd question? Jesus is right there face to face with these people......it didn't take much prophesying to figure out who hit Him. But in Luke 22.....the same incident is recorded......and he tells us that Jesus was blind-folded......more unintentional support for what Matthew had recorded.

We could go on and on with this......but for the sake of time I'd like to cover some other elements this morning.......so if you're interested in the subject.....there are a lot of books out there that outline these areas of internal evidence that Scripture provides to verify the eye-witness accounts laid out by the writers. In fact......study the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 in the various Gospels......I'm not sure that there is a clerer indication of what I'm talking about than when you combine the accounts......it's incredible how much of a clear picture is really given through unintentional support.

Is it solid, absolute proof as to the veracity of Scripture? No.....it's not......but would it be admissible in court? Would it provide circumstantial evidence in support of the testimony given by the writers that points to the truth of Scripture? Certainly it would.

So.....obviously there's a lot of internal evidence.......it would seem there should be external evidences that would support scriptural accounts as well.......are there any of those......something outside of Scripture that would give credence to what is testified to by the eye-witnesses?

Let's face it.......Jesus wasn't very popular with the establishment......neither the religious establishment......nor the political one.......so it isn't surprising that the powers that be wouldn't lend much assistance to verifying that Jesus was who He said He was..... or that the eye-witness accounts are credible. But we do see plenty of reluctant admissions by these people that provide external evidence that helps to verify the biblical accounts.

@Josephus is usually the historian that's first quoted. And I know that's Josephus because it has his name under it. He lived from around 37 to about 100 A.D........so pretty contemporaneous with the Gospel writers. What a lot of folks don't know is that Josephus was born in Jerusalem to a father of Jewish priestly decent.......and his birth name was Joseph ben Matityahu (Ma-ti-tie-ahoo). He fought agains the Romans until surrendering in 67 AD when he was then held as a hostage. He was granted his freedom in 69 at which time he was totally sold out to the Romans..... even being granted Roman citizenship and he assumed the name Titus Flavius Josephus in honor of the Roman emperor. Josephus was a first century historian and scholar who mainly recorded the history of the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation which happened between 66 and 70 AD.......and he also recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for what was most likely a Roman audience. So......whether writing as a Roman or a Jew......he wasn't a fan of Jesus the Messiah nor this new group called Christians.

With that being said......what did he have to say? @ In his book Antiquities of the Jews...... Book 18, Chapter 3...... "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

This is the Greek version of this quote from Josephus.....but there are a lot of critics and historians who would argue that Christian historians had altered his original writings in order to show them more favorable to their cause. There may be validity to their accusations.....there may not. But most secular historians would agree that........ @ "If the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Messiah" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the text, the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic."

So let's do that.....let's get rid of their objections......because there is some rational credibility to questioning why a Jewish historian would claim that Jesus was the Messiah. That doesn't mean he didn't say it......we're just trying to get rid of anything that might cause non-believers to throw away our defense. @ What do we have left? Well....the fact is that Josephus......however reluctantly......admits a number of key points about Jesus. With this conservative version we can conclude that Jesus lived......was a wise and virtuous teacher who demonstrated wondrous power......was condemned and crucified under Pilate.......and had followers who still believed in Him to this day......no matter how much persecution they were suffering. It would seem to raise considerable question regarding those who think Jesus was a myth.

In this same book Josephus describes the death of John the Baptist and the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. This is all by a Jewish/Roman historian who gives us external evidence of the Gospel accounts.....even if done so unknowingly.

Again......I don't want to get bogged down by giving every account of exernal evidence that has been provided to us over the centuries......but I would like to at least mention the Samaritan historian Thallus......who lived between 5 and 60 AD......a contemporary of Jesus and the disciples. He wrote a large three volume account of the history of the Mediterranean area about the middle of the first century. Much of his writings have disappeared over the centuries.....but enough has been preserved to understand that he was quoted heavily by other historians......one of which was Sextus Julius Africanus who wrote a book called History of the World.....where he quotes Thallus' account of the crucifixion of Jesus where he offered an explanation for the darkness recorded in the Gospels that was observed at the time that Jesus died. @ He says: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

Even though Thallus denied that the darkness at the point of the crucifixion was caused supernaturally.....he still gives us ample external evidence by inadvertently corroborating the claim that Jesus was crucified and that darkness covered the land when He died.

