P2 The Universe had a beginning, a beginning made by God

Acts 17:24-27 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

Introduction:
Yesterday we began considering how the Apostle Paul argued for God being the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and how such a fundamental truth must be declared in our post-Christian culture. Our children and young people are being indoctrinated by a rival conception of the nature of reality and meaning of life: namely humanism undergirded by either atheism or influenced by Eastern thought. Both versions combine the idea of man being the measure of all things - an idea that was taught by Paul's opponents in Acts 17 (i.e the Epicureans and Stoics). This form of humanism will either deny the reality of God all together (i.e ancient Epicureanism and modern Atheism) or make God out to be an impersonal force that is mixed in with the material universe (i.e ancient Stoicism or modern Eastern Thought and "Star Wars"). 


The Millennium Falcon. Picture is from batman-news.com

Star Wars makes for great entertainment (yes I like Star Wars). However, the franchise obviously proceeds on the basis of non-Christian thought and can be used as a popular case study in how influential these two prevailing types of thinking describe our culture's view of spirituality. Think about for instance how much talk is given about "The Force" in Star Wars. Yoda's description of the force corresponds roughly to ancient Stoicism and alligns quite well with Eastern thought such as Buddhism. Then think about how this contrasts with the materialism of someone who denies the existence of any sort of God or deity (like the protagonist Hon Solo in Episodes 4,5,6). The so-called New Atheism that is being touted today would be a contemporary illustration of the ancient Epicureans encountered by Paul in Acts 17. 

Many people enjoy these films for their epic story lines, however whenever you consider how much they influence people who are not careful into believing the underlying philosophies, you then see how culture in general is operating today. 

Such an observation hopefully illustrates how Paul must had felt when he faced the philosophers on Mars Hill. For them, the idea of an All-powerful, Sovereign God who made all things would had been foreign to their way of thinking. Nonetheless, this foundational idea of God being the Almighty Creator is found in the opening verse of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 1:1 and nearly 60 other passages of scripture. 

Quick review of an argument for the beginning of the universe
We noted a short but powerful argument for the beginning of the universe:

Premise #1 Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Premise #2 The universe had a beginning

Therefore, the universe had a cause

This argument served to show that the universe did indeed begin a finite time ago. However, the cause of the universe is not specifically designated. As arguments for the existence of God typically operate, we use several together to build a cumulative case. Hence, today I will introoduce the reader to a second powerful argument that pinpoints why God and God Alone is the sole cause for the beginning of the universe.

A second argument for the beginning of the universe being made by God

Dr. William Lane Craig will often use a second argument in conjunction with the one above to establish the fact that God is the only explanation behind the beginning of the universe. The first argument aims to present the case for the universe having a beginning. However, a second argument is needed to discern who are what began the universe. 

The fact that we live in a universe that permits life - and intelligent life at that - has been the source of much conversation among scientists. When reading the literature, one runs across the idea of the "fine-tuning of the universe", which deals with explaining how all of the fundamental constants of the universe are "just right" for life. 

Several books written by prominent astronomers over the last 20 years have acknowledged this discussion. Many secular astronomers admit to there being an extradorinary narrow range of life-permitting values among the constants of nature - yet they try to avoid what is clearly a possibility of Intelligent Design behind such fine-tuning. 

Only three explanations can be given as to how intelligent life could exist in our universe, as expressed in the following argument developed by Dr. Craig:

Premise #1 The fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance, necessity or design

Premise #2 The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity

Therefore: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design

Three options are given for the origin of the fine-tuning of the universe that allows the possibility of life: chance, necessity or design. The probability of life being able to exist resulting from blind chance is so unlikely that one has a far better chance of winning the lottery (if one plays it of course). Chance has no power to cause anything, and thus is only a mathematical idea. 

When we speak of the second option of necessity, that refers to the universe having to be a certain way in order for the constants of nature to be finely-tuned for life. Yet constants such as gravity and the speed of light operate independently of the physical description of the universe. The universe could had been different than it is now, and yet the constants are what they are. 

So with the universe's life-permitting state being not due to chance or necessity, there is only one option left - Design. Unless God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, finely tuned the constants of nature to be what they are, there would be no life in our universe. Moreover, we would not be here to make the observations we make as intelligent beings unless an All-Powerful Super-intelligence had first made us and everything in the universe. 

Closing thoughts

As the Apostle Paul addressed the skeptics of his day - one of his main points was to show that indeed God is make of heaven and earth and everything in it. He proclaimed the fact that the universe had a beginning - a beginning made by God. We considered briefly two arguments that bring together reasons for why Christians can be confident that God created the heavens, the earth and life as we know it.  

