John The Baptist was NOT Elijah Reincarnated

Jimmy Akin uses critical thinking to explain that, among other things, John the Baptist was not Elijah reincarnated.

Reincarnation was not removed from the Bible because it was NEVER a belief in the ancient Christian Church.

Should the Book of Genesis be Interpreted Literally?

In light of the recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, I recommend Dr. Craig's podcast series on Creation and Evolution. As usual, Craig's teaching are thorough, cogent and irrefragable.

"There's a range of options, I think, available today to the Bible believing Christian. We don't need to be put into a box and think there is just one interpretation of scripture with regard to origins that is incumbent on the faithful Bible believing Christian.
- Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig's 2013 Christmans Gift for Atheists

Dr. William Lane Craig posted an article for God's existence on Fox News.com. He makes five points:

1.  God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe
2.  God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe
3.  God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties
4.  God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection
5.  God can be personally known and experienced

Keep in mind any ONE of the five arguments justify God's existence. Thus, in order to counter Craig's case, all five must be refuted.

I also like this quote from the article:

"The good thing is that atheists tend to be very passionate people and want to believe in something"

I hope atheists will join critical thinking and logic to their passion and understand their theological position is intellectually empty.

Skepticism and Critical Thinking

This article offers three ways Evangelicals can use skepticism to improve their faith.

While I don't consider myself a member of the Evangelical group, I agree skepticism, along with critical thinking skills can vastly improve and even rework one's beliefs and faith.

Sixteen years ago, I questioned every theological belief I carried from childhood. If a belief was irrational, I discarded it. The result was a new theological model that is rational, flexible and which my faith is stronger than ever. 

Skepticism and critical thinking HAS been my "best intellectual friend."

Quark Mass Suggests Life Is No Accident

Recent research indicates the universe has little room for error when it comes to carbon based life (humans for example).

A team of physicists is looking at the conditions necessary to the formation of carbon and oxygen in the universe and have already found the formation of Carbon-12 is so precise, a tiny variation in the 'light' quark's mass would prevent carbon based life (us) from forming.

We're talking quarks here, people, the stuff of which protons and neutrons are composed!

The accumulated evidence from this and prior research strongly suggests the origins of life are the result of an organized, creative and, rational intelligence.

Resurrection Evidence

Hank Hanegraaff's new book, The Third Day, examines the evidence for Jesus' resurrection on which ALL of Christianity depends.

In fact, one of the New Testament writers (Paul) said if the resurrection didn't occur, we Christians are a dumb and pathetic bunch (my paraphrase) worthy of the world's pity.

Still, if Hanegraaff's book is insufficient to convince you, watch this video by Dr. William Lane Craig.

If you still need more evidence, the material and videos on Dr. Gary Habermas' web site should do the trick.
The evidence for the resurrection was the final and most convincing point that persuaded me to embrace the Christian worldview.

DNA Complexity Surprises Researchers

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements(ENCODE) is a project to catalog all functional elements in the human genome. Since its launch in 2003 by the by the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) researchers have created a complicated catalog of biochemically active DNA strands.

'Complicated' is the operative word.

Recently published papers from the project have reversed the conventional wisdom that most of Human DNA serves no useful purpose and in fact, reveal the vast majority of human DNA "participates in at least one biochemical event in at least one cell type."

The more we learn about Human DNA, the more we learn about its complexity.

Eric Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and collaborator on the ENCODE project, said in a press briefing on September 5, "The complexity of our biology resides not in the number of our genes but in the regulatory switches."

Using experimentally derived data from 150 types of human cells, scientists mapped millions of DNA sites regulataing gene expression and determining complex aspects of human biology that make each of us unique.

Millions!

Ewan Birney, a computational biologist at the European Bioinformatics Institute in England who coordinated the analysis for the project, said, ""There's way more switches than we ever imagined."

Surprise!

Green adds, "Our blueprint is remarkably complicated, and we need to be committed for the long haul to understand it."

Complicated.

Does it seem reasonable to believe gentic complexity arose by random chance? Not to me and I argue, not to anyone without an anti-creation bias. DNA is simply too complex to occur by random chance.

Unlike many creationists, I'm not suggesting evolution didn't produce this complexity. I'm suggesting the complexity didn't occur by accident. In my mind, the evidence suggests the workings of a Rational Mind, call it God, Creator, Designer, etc. who could have used evolution as the creation mechanism to produce life.

In other words, evolution and natural selection is guided and purposed by an intelligent mind.

Moreover, research from the ENCODE project is already in use for screening and testing for breast cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, prostate cancer and other diseases and disorders.

Not only has our Creator provided evidence for his existence, but, the blueprint for our own.

Is the Bible a Scientific Text?

The Chicago Tribune recently ran a story that some Catholics still believe the sun revolves around the earth. 


This baffles me. 


Rationality is quality God gave us when he made us in his image. Can we not trust the data model collected by the scientific method? People may disagree on the interpretations of the cosmological data model, but, in this case, heliocentrism is, unquestionably, the rational interpretation, is it not? 


I believe the Bible reflects the cosmology of its writers, but, it's not a scientific text. What do others believe?

The Apparent Contradiction of the Trinity Explained

Recently, a co-worker asserted the Christian Doctrine of theTrinity was a logical contradiction. It seems to me those that posit the Trinity is a logical contradiction confuse or misunderstand the assertion Christians make about the Trinity.

Specifically, opponents say Christians assert the Bible teaches that God is one person AND God is three persons at the same time. In other words, 1 = 3. If that were true, then, yes, I would agree the Trinity would indeed be a logical contradiction.