There are a lot of these writers who have given evidence of the reality of Jesus...... Even the Jewish Talmud.....the writings and discussions of ancient rabbis......attests that Jesus "could do magic"......that He led the Jews away from their beliefs and that He was executed on the day before the Passover......and these are the people who completely rejected Him. I'll let you look up the Talmud references....and while you're at it......look up the most trusted of ancient historians, Tacitus who speaks of Jesus living in Judea......crucified under Pontius Pilate and had followers who were persecuted for their faith.

Let me just show you a graphic that lists the external evidences of the Gospel writers that come from just a few of the earliest historians. @ None of them were Christians and none of them were particularly friendly to Christianity. In spite of this they all provided important corroborating details of Jesus' life.....even though it was done inadvertently. Even if all the Gospels had been destroyed......if all the letters from Paul and the other writers had been purged from society......we would still be able to reconstruct a very interesting picture of who Jesus was. He was......

True historical person
Virtuous and wise man
Worked wonders
Accurately predicted the future
Taught His disciples
Drew a large following of Jews and Gentiles
Identified as the "Christ"
Was believed to be the Messiah
Widely known as the "Wise King" of the Jews
Disciples were call Christians
His followers became a threat to Jewish leadership
Jewish leadership accused His disciples to Roman authorities
Pontius Pilate condemned Him to crucifixion during reign of Tiberius Caesar
Darkness descended over the land when Jesus was crucified
Earthquake shook the area of His execution
Following His death a "mischievous superstition" spread about Him

Interesting that this description of Jesus is very similar to the description given us by the Gospel writers. These early non-Christian writers give us a great deal of external corroboration of the testimony of the New Testament authors.

There are two other things that I want to just mention briefly that fit well into this discussion. First......the authors of the Gospels......the Book of Acts......even the Old Testament.......they set out to write a historical account of what actually happened. @Luke tells us very plainly his reason for recording these events......Luke 1:1-4...... Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke isn't claiming any inspiration.......he's not claiming to write theology.....he's simply making historical claims......and we should allow the same considerations to these historical claims as we do to any other historical writing.......they are taken at face value until proven non-factual. Luke writes of “things accomplished among us” and that which was “handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness.”He speaks of “investigating everything carefully from the beginning” so that “you may know the exact truth” about what happened. Luke’s clear intention is to tell the truth based on what really happened in front of eyewitnesses. His method was one of careful investigation. To say that we cannot use Luke historically is to call into question every work of ancient history.

Why do skeptics call this into question? The answer doesn't lie with evidence produced that dispels the writing as false......but in a presupposition against the supernatural activities attributed to Jesus. The fact is that the Gospel writers are guilty until proven innocent. Since there are supernatural claims made in their writings we dismiss them as unfactual......we claim they were written hundreds of years after the fact.......we charge they were not written by the person who claims to write them. We don't do that with any other historical document or other historians.

If nothing supernatural were being written about......I suspect that the accounts would be considered perfectly good historical sources by most historians. Nobody doubts Socrates or Plato or other philosophers of antiquity......and yet far less evidence is available for their authenticity than there is for the scriptural accounts.

Which brings us to the second point.......and we'll start with the Old Testament......which consists of 39 books and has been preserved by meticulous copying from the original written manuscript. When compared to other ancient documents there seems to be a huge discrepancy in the manner that we view them. For most ancient documents......there are about a thousand years between the writing of the original document and the first available copy that archaeologists have found.

As an example.....we talked about Tacitus......a Roman historian. Tacitus wrote his works around 100 A.D.........but our first copy of his work is actually from about 1100 A.D. and we only have 20 total copies available today. The original document was written almost 1,000 years before our first available manuscript.

In comparison.......our first manuscript copy of the Old Testament dated about 250 B.C.........comes about 150 years after the original book was written.......and we have over 10,000 Old Testament manuscripts.

I won't get into all of the numbers here because they are staggering.....but let me just throw a few at you. There are 10 existing manuscripts of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Warswritten between 58 and 50 B.C. The copies date from the 10th century or later. Homerwas written in 900B.C. but our earliest copy is from 400 B.C. and have 643 copies. That’s a difference of 500 years between the original and the earliest copy. Plato was written in 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy is from 900 A.D. That’s 1,200 years difference and there are 7 copies.….and the list goes on and on. We don't question their authorship or content. Let's compare that with available manuscripts of the New Testament.......

The Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Muenster, Germany, has a total of 5,801 manuscripts in various forms. These are all hand-written copies of the New Testament or parts of it. In comparison to the works of Tacitus......where the original document was written almost 1,000 years before anything we have available right now......our first manuscript copy of the New Testament comes from about 30-40 years after the original book was written. If people want to discredit the veracity of the New Testament.....then every other ancient text has to come into question also.....and yet they don't......a complete double standard for authenticity exists.

With all of this said......there's an irrational difference between the acceptance of Scripture and the acceptance of every other historical writing. The evidences are clear.....we can only try to make people understand them and let the hearer make their own decisions. I know what I choose.

KWYB #8

It would seem that questioning the validity of the Bible has become fashionable for the academic elite........those who grew up on evolutionary theory and over the years have been molded by political correctness. Most who would consider themselves scholars equate any attempts to validate Scripture as promoting Christianity.....which would be at odds with our entire culture of acceptance of anything but Christianity.

The last time we dealt with this series we looked at The Veracity of Scripture from the standpoint of the internal and external evidences that validate the fact that the writers of the Bible were telling the truth.

We saw in Luke chapter one that he wasn't claiming any inspiration.......he's not claiming to write theology.....he's simply making historical claims......and we should allow the same considerations to these historical claims as we do to any other historical writing.......they are taken at face value until proven non-factual. @Luke writes of “things accomplished among us” and that which was “handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness.” He speaks of “investigating everything carefully from the beginning” so that “you may know the exact truth” about what happened. Luke’s clear intention is to tell the truth based on what really happened in front of eyewitnesses. His method was one of careful investigation. To say that we cannot use Luke historically is to call into question every work of ancient history.

A really good example of why Scripture should be taken at face value is that it was written while there were still scores of witnesses to the events that are reported. You can't put something in writing that is totally false and not expect people to call you on it. It's been attempted for sure.......@what's your reaction when you see this? Certain people began to claim that it didn't happen.......like this guy.......but they were laughed out of the spotlight immediately......because there are still witnesses to the events that took place.

Remember Paul writing in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 @regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ.....in verse 6 he says......"After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep."

There's a lot of really good reasons to believe Scripture to be accurate......and we're going to look at some more this morning......because if the Bible is true......then we should expect it to not only have internal and external evidences for it.......we should also expect archaeology to confirm it. And again I put out this disclaimer........we're not proving the existence of God or that Jesus died for our sins with this study. What we're doing is providing circumstantial evidence that God is real......that He did create everything that is.......and that the Scripture record is reliable. The standard of proof that we're utilizing is the same standard that we have in our judicial system here in America......that of "beyond a reasonable doubt". And thus far I believe we have done that without fail.

Today's look at the archeological evidences that contribute to the veracity of Scripture are only going to add to that evidence......it will prove nothing. And when you're talking to people who do not believe in God.....who do not believe in the Bible......it's good to make that point yourself......because one of the first things they'll say is, "That doesn't prove anything." And they're right.......Let's face it........I can show you London and prove that it's real......but that doesn't mean that Harry Potter's real. But what it does do is adds to the mountain of evidence that already exists........and refutes the skeptics who claim the Bible was written centuries after the fact.......or by men who knew nothing of the culture and geography. So we'll see clearly that archeology supports both the historical reliability of Scripture.......and the claim that they are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses.......because it's pretty difficult to fake being an eye-witness if you don't have a clue what you're writing about.

And we're going to start by looking at something of a combination of our last study that took into account the internal and external evidences that give credence to Scripture.......and this week's topic of archeology.....by taking a look at the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. The bulk of this entire teaching actually comes from a book called "Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace......and I was so fascinated by it that I wanted to share it with you. Now the feeding of the 5 thousand is recorded in all 4 Gospel accounts.....and it includes a lot of what we talked about last time.......internal and external evidences and unintentional support between the writers. I mentioned it last time as a great example for you to look up and see how intertwined the accounts are......but I'm sure you didn't........so we're going to do it together.

We'll start with the account in the Gospel of Mark......and just prior to the event we'll look at Mark tells us that Jesus sent out the disciples to preach repentance in the local towns and villages. When the returned......they found themselves surrounded by a whole multitude of people.......so we pick it up in @chapter 6 verses 30-39...... 30 The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught. 31 And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.” (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) 32 They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves.

33 The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. 34 When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. 35 When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “This place is desolate and it is already quite late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 37 But He answered them, “You give them somethingto eat!” And they said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give them something to eat?” 38 And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass.