P1 - The Universe had a beginning, a beginning made by God

Acts 17:24-27 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

Introduction:

The oldest question in human thought is: "why is there something, rather than nothing?" When we consider the universe and all of life, the question is: has the universe always existed, or did it have a beginning? The discussion the Apostle Paul had with the Greek Philosophers in Athens declares the first and most fundamental declaration of Biblical Christianity, as stated in the Nicene Creed: "I believe in God the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth". 

Atheists and skeptics have challenged the notion of the beginning of the universe by attempting to demonstrate it being eternal. In the opening statement of the 1980's epic documentary on the universe "Cosmos", the late author and Astronomer Carl Sagan states: "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."

When Paul states in Acts 17:25 "The God Who made the world and all things in it", his statement was to counter the particular philosophical schools subscribed to by his audience. Among the philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens were two reigning schools of thought: the Epicureans and the Stoics (see Acts 17:18). Philosopher Samuel Enoch Stumph writes in his book: "Philosophy, History and Problems", page 107, concerning the Epicureans view of creation: "In any case, human beings are not part of a created order caused or ruled by God but rather the accidental product of the collision of atoms."  Remarkably this ancient philosophical school corresponds to modern day forms of Atheism which contend that our material universe is all there there is to reality. 

Stumph then in the same book describes the second philosophical group encountered by Paul, the Stoics, wherein he writes on page 112: "The pivotal idea of Stoicism was the notion that God is in everything." This teaching of Stocisim would correspond roughly to Eastern religions or the worldview of Star Wars with its teaching of the "Force" permeating all of life. For the Apostle Paul, presenting a Personal, All-Powerful Creator who was distinct from the creation and Who was eternal with the creation having been begun by Him would have shocked the philosophers on Mars Hill.

When we think about our contemporary North American culture, both Atheism and forms of Eastern spirituality dominate book shelves and social media outlets. Both of these worldviews assert the eternality of the universe and the non-existence of an All-Powerful, Personal Creator. To acknowledge the beginning of the universe is not just a matter of theological declaration. It may surprise some that much scientific evidence supports the idea of a cosmic beginning. 

In contrast to many atheists who try to escape the implications of the beginning of the universe, the evidence and scripture assert this most fundamental of truths: the universe had a beginning, a beginning made by God.

A simple argument for the beginning of the universe

Dr. William Lane Craig is a world-renowned Christian apologist, theologian and philsopher who has made it his life work to develop a thorough understanding of demonstrating the beginning of the universe, with that beginning being initiated by God. In one of his arguments for God's existence, Dr. Craig offers the following simple argument: 

Premise #1 Anything that begins to exist, has a cause

Premise #2 The universe began to exist

Therefore: The universe had a cause

This startingly simple argument aims to argue that if the universe can be shown to have had a beginning, then there must had been a cause. Now what this argument doesn't address is the exact cause itself. Whatever opinion one may have of the prevailing Big Bang Theory, its widespread acceptance among the scientific establishment includes a feature that many secularists find uncomfortable - namely the the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Whether one advocates Big Bang cosmology or creationist theories about cosmic origins, the bigger picture of the universe having a definite beginning and not being eternal is the key thrust of this particular argument. By acknowledging the beginning of the universe, the contention of many atheists to assert an eternal universe ultimately has no scientific foundation. Moreover, the beginning of the universe also counteracts the viewpoints of Eastern thought. 

Certainly what Paul was advocating in Acts 17 to counteract the thought of His day can be used by Christians to assert the fundamental teaching of scripture that alligns with the evidence of science and canons of reason: namely, the universe had a beginning, a beginning made by God. 

Tomorrow we will consider a second argument that reinforces this first one by demonstrating how the cause of the universe is none other than God Himself. 

Why God's Kingdom is so radical: contemplating the 3 R's of the Kingdom

Matthew 4:23 "Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people."

Introduction

Yesterday we considered what is meant by the Bible's use of the phrase: "Gospel of the Kingdom". Jesus made this His central message in His earthly ministry. Unless we grasp what the Gospel of the Kingdom is all about, we will miss the heart of the New Testament. Undoubtedly as Jesus preached the "Kingdom of God", not everyone yielded to it. Overtime, Jesus gained far more enemies than followers. Why would anyone turn away from such good news that "The King has come and will come again"? I submit that if we consider what I call the "three r's" of the Kingdom, it will be plain why unbelieving man, apart from grace, rejects God's kingdom in favor of the kingdoms of this world. What is there about the Gospel of the Kingdom that unbelieving people and this world finds grounds for rejecting? Notice how the Kingdom of God functions in comparison to the world of unbelief...

1. Reversal of worldly thinking. 

"the first shall be last, and the last shall be first". Mt 20:16; Mt 19:30

By fallen nature, human beings are self-centered and ego-centric. The Kingdom is opposite. Jesus and the Kingdom advocates putting others first, and knowing God being foremost.