A logical contradiction occurs when the truth of one propositon necessarily means the falshood of another proposition. Symbolically, a contradiction has the form of P &~P. Examples include:

•  Socrates is a man. Socrates is not a man.
• Square circles
• 1 = 3
• Married bachelors
• All truth is relative

Logical contradictions violate one of the fundamental rules of thought: The Law of Non-Contradiction which asserts: "Nothing can be both P and not-P."

But, Christians are not asserting that 1=3 or that God is three persons in one person. Rather, they are resolving an apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are not equivalent to true logical contradictions - by any definition - because apparent contradictions can be resolved.

True logical contradictions can never be resolved.

The premise of the Trinitarian Doctrine is that God exists as three persons in one nature. Philosophically speaking, the word person, or personhood, refers to the totality of an entity’s non-physical attributes: intelligence, consciousness, creativity, will, self-identity, etc. Obviously, humans have personhood, but, personhood is not restricted to Humans. In fact, some scientists argue that Dolphins should be considered “non-human” persons.

God possesses all the qualities of personhood.

The word nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics that an entity possesses naturally. Human nature, for instance, consists of physical flesh and personhood. God’s nature is composed of spirit and personhood.

Thus, all entities have natures, but not all natures are physical.

Some entities, like God and Angels, possess non-physical natures.

Now here’s the real thrust of my argument. If an entity’s nature could only support one self-identity, or one person, then the Trinitarian concept would be a real contradiction – an absurdity and not embraced. But, there is no reason to believe an entity is restricted to one nature with one self-identity.

The burden of proof lies with opponents of the Trinitian Doctrine to prove an entity’s nature can only support one person.

It may be a mystery to us HOW an entity can possess one nature with three persons, but our ignorance does not a contradiction make.

Thus, the Christian Doctrine of theTrinity is not a real, logical contradiction but an apparent contradiction that is easily resolved. 

Beware of the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy

"Tu Quoque" pronounced ("two coke" or even "two qwo qway" ) is a Latin phrase that means, "You, too." In conversations, it is often used as an attempt to dismiss or dismiss an opposing viewpoint because the person with the opposing viewpoint has acted inconsistently with that viewpoint.

"Tu Quoque" is a non-sequitur logical fallacy (meaning, "it does not follow") and, thus, is a thinking error. Semantically, the fallacy means, "If you don't follow your own rule perfectly, how can you expect others to follow it?"

Why is it a thinking error?

Just because a person makes an inconsistent assertion does not make that assertion false. It might indicate the person is hypocritical, but not that his assertion is false.

Unwarranted assumptions and ""Tu Quoque" errors are two of the most common (and, IMHO, the most egregious) thinking errors people make.

According to the Wikipedia, the form for the argument that commits this error is the following:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

Teenagers sometimes use this argument in the following manner:

Mom: "Premarital sex is morally wrong. Don't do it."
Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?"
Mom: "Yes."
Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?"

The guilt, or innocence, of mom's past behavior is completely irrelevant to the issue of morality. If premarital sex is morally wrong, then it was morally wrong when mom did it and it will still be wrong if daughter does it.

Other examples to point out the absurdity of the error:

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

"How can you tell me not to experiment with drugs when you did the same thing as a teenager?"

Beware of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy and refrain from committing it! Parents, PLEASE teaching your children critical thinking skills.  It's these skills that will help make them responsible adults,  and help lead them to Truth.

Why Men Have Nipples

Teens often ask religious speakers,"Why do men have nipples?" Funny, but behind the humor is a sincere question.

So, earlier this morning, as I read Homily 5 from Severian of Gabala, a 4th century Christian writer, imagine my surprise when Severian asked the very same question!

His answer: "For comliness, for proper adornment; just as with builders, some things are done out of necessity, others for comliness, so too, God both adorned the human being and equipped him for meeting needs."

What this means to me is symmetry. God made humans, both, for form and function as any good architect would do.

Are Long Life Spans in the Old Testament Plausible?

While not “proof” in the laboratory sense, the following web site provides 5 reasons why it is reasonable to believe the long life spans in the Bible are plausible.
You can read the article for the details, but the 5 reasons are:

1.Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)
Discoveries in ROS suggest that one way God could have designed humanity to live for 900 years and then acted to decrease man's life expectancy at the time of the Flood would be to make subtle changes in the level of SOD and catalase enzyme expression within cells.

2. Caloric Restriction
Through a vegetarian diet, God could have used caloric restriction to help extend pre-Flood life spans.

3. Telomere Loss
God could have changed human life expectancy simply by varying telomerase activity. Alternatively, God may have complemented an increase in radiation levels (via a supernova event ) with a reduction in telomerase activity so as to minimize human suffering in the context of shortened life expectancy.

4. Genome Size
Larger genome sizes correlate with longer life spans. The human genome has a large amount of non-coding DNA. The non-coding DNA may have performed a critical function at one time to extend lifespans.

5. Vela Supernova
Radiation from the Vela supernova bathed the Earth and affected life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, exponential reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.

Why are these reasons plausible? Because the scientists engaged in age research are trying to find ways to counter-act the above. If humans with their limited knowledge and power can alter life spans, how much more so can God who is unlimited in knowledge and power?

Is the Bible innerant?

Is the Bible innerant (without error)? We say the bible is inerrant, or without error, in its proclamation of truth.

Inerrancy simply means that the Bible communicates the Truth using approximations, free quotations, and different accounts of the same event without contradiction.

Each writer communicates God’s truth as they perceive it even though their accounts vary. Just as we do when we communicate, Bible writers used stories, similies, analogies and metaphors to communicate their message.

Innerrancy doesn’t guarantee every account will be identical, word for word, but it does guarantee that every account will commnuicate God's Truth.

Inerrancy also includes parables, metaphors and illustrations. Nobody believes Jesus is literally a vine when he says, " I am the vine; you are the branches" or a gate when he says, "I am the gate." Nevertheless, we understand his use of this imagery to make his point.