So......according to Mark there were a lot of people coming and going in the area......even before Jesus and His disciples became the focal point of the crowd. Why was there a crowd out here in this area? Well.....Mark doesn't say.......but John tells us in his account...... @found in John 6:1-10......."After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). 2 A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. 3 Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with His disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. 5 Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” 6 This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. 7 Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.” 8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, 9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” 10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

So John answers the question raised by Mark's account as to why all these people were here in the first place......and it seems there's two reasons. One is that Jesus Himself was a draw to people. John alone tells us the people searched Jesus out because He performed miracles. The second reason......and only John tells us......is that it's almost Passover.....the Jewish holiday that caused thousands of people to travel through this area to get to Jerusalem for the celebration. While Mark mentioned the crowd.....only John tells us the reasons they were there.

Interesting though......by unintentionally answering the question raised by Mark.....John raises a couple of questions of his own. In John's account Phillip and Andrew are specifically mentioned.....which is pretty interesting because they weren't exactly major characters in the Gospel accounts. Peter, James and John are pretty prominent guys.....but Phillip and Andrew?

Why did Jesus specifically ask Phillip where they ought to go to buy bread? Why did Andrew get involved in the answer? John also mentions a detail that wasn't found in Mark's account......he said the disciples fed the crowd "barley loaves." John also repeats Mark's testimony that there was "much grass" in the area. In order to make sense of the questions that John raises......and the reason that he would say there was a lot of grass and loaves were barley......we need to look at Luke's account of the same incident......@found in Luke 9:10-15..........10 When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city called Bethsaida. 11 But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing.

12 Now the day was ending, and the twelve came and said to Him, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” 13 But He said to them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.” 14 (For there were about five thousand men.) And He said to His disciples, “Have them sit down to eat in groups of about fifty each.” 15 They did so, and had them all sit down.

Luke is the only account that tells us that this event occurred when Jesus withdrew to the city of Bethsaida......and it really unlocks the mystery of Philip and Andrew being prominent in John's testimony.......because both of them were from Bethsaida according to @John 1:44......"Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter." But we don't learn this from Luke......who's the guy that told us it occurred in Bethsaida.....but from John who mentions this detail without any connection to the miracle. Jesus asked Philip where to go shopping for bread because Philip was from that part of the country......he and Andrew would have known where the nearest Wal-mart was......it would be logical that Jesus would ask them.

What about the grass......and the barley? Why would these details be included in the narrative? Are these details that would be consistent with what an eyewitness might have seen or known about. Well we know that it happened at the time of the Passover......which would have been in April. April follows the five rainiest months of the year in the area of Bethsaida......so it follows there would be a lot of grass......also......Passover occurs at the end of the barley harvest. So what seems like meaningless details is actually exactly what you'd expect to hear from eyewitnesses who were simply describing what they saw.....including the details that don't really matter.

So....when we start to view the Gospels as eyewitness historical accounts......and start putting together all of the details......we can actually get a pretty good idea of what happened......and we start to realize that the Gospels are filled with internal and external evidences that show us they are consistent and accurate.......they weren't written by people who had no knowledge of the area......or well after the fact as many skeptics would claim.

My original intention for this week was to lay out all of the archeological evidence that verifies both the Old and New Testaments......but I soon realized that it would end up being about as interesting as watching paint dry......because in my world.....a little bit of archeology goes a long way. So what I'm going to try to do is lay out some of the more significant historical finds......especially those that have been surrounded in controversy in order to show that those people who want Scripture discredited will go to extraordinary lengths to do so......and to deceive others who might believe their lies.

One of the things we need to realize is that there is a concerted.....very directed effort to discredit Scripture.......to the point of there being an entire movement in elite scholarly circles known as "Biblical Minimalism". @It was forwarded in a book written in 1996 called The Invention of Ancient Israel by Keith Whitelam. This movement actually denies the existence of ancient Israel......instead they believe the biblical account to be imaginative fiction. Biblical minimalism holds that the monarchies of David and Solomon.........and their leadership over a powerful Israelite nation never existed. They claim these two kings were minor tribal chieftains of Jerusalem.......which they claim was a small and insignificant village.

We all know that the general leanings of the news media is profoundly liberal and ungodly......which may help to explain why the public-at-large is rarely informed of the archaeological breakthroughs that corroborate the Bible’s authenticity. As one archeologist put it....... @ “It’s bad for business to find things from the Bible these days. It makes us look like unsophisticated messianic fanatics” - Dr. Asher Meir

So.....let's look at just a few examples where archeology has silenced many critics of Scripture by confirming the accuracy of a great deal of background details in the Bible narratives.