What is the innerant truth of the Bible? That God loves humanity so much that he sent his only son Jesus to die for us and that whosoever believes and trusts in him will receive forgivness of sins and receive eternal life. Jesus is God’s divine plan for humanity. He is the reason the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Bible and it's in Jesus we find our purpose and reason for existence.

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Do All Religions Lead to God? Some say "Indeed they can, all religion is a guide...similar to an atlas. There are MANY different paths to the same destination."

These people mean well, but a problem quickly appears when one reviews the fundamental doctrines of the world's religions - they contradict each other.

In logic, contradictions occur when one or more statements lead to opposing results and both results can not be true:

For example:

Statement 1: Sally is a girl.
Statement 2: Sally is not a girl.
Either Sally is a girl or she is not a girl. She can't be both.

Contradictions also occur in self-refuting statements:

Example 1: Tom is a married bachelor.
Tom is either a bachelor or Tom is married - he can't be both.

Example 2: All truth is relative.
The statement is asserting, absolutely, that all truth is relative. But, if that's the case, then the statement contradicts itself because it asserts all truth is relative.

In order for all religions to lead to God, one or more religions would need to discard or compromise their fundamental doctrine about what they believe leads to God. Try reconciling Christianity and, say, Paganism without compromising the doctrine and traditions or one or both. It can't be done because their fundamental beliefs contradict each other.

Therefore, when it comes to religions, the logical possibilities are only two:

1. All religions can be wrong
2. One or more of them can be correct

All of them can't be correct since a logical contradiction would result.

The challenge is to discover the religions, or religion, that best describes reality.

Proof of God

Stephen D. Unwin is a theoretical physicist in the field of Quantum Gravity. In his book, The Probability of God, Unwin sets out to mathematically prove the existence of God. He concludes there's a 67% probability for God's existence.
Dr. Unwin's Home page

Kurt Goedel, a gifted logician and mathematician, is best known for his incompleteness theorems which basically posit that all formal systems are incomplete because each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

But, Goedel also sketched a revised version of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God that wasn't published until after Goedel's death. His proof is more elaborate than Anslem's and used a system of logic known as Modal Logic that provides a useful language to discuss God's existence because it distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

Goedel's Ontological Proof

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

The charge that Christianity borrowed from pagan mystery religions to form her doctrinal practices has been with the Church since her formation. Could this be true?

The short answer is no, the New Testament was not influenced by pagan religions which a careful and unbiased examination of history will reveal.

The long answer is given by Ronald Nash of the Christian Research Institute.

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

The Hidden Face of God

Former atheist Andrew Flew credits physicist Gerald Schroeder's book, The Hidden Face of God, as the driving force behind his (Flew's) acceptance of a supernatural force at work in Cosmos.

Schroeder's book demonstrates that belief in God is not only acceptable but scientifically and rationally based.

Also available is a DVD that explores the interface between God and Science. In Has Science Discovered God?, Flew is joined with Schroeder and Dr. John Haldane of St. Andrew’s University to discuss the origins of the Universe, life, consciousness and the existence of God.

For those needing it, this DVD and Schroeder's book provides the scientific evidence to justify a belief in God.

Descartes Rules for True Conclusions‏

In the Discourse, Descartes described four rules he established to make sure he always came to true conclusions.

1. Doubt everything. “The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not know clearly that it was so … and to include nothing in my judgments apart from whatever appeared so clearly and distinctly to my mind that I had no opportunity to cast doubt on it.”
2. Break every problem down into smaller parts.
3. Solve the simplest problems first, and build from there.
4. Be thorough. “The final rule was: In all cases, to make such comprehensive enumerations and such general reviews that I was certain not to omit anything.”
   

By following these simple guidelines, he said, “There cannot be anything so remote that it cannot eventually be reached nor anything so hidden that it cannot be uncovered.” More.

In my experience, and in my opinion, item 4 is the rule most often violated. Many self-proclaimed skeptics do a great job of rules 1-3, but completely miss number 4 resulting in unwarranted assumptions leading to irrational conclusions. Prime examples are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hutchins.

Smart guys, yes, but not thorough in their research.

Is Morality an Innate Human Trait?

According to Dr. Paul Bloom, a psychology professor at Yale University, "A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life."

In a research study, Bloom designed a set of experiments to test baby morality. The result? According to Bloom, "Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness."

While Bloom is quick to state the research does not imply divine intervention, it certainly challenges the mainstream position that children are moral blank slates upon which anything can be written.

Proof for Life After Death?

I've been skeptical for decades about the experiences near death survivors report for life after death. It's not that I don't believe in life after death - I do - but, I've hesitated to accept NDE's (near death experiences) as evidence for it. However, my skepticism is waning as the evidence weights in favor of NDEs as proof that consciousness survives after death.

In addition to the research conducted by pioneer Dr. Raymond Moody, cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel has written a book (June 8 release date) that provides compelling evidence on the survival of consciousness after physical death which can not be explained by mainstream models of the brain and its neurochemistry.

Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience

Van Lommel's book is based on research published by Van Lommel and other researchers in The Lancet; 2001; 358: 2039-45. a leading medical journal:

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

The fact that Van Lommel and his research team are cardiologists make them worthy of our attention. Apparently, their research attracted the attention of other doctors. In an interview with IANDS' Vice-President Dr. Jeffrey Long, Dr van Lommel said he , "received more than 265 e-mails in just four weeks, including a lot from physicians who wrote to me about their own NDEs!"

One of these doctors is Pam Kircher who was Chief of Family Medicine at Memorial Southwest Hospital in Houston, Texas. She experienced an NDE as a child. In her comments on Van Lommel's research, she encourages people to share Von Lommel's study with their family doctors.

Dr. Van Lommel offers additional information concerning the study in his reply to skeptic Michael Shermer:

Moreover, in his book Life After Death The Evidence, Dinesh D'Souza, Stanford scholar and Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University offers a case study and documents evidence from science, history, philosophy and psychology that shows it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness survives the body after death than not. Here's a video interview with D'Souza by Fox News.

As the evidence mounts, skeptics in life after death will be hard pressed to rationally maintain their position and all of us can be comforted that our loved ones who have passed on on still survive.

David's Palace Likely Found

Once again archeology provides strong evidence for the Bible's historicity. Dr. Eilat Mazar, world authority on Jerusalem's past, has unearthed very strong evidence for David's palace.

The scientific and archeological evidence is simply overwhelming. How any intellectually honest and rational person could deny God's existence is beyond me. Those that do are ignorant of the evidence or denying it because accepting God's existence might imply moral accountability.

Cumlative Proof For God's Existence

Excellent site by former atheist.

http://www.iloveatheists.com/about_us/cumulative-case-god

Archaeological Evidence Favors Biblical Record

The archaeological evidence continues to provide support for the Bible, refuting claims by liberal scholars.

For decades, now, liberal scholars have loudly and publically asserted as fact the Bible can not be as old as it claims. When will liberal scholars accept that proving a negative is not only illogical but makes them look less than intelligent? This discovery would silence a reasonable person, so I doubt it will silence liberal scholars.

Pottery shard indicates Old Testament far older than liberal scholars thought.

The God Particle

The God Particle is the nickname given to a theorized sub-atomic particle called the Higgs Boson particle, or simply the Higgs particle. The nickname comes from the premise the particle is the source of all mass, or weight, in the Universe.

All matter has the property of mass - you, me, dogs, atoms, sub-atomic particles, etc. The Higgs particle explains WHY all matter has mass.

Actually, the Higgs particle carries a field that gives mass to all matter. The field permeates EVERYTHING and exists EVERYWHERE. Think of a Jedi night in Star Wars as a carrier of the force. The Higgs particle is the carrier for the Higgs field.

As objects (me, you, cars, airplanes, sub-atomic particles, etc) move through the Higgs field, resistance is encountered. Resistance to the Higgs force produces mass and weight. Objects that have little resistance to the Higgs force have smaller mass and weight. For example, the photon, a particle of light, offers no resistance to the Higgs force and thus, has zero mass and weight. Objects like you and I have mass and weight because we cause resistance in the field.

The Higgs particle is essential to the standard model of physics which posits that everything in the Universe can be explained from twelve basic building blocks called fundamental particles that are governed by four fundamental forces (except for gravity which Einstein posited in his general theory of relativity is NOT the result of a particle carrying a field).

The problem is that no one has ever discovered a Higgs particle. Hopes are high, however, the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider on Geneva will locate the Higgs Boson particle which would confirm the standard model of physics.

Why should you care?

The issue is that the standard model of physics fails to explain mass. If the Higgs particle is not discovered the standard model of physics will need to be rewritten. Yikes!

The discovery has the potential to be the greatest scientific discovery of the century leading to a unified theory of everything or the greatest scientific mistake. The entire world of physics waits with eager anticipation.

For those desiring to know more, check out:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/Science/matter.htm
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Science/StandardModel-en.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/Higgs-en.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1729139,00.html
http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/elementary/generalRT/GeomGravity/index.html

The Science of Reasoning

Reasoning is an inherent, natural function of the brain. Therefore, to reason about reality is natural. The question is not, “Do we reason?” but, “Does our reasoning lead to us closer to or further from reality?”

I believe a reality exists independently of what I believe about it and while I don’t believe reality is comprehensively known or understood, we know enough to make statements about it. Consider these statements of reality:

• The world is round (even if I believe it is flat)
• 2+2=4 (even if I can't add)
• The planets in our solar system revolve around the sun (even if I don't exist)
• The sun rises in the east and sets in the west (even if I’m blind)
• The earth orbits the sun (even though it seems as if the sun moves around the earth)

The statements above also reveal important characteristics about the nature of reality:

• Reality is independent of belief
• Reality is universal (2+2=4 is the same for everyone, even if they can’t add)
• Reality is not subjective – people don’t define it
• Reality is not contradictory – 2+2 will always equal 4
• Reality is discovered – not invented

Statements about reality are considered true when they agree with the nature of reality, or stated another way, when they don’t contradict the nature of reality. Truth, according to this definition, must correspond with reality.

Reasoning is the process of determining truth. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Author of several books on logic and mathematics, Irving M. Copi wrote, "The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals."

Put more simply, logic is the science of reasoning.

Still, even our best logic won’t guarantee we will arrive at truth. History provides many examples of beliefs we thought we true, but, later, turned out to be wrong. Nevertheless, by ensuring our logic is correct, I believe we are more likely to get closer to the truth than with incorrect logic.

Reasoning can be deductive or inductive. In a deductive reasoning, a claim is made that is supported by statements which are either true or false. For example, the claim that the Greek Philosopher Socrates was a mortal might be supported in the following manner:

All humans are mortal.
Socrates was a human.
Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

An argument is truth claim supported by collection of true/false statements.

Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. This is important to understand because deductive arguments can be valid but untrue. For example:

All humans have 3 legs.
Roy is a human.
Therefore, Roy has 3 legs.

The reasoning above has a valid form but the statement that all humans have 3 legs make the conclusion false.

Negating any of the deductive argument’s premises make the entire argument false. On the other hand, if all the statements are true, and the form is valid, as in the Socrates example, then the conclusion is certain and becomes a true statement about reality.