@Consider the 1983 discovery by Israeli scholar Adam Zertal........who unearthed a huge sacrificial altar on Mount Ebal, north of Jericho. Its construction perfectly matches the specifications described in @Deuteronomy 27:4-8........4 So it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall set up on Mount Ebal, these stones, as I am commanding you today, and you shall coat them with lime. 5 Moreover, you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones; you shall not wield an iron tool on them. 6 You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of uncut stones, and you shall offer on it burnt offerings to the Lord your God; 7 and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there, and rejoice before the Lord your God. 8 You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very distinctly.”

That's what God commanded through Moses......and we find in @ Joshua 8:30-32 that Joshua did just that.......... 30 Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, 31 just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. 32 He wrote there on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written, in the presence of the sons of Israel.

So this is clear back from some of the earliest writings of the Old Testament......and it's not an isolated case......there are hundreds of such finds.....making it extremely difficult for the honest skeptic to dispute the overwhelming archeological support for the historical accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments. Numerous items discussed in the Bible such as nations, important people, customary practices, etc. have been verified by archeological evidence. Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth.

I believe the Bible is true......it's accurate......and maybe that's why archeology doesn't do that much for me. Of course the cities that are mentioned in the Bible were really there.......certainly the names of the people mentioned are real and if we look hard enough we may be able to fine evidence of them......but that's just me. The majority of people would be impressed if you could prove some of the background information that Scripture reports.

Remember Caiaphas........the high priest who presided over the arrest and trial of Jesus? Matthew, Luke and John each identify him........the historian Josephus also identifies "Joseph Caiaphas" as the Jewish high priest from 18 to 36 AD. Josephus also refers to him as "Joseph who was known as Caiaphas of the high priesthood ".

@In December of 1990.......an archaeological discovery was made in the Peace Forset section of Jerusalem.......a first century Ossuary or "bone box" was found. Emblazoned on the ossuary were the words "Yehosef bar Kayafa," translated as "Joseph, son of Caiaphas."

@Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census in Luke 2:1-3.......we all remember the Christmas story. But a lot of skeptics dismissed Luke's account as inaccurate......because it was thought that Quirinius was governor after Jesus was born...... there for Luke's gospel must have been written later in history by someone unfamiliar with the chronology of leadership. But recent discoveries of inscriptions and coins bearing his name have been found which confirm his governorship at the right time.

@In John's Gospel he mentions the Pool of Bethesda......in John 5:2...... 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.......and located near the Sheep Gate just north of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Until the 19th century there was no archaeological evidence for the Pool of Bethesda........so skeptics used this as proof that John’s account was written by some later zealot who didn’t have eyewitness knowledge of Jerusalem or an actual pool called Bethesda. But in an excavation near St. Anne's Church in Jerusalem the remains of the pool.....complete with steps leading down from one side and five porticos on the other was unearthed showing once again that the critics were wrong......and the Bible was right.

@Pontius Pilate was thought to be a fabrication for a long time.....but in 1961 a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription proving Pilate's position in government and his relationship to Tiberius Caesar......all of which corroborates what the Gospel writers said about Pilate.

We could honestly go on like this for days......but I believe we've got the idea that Scripture more than coincides with archeology.....but I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for Scripture is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament and he set out to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke’s accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts........which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke’s accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay’s archeological team. Without a single error.......Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. @Ramsay finally had this to say......

I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.

We have to remember where we started in this journey to Know What You Believe. We're building a case to see if there is enough evidence to say, "Yes, there is a God.".......and all of the other beliefs we have regarding the veracity of Scripture......that Jesus is real......that our faith is not something fabricated by men......but is deserving of our complete commitment.

The archaeological evidence we've talked about here is only one category of evidence in the cumulative circumstantial case the were presenting. Like all circumstantial cases......each piece of evidence is incapable o proving the case on its own. Circumstantial cases are built on the strength of multiple lines of evidence......and the fact that all the individual pieces point to the same conclusion.

I believe this will conclude this series......unless something comes up that we haven't talked about that would be advantageous to consider. I don't know how much good we did with this series.......but I know it's been valuable to me if no one else. I also remind you that this whole series......along with the PowerPoint presentations is available if you just e-mail me that you want it......either to go over yourself to refresh what was said......or if you're talking to someone who doesn't believe what you do.......you can give it to them and ask them what they think about what's contained there.

Sermon transcripts of pastor Tom Nagy

Know What You Believe

The Letter of Second Peter