A deductive argument made popular by Dr. William Lane Craig for the existence of God goes as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

From the argument above, we can claim Universe must have been caused by a Transcendent Creator.

Deductive reasoning uses general facts to make a specific truth claim.

Sometimes, not all the facts about reality are known or even can be known. In this case, we examine what we do know and make a statement that is probably, but not certainly true.

An inductive argument uses specific facts to make a general truth claim.

For example:

Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe probably has a designer

Unlike the deductive argument, in an inductive argument, the statements provide support for the conclusion, but the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Inductive arguments are never certain, but evaluated as better or worse based on the strength of their propositions.

Science is based on inductive reasoning.

In summary, reasoning is a skill that can be learned and involves using the Laws of Thought as a foundation to construct a worldview composed of beliefs, opinions and images that are justified by deductive and inductive reasoning.

Was Mary a Virgin?

Recently, I was asked if I believed Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. My response was, "Yes!" While I realize the Bible contains allegory and metaphor, in this case, this is not one of them.
From the beginning, the Christian Church has accepted Mary's viginity as historical fact. Even today. he Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, most traditonal Protestant groups believe Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary's womb by the influence of the Holy Spirit and not a man.

Why? Because the authors of scripture stated it Mary was a Virgin:

• The Apostle Luke records Mary's own words, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Note: The Greek words used for virgin, anēr, ou, and ginōskō translate to: a betrothed person who has not had sexual intercourse.

• Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27, all refer to Mary as a virgin.

Moreoever, Luke emphasizes the Holy Spirit is the father - not a man. Matthew says it twice in Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 1:20.

Furthermore, Matthew 1:25 says, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He is Joseph and her is Mary. Restated, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with Mary, until she bore a son and mamed him Jesus."

The meaning of scripture is crystal clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born.

What about the charge that the early Church knew Mary was not a virgin but developed it over time?

In addition to the ancient Biblical manuscripts, an analysis of historical Church documents reveal the following:

1. According to the Protoevangelium of James, written around 120 AD, Joseph "wept bitterly" and when he discovered Mary was pregnant and charged her with infidelity. By law, Joseph was required to reported her condition to the temple authorities, but when he did, they thought the couple had married in secret and even accused Joseph of lying and defiling Mary's purity.

2. Tertullian, a Church Partriarch wrote 213 AD, “And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.”

3. John Chrysostom, in Homily 5 on on Matthew, (370 AD) informs us, "before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man."

4. The Creed of Epiphanius states Jesus "was conceived perfectly through the Holy Ghost of the holy ever-virgin Mary..."

5. Jerome, arguing against Helvidius, wrote, "I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary."

Additionally, Church patriarchs considered the contrary premise that Mary was not a virgin to be madness and heresy:

•"madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
•"madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
•"sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
•"impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
•"perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
•"full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
•"perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
•"heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).

So, despite the assertion of some the the belief in Mary's virginity developed over time has no basis in reality. The Early Church certainly believed Mary was a virgin from the beginning.

But, what about the charge by Richard Dawkins and others that English Bibles have mistranslated "young woman" into virgin? Is that true?

No. Just as in English, the context needs to be analyzed.

Consider the text from Matthew which is a quote from Isaiah 7:14:

"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

The Hebrew word Isaiah used for the word "virgin" is almah which some argue means "young woman.” The agument Dawkins and others assert rests solely on another word, bethulah which they claim claim would have been used for virgin instead of almah if the author actually meant "virgin" and not "young woman."

However, they haven't done their homework. Consider the usage of the word from a word search in the Blue Letter Bible for almah:

1.Genesis 24:43 uses the word almah to refer to Rebekah, who would become the Isaac's wife. However, in verse 16, she is referrred to as bethulah, a virgin.

2.In Exodus 2:8, almah is used in reference to Miriam, Moses's older sister, but still a very young girl who is certainly a virgin.

3. Song of Solomon 6:8 contrasts queens, concubines and maidens (almah), indicating these particular maidens have not been with men.

Thus, while it's true almah can simply mean "young woman", it can ALSO mean "young virgin woman" depending on the context.

Moreover, the Hebrew word elem is the masculine form of almah. For example, in 1 Samuel 17:56 it is used to refer to David, the youth who had just killed Goliath. When you consider the strong taboos against pre-marital sex in the Hebrew community, David was certainly a teen aged virgin.

Therefore, the Hebrew word elem irefers to a young man who does not yet have a woman (wife) and almah is a young woman who does not yet have a man (husband). Both are virgins in the classical meaning of the word.

Old Testament scholar and Hebrew instructor R. Laird Harris, in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, wrote: "There is no instance where it can be proved that alma designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

In fact, Martin Luther argued almah is more appropriate in the context of Isaiah than bethulah:

"...almah is even more appropriate here than bethulah. It is also more precise to say, "Behold, a maiden is with child," than to say, "A virgin is with child." For "virgin" is an all-embracing term which might also be applied to a woman of fifty or sixty who is no longer capable of childbearing. But "maiden" denotes specifically a young woman, nubile, capable of childbearing, but still a virgin; it includes not only the virginity, but also the youthfulness and the potential for childbearing."

The evidence from the Bible, from Chuch history and Jewish culture is overwhelming. Almah means "young female virgin of marriageable age" and, hence, Mary was indeed a vigin. Reason demands it.

Why is it important that Mary was a virgin?
Because Jesus was born without a sin nature. Otherwise, he would not have qualified as the perfect sacrifice and humanity would still be separated from God without hope of reconciliation.

Why didn't Jesus inherit sin from Mary?
Because sin is inherited from fathers, not mothers. The virgin birth circumvented the transmission of the sin nature and allowed the eternal God to become a perfect man.

What about the curse God made that no ancestor of Jehoiakim (David's ancestor) would rule on David's throne? Doesn't the Bible indicate Jesus assumes David's throne and is an ancestor of David?
If Joseph had been Jesus’ father, he would have been disqualified from assuming David’s throne. However, since he was not and Mary also descended from David through Nathan, another son of David, Jesus was a legitimate heir. Nathan's lineage was not cursed.

Atheists Arguments are Irrational

Atheists Arguments are irrational for several reasons.

1. Inductive reasoning is uncertain.
Inductive reasoning assumes a general conclusion based on specific facts or patterns. Scientists use inductive reasoning as the basis for building theories. Experiments yield results which are used to create theories that explain the results and allows for prediction of future knowledge.

Here's the problem: inductive reasoning is uncertain (yes, the implication is that science is also uncertain. gasp!)

For example, for centuries, the mainstream scholarly opinion was that black swans did not exist. Much of the world had been discovered and no evidence for black swans had been found. Thus, they inductively reasoned:

No evidence for the existence of black swans exist.
Therefore, all swans are black.

Imagine their shock when black swans were discovered in Australia in the 17th century! The discovery of black swans should have taught us to be wary of making universal assumptions and underestimating what we don't know.

Sadly, it didn't. When atheists state, "There is no God" they are engaging in same inductive based reasoning as their black swan predecessors:

No evidence for the existence of God exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

People who insist on evidence alone for their beliefs are known as logical empiricists (aka logical positivists).

2. Logical Positivism is irrational.
Logical empiricists places high value on evidence as a confirmation for knowledge. They insist on the principle of verifiability meaning that only knowledge that can be proven true or false - by the evidence - is meaningful. In other words, empirical verifiability is the ultimate truth standard and any possibility not represented by the evidence is rejected out of hand.

I've often heard logical empiricists state with great pomp, "I have no beliefs! Only facts as proven by the evidence!"

Yet, despite their belief in the truth of their own statement, sustaining a logical empiricist position is difficult, if not impossible, since it is based on inductive reasoning and, hence, uncertainty and assumption.

Logical empiricists don't seem to understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Moreover, logical positivism is self-contradictory. Since the principle of verifiability itself cannot be emperically proven true or false by means of experience, then, logical positivism can not be meaningful either.

For these and other reasons logical empiricism has been replaced by other philosophical methodologies despite the fact that academics - especially the sciences - still teach this weak approach. In my opinion, , it has lead many a young and brilliant mind astray.

In its attempt to produce free thinkers, academia has unwittingly produced limited thinkers.

3. Biased Interpretation
A person who is limited in their thinking is biased in their interpretation of the evidence. Many limited thinkers believe they are unbiased, but, in reality, they are anything but.

Consider this statement by Richard Dawkins:

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution."

See what I mean? Dawkins sets up a false dilemma (a logical fallacy, by the way) that limits the conclusion to one of two possible outcomes: Believe in evolution or risk insanity and ignorance. Because he can imagine no other scenario, Dawkins goes on to say:

"Now there are plenty of sane, educated, religious people: there are professors of theology, and there are bishops ... and so obviously they all believe in evolution or they wouldn't have gotten where they have because they would be too stupid or too ignorant. So, it is a fact that there are evolutionists who are religious and there are religious people who are evolutionists."

It's this kind of constrained reasoning that lead me away from logical positivism taught in school, to support a different methodology based on skeptical empiricism meaning that theories resulting from experiments are just one of possbily several interpretations of the evidence and is not exhaustive of all other possibilities.

For example, the arguments from natural theology, in my mind, make a far more compelling case for the Universe's existence brought about by a Supreme Rational Mind than mere random chance as atheists promote. Could my interpretation be incorrect? Of course. But, I certainly don't constrain or force my reasoning to fit my bias and I don't make statements like:

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in God. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in God."

I realize that people can be both educated and sane, yet, still disbelieve in God.

Conclusion
If anything my bias for clear and rational thinking biases me against atheism. As as student of logic, I can't and won't allow myself to to erect a worldview based on the uncertainly of inductive reasoning. I'm not saying that that inductive reasoning is inherently flawed and leads to bad thinking. On the contrary, inductive reasoning has lead to advances in medicine, technology, and science.

Inductive logic can be a very good thing.

What I am saying is that we need to be critical of our thinking processes to mitigate the slide into logical empiricism and biased interpretation which can and does happen as evidenced by the intellectual weakness of the atheistic position. In my opinion, atheism is an illogical position to maintain.

Another Reason to Suspect God Exists

Density is defined as a material's mass unit per volume, or the ratio (concentration) of matter contained in a given volume. For most liquids, freezing decreases mass and increases density causing it to become smaller and heavier.

Not so with water.

When water freezes, a crystallized lattice (like a web) of hydrogen-bonded molecules forms that contains more open spaces than liquid water causing the structure to expand and become less dense than liquid water.

That's why ice cubes float in a glass of water and water freezes from the top down. It's also why freezing sea water produces drinkable water - the salt in the water won't crystallize.

Think about the effect on life if water behaved like other liquids.

- Temperatures on islands and other land masses surrounded by water would not have stabilized.

- Even the temperature of the human body would not have stablized.

- Lakes and oceans would freeze all they life they contain, ultimately affecting the oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

In short, if the molecular properties of water were just slightly different, life as we know it would not have formed and survived.

For me, it seems highly unlikely that water's unique chemical properties that are necessary for life would have developed by mere chance. It's far more reasonable to believe a rational mind gave water it's unique properties to support our particular form of life.

BioLogos

Dr. Francis Collins - remember him? He's the former director of the Human Genome Project . Recently Collins launched his web site, BioLogos, to harmonize science and spirituality. 

 

"BioLogos is led by a team of believing scientists who are committed to promoting a perspective of both theological and scientific soundness, which takes seriously the claims of theism and of evolution, and finds compelling evidence for their compatibility."

 

Like Antony Flew, the "worlds most notorious atheist", Collins bases his theism on the evidence from science and in his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins recounts his transition from atheism to Christianity.

 

Collins believes God used evolution to as the mechanism to create life.

 

Not surprisingly, Collins is often criticized by members of the two camps he is attempting to harmonize. Still, his website deserves a look no matter where you stand in the debate....and it IS a debate which neither side can end conclusively. Like me, Collins has examined the scientific data model and inducted that God is the best explanation for the evidence. You'll need to decide for yourself, of course, but, for intellectual honesty, at least examine his reasons before rejecting them out of hand.

Incidentally, Check out this debate in Time Magazine between Collins and Richard Dawkins. In his closing statement, Dawkins says, " If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."  To which I say, precisely, Dr. Dawkins! God exists apart from and is completely incomprehensible by humanity. Moreover, If it weren't for God's specific manifestation in the physical form of Jesus the Nazarene, humanity would be forever separated from and ignorant of God's personal nature.

Assumptions about RNA Formation

The May 14 issue of Nature reports that scientists, for the first time, have created a building block of RNA (believed by some to be a precursor to DNA) from simple chemicals in an environment that modeled the conditions of early Earth.

 

According to the researchers, the experiment strengthens the RNA World hypothesis which theorizes RNA was the chemical basis for the self-organized structures that led to the formation of the cell.

 

Until now, or so the researchers argue, nobody has demonstrated that RNA could even form in earth's early environment. That's a big problem for RNA World proponents.

 

But does the research actually support their assertion? I say no.

First, the experiment was riddled with John Sutherland's assumptions about the conditions of early life on earth (his words, not mine) and the subsequent chemical reactionary chain that lead from RNA to cells.

Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London and a proponent, even admitted, "We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all."

Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, believes the experiment was "elegant", but, "it had nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever."

And, regarding the sequence of steps Sutherland and his team used to produce the results, James Ferris, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said "It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

Second. The experiment was biased! Why hasn't anyone in the scientific community pointed this out? Sutherland even admits his goal - his goal!!! - is "to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."

Aren't self-organzing chemicals and structures supposed to occur spontaneously? Scientific objectivity? What's that? I completely believe he will achieve his goal because he will contrive the conditions and the experiment, to make it so. But that will explain nothing about the actual, natural origins of life in pre-biotic earth.

At best, Sutherland's team described a possible chemical sequence - insight - in which a building block of life emerged, but not life itself.  

Nevertheless, a true believer, and despite his admission that his is only a related chemistry, Sutherland demonstrates his faith is firmly planted in his assumptions, based on speculation when he says:

 “It’s related chemistry,” Sutherland says. “That’s how it must have been in the very beginning — a series of fundamental reactions that could make all four types of RNA molecule.”

 Yeah, it MUST have been that way in the very beginning.

Sutherland's absolute faith in his own assumptions demonstrates he is just as committed to his religion as theists are to theirs. 

Is Faith Blind?

Is it possible to establish a foundation of certainty on which we can erect a belief structure that is not based on blind faith?

 

Yes, but one must begin with the most basic truth that is intuitively provable and undeniably certain discovered by the French philosopher René Descartes. It was Descartes  who said "I think, therefore, I am". We've all heard this famous quote, but, how many realize the significance of his statement?

 

Descartes proved the existence of self is impossible to doubt because the mere act of thinking about something - anything, regardless of its truth value - necessarily implies there must be something engaged in that activity, namely an “I.”  Even the act of self-doubt proves that something exists to doubt its own existence. And, since this conclusion derives not from sensory input nor does it depend on the reality of an external world, it serves as a self-evident truth, an axiom, from which other truths can be determined or inferred.

 

The existence of self, then, becomes the foundation of certainty on which a belief structure can be erected. 
 

Moreover, the certainty of my existence implies that at least one absolute truth exists. How do I know this? Because the statement, "Truth does not exist" is necessarily false since it does not agree with the fact (or the reality) of my existence.

 

If nothing else, for something to be true, it must agree with reality.

 

Moreover, when I consider other facts about reality:

• The world is round (even if I believe it is flat)
• 2+2=4 (even if I can't add)
• The planets in our solar system revolve around the sun (even if I don't exist)

several things about the nature of truth emerge. Namely:

• Truth is independent of belief
• Truth is universal (2+2=4 is the same for everyone)
• Truth exists even if I do not

Additionally, there's something else I've discovered about truth - it doesn't contradict itself. The claim, "There is no truth" will always be false because if it were true, the claim would be simultaneously false, and therefore, self-refuting.

 

Self-refuting statements are the most common error people make with logic.

 

Consider these additional truth claims that are self-refuting:

• All truth is relative (except this statement which is absolutely true)
• It's wrong to judge the moral beliefs and behaviors of others (except the moral judgment of this statement)
• Only that which is testable by science can be true (despite the fact this statement is not testable by science)
• I am lying now  (which, if true, means I'm not lying)

These statements reveal that truth must be self-consistent.

 

So, summarizing what I know about truth:

 

1. It exists.
2. It must correspond to reality
3. Must be self-consistent

4. Independent of belief
5. Universal
6. Absolute
7. Discoverable
8. Understandable

 

Equipped with this knowledge about the nature of truth an belief structure can be erected to answer questions like:

 

1. Does my existence have an origin?

2. Does my existence have meaning?

3. Does my existence have purpose?

 

Answering these questions leads to broader questions such as:

 

1. Does the Universe have an origin?

2. Does the Universe have a purpose?

3. Does God exist and, if so, how can I know him and what role does he play in human affairs, if any?

 

As we seek these answers we form beliefs. Beliefs are important because they shape our behavior, attitudes, and perceptions - even our identities. In fact, I argue they are intrinsic to the human mind because nobody is born knowing everything (omniscience) and since we don't belong to a collective mental hive (think Borg), our minds have no choice but to form hypotheses and assumptions about our experiences in our environment. We simply can't help it! Our brains seem hard-wired for making inferences!  

 

However, we should strive to develop a belief model that provides the most thorough explanation of the Universe based on the nature of truth as described above. Some aspects of this model will be based on certainty (like our self-existence) but the rest must be filled in by that which corresponds the closet to reality. In other words, the one which most throughly provides the answers to the questions I posed.

 

Thus, armed with the certainty of our existence and the knowledge of the nature of truth, it is indeed possible to erect a belief structure, a worldview, if you will, that is based not on blind faith, but on confident, cogent faith.

Scientific Integrity

I disagree with Nobel Prize winner James Watson who said, "“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.”

While I believe it is the duty of all scientifically educated people to promote and encourage the use of science as a valid means of investigating the natural universe. I also believe it is incumbent upon the same to remember the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method.

Failure to do so will promote science as an ideology - scientism - which I vehemently oppose.

Scientific theories are ultimately based on an inductive interpretation of a data model obtained through experimentation, and therefore, not based on certitude. To promote any scientific theory as fact, in other words, absolute, is not only intellectually dishonest, and a misunderstanding of the nature of science, but, it serves to promote deceitful dogma.

To use an analogy from Calculus, science is like the limit of a function in that experiments produce theories that become increasingly close to truth, but never quite reach it.

Consider:
lim f(e) = T
e->i
where e=experiment, i=infinity, T=Truth.

Thus, the above equation states that as e approaches i (an infinite number of experiments ) theories become increasingly closer to Truth.

Or, restated, over time, as knowledge of the physical universe increases through continued experimentation. our confidence in theories will strengthen but, they should never be considered as absolute.

So, here's the bottom line, promote scientific discoveries, yes, but never forget the scientific method is not a static, rigid model to uncover natural absolutes, but, a fluid, dynamic method of reasoning for approaching Truth.

Dr. James Watson would do well to remember that in my humble, opinion. I much prefer the comment made by Francis Bacon, "A little science estranges a man from God, a lot of science brings him back."

The Argument from Consciousness

I subscribe to an email newsletter that provides a daily vocabulary word with its meaning and usage. Monday's word was pneuma, a Greek word that means, breath, wind, or spirit. The word resonated with my recent research into the definition and origin of consciousness and lead me to formulate this initial effort into a metaphysical argument for God's existence (before anyone asks, yes, I've read the book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by psychologist Julian Jaynes).

Regarding consciousness or, synonymously, self-awareness, science has no compelling theory for its origins. In fact, brain research technologies like Neuroimaging and brain scans, have recently been criticized for inflating correlations between emotions and brain regions, and, while the neocortex may be considered the seat of consciousness, yet, its physical and, even, quantum properties reveal no attribute of consciousness - not even a hint!

In other words, the biological collection of neurons, axons and dendrites that comprise our cognitive structures may provide the mechanisms for consciousness, but they don't produce it.

Yet, mainstream scientists would have us believe that consciousness, somehow, spontaneously arose through natural selection despite no compelling experimental evidence to support it. Hmmm. That smacks of faith, does it not?

And, here's another thing. Human beings are not only conscious and self-aware, we are aware that we are conscious and self-aware. We have a sense of self, an I, a me, Nothing discovered by science explains our self-identity, yet, we all have one. Even attempting to deny it leads to a self-contradiction.

The truth is this: it's not science that discovers and defines consciousness, it's consciousness that discovers and defines science!

So, if science can not explain the origin of consciousness, what does?

Since we're dealing in faith, here, I propose the origin of consciousness and, subsequently, self-awareness results from an energy force we refer to as spirit, or in the Greek - pneuma.

Consider the brain is much like a printed circuit board (or motherboard) in a personal computer. While it contains all the components and circuitry for complex operations, yet, without the flow of electrical energy - the invisible force that energizes and brings "life" to the motherboard - the entire personal computer is no more than a boat anchor; lifeless and devoid of life, incapable of a single operation.

So it is with our brains. Without spirits to energize and utilize the brains circuitry, we are incapable of a single, consciously aware act. The spirit provides the conscious energy that produces self-awareness and self-identity. That's why scientists will never create a self-aware machine. We may create machines that are intelligent, maybe more so than us, but they will never possess consciousness and self-awareness, they will never have self-identities because we, their creator, are incapable of manufacturing spirits.

Only God - the Ultimate Source of Conscious Energy - is able to fabricate, and manufacture new spirits.

The Old Testament book of Genesis puts it like this: God formed and manufactured humans from the natural elements of the Earth. In this, our bodies share with other animals a common natural source. It wasn't until God - the Source of Spirits - breathed/pneuma (Hebrew: nshamah) into humans that we received our spirits and became living souls (see addendum below).

In summary, there's no indication the complex, physical mechanisms that make up our brain can produce a personality like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa. In fact, looking at it strictly from a natural perspective, it's seems foolhardy to do expect such. It's only when we allow the existence of a Spirit-Giver that consciousness and self-awareness make rational sense.

I invite your comments and rebuttals.

Addendum. The word soul is often used interchangeably with the word spirit. This hasn't always been the case. In ancient cultures, humans were considered to be composed of three distinct, but intimately connected parts: the physical (body), the soul (emotions, will and intellect) and spirit (life force).

Interestingly, demonic possession is the influence malevolent spirits exert on the soul and body, but not the spirit. This, however, is more properly the topic of another Filosophy Friday.