2. Rejects worldly priorities.

Matthew 19:16-26; Mk 10:31; Luke 14:16-24

What would be more important than taking care of newly purchased land? Caring for family? The Kingdom says these are secondary, and that whenever we seek Jesus and His righteousness, we will then know how to properly address the things of this world.

3. Renewal of people and things. 2 Cor 5:17 

The Kingdom of God proclaims that this current age will pass away and the "world to come" will replace it. Whenever the gift of salvation occurs, the old nature that was formerly curved inward and inclined toward sin is replaced by a "new nature" that is curved outward and inclined toward righteousness (Romans 8:1-5). The interior of the Christian is composed of the "spirit" which enhouses the Holy Spirit and thus is "saved". The soulish part of the Christian (mind, emotions,will) is the object of sanctification and is in the process of being saved or sanctified. We still retain these physical bodies, which retain the vestiages of sin, tugging at our soul, which though in contact with the Holy Spirit in the human spirit, nonetheless is also in contact with the world via the body. In as much as our spirit is saved and our soul is being saved, we look forward to the day when our bodies will be redeemed (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). 

The Kingdom's power to renew means that whatever is current will be done away with and whatever is yet to come will replace it. Though we as Christians are renewed from the inside/out, our identities as people remain. We look forward to the day when we dwell in an entire created order that is characterized by righteousness (1 Peter 3:13). 

Final thoughts
Whenever you consider the "3-r's", to the unbelieving mindset, such a radical set of alterations spells the end of reliance on self, rebellion against God and building a kingdom for oneself. Kingdom living is not just hard- but impossible. The worldly mindset (called the "flesh" or "carnal") cannot and will not accept this impending reality. Just as the night-time world eventually gives way to the encroaching sunrise, the fingers and grip of this present evil age are being threatened and will fall away upon the return of Jesus Christ. Personal conversion is only the beginning. Thanks be to God for the Holy Spirit Who makes entryway into the Kingdom possible by the miracle of regeneration in saving faith by the Word of God (John 3:3; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23). 

What is the Gospel of the Kingdom?

Matthew 4:23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

Introduction

What was the chief message Jesus taught in his earthly ministry? As Matthew's Gospel introduces the reader to Jesus' public life and ministry, the answer is simple: The Gospel of the Kingdom. This phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom" is understood best when we break it down into its constituent parts. The term "Gospel" means "goodnews". Second, the phrase "of the Kingdom" describes the contents of this goodnews. What follows is a further explanation of the contents and meaning of the idea of "the Kingdom" in the Bible. Three main senses can be identified in explaining the Biblical concept of the Kingdom - with the first two deriving from the Old Testament and the third deriving from Jesus and the New Testament. The first two senses will be brushed over quickly, since the third sense brought out by Jesus dominates the Gospels and the reaminder of the New Testament.

The three senses in which we can understand the Kingdom in the Bible
The term "Kingdom" itself denotes itself in three main senses. First, the "Kingdom" refers to the realm and reign of God over the earth currently and from eternity (Psalm 22:28; 45:6). Second, the kingdom of God is promised to manifest itself fully on the earth (Ezekiel 40-48; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). These first two senses speak respectively of a "past, eternal, invisible reign of God" and a "future, visible reign of God". This at least summarizes the Old Testament Jewish understanding of God's Kingdom. The third sense of which the Kingdom is spoken of in the Bible is the idea of an "already/not yet" phase of which Jesus introduces in His ministry and which is unfolded more below.

Early Christmas presents illustrate the Gospel of the Kingdom

To hear that the "Kingdom of God" was no longer just something invisible "up there" nor only a reality "yet to come" must had ignited excitement. Since the Kingdom of God is a reality taught in the Bible, a Kingdom necessarily implies a "King". That King, as we have already stated, was no less than God Himself. To hear that the Kingdom was arriving far sooner than expected, and that God Himself may very well be in the midst of the people was jarring - to say the least. This in effect was what Jesus was communicating. 

When we speak of the Gospel of the Kingdom, we are referring to what Bible teachers call "an already/not yet" phase. To illustrate, if I told my children I was getting them an early Christmas present, and that the first part of that present was going to be arriving tomorrow, could they truly say they have their Christmas present? In one sense "yes" and in another sense "not yet". Perhaps I give them the batteries or the wheels or whatever the first part may be. Those pieces or parts function as a guarantee and a promise of the remainder yet to come. 

A helpful phrase when talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom: "Already, not yet"

Jesus in effect was declaring to His audience that first and foremost, the King had come. He of course being the King, truly God in human flesh (John 1:14). Secondly, the Kingdom of God was in one respect as good as here already. However, the Jews of Jesus' day had to get ready to put on the corrective lenses of the New Covenant teaching of Jesus. They were expecting a fully manifested Kingdom. However, Jesus' point in His Kingdom teaching was "well, not yet, however, follow me by faith, and you'll get a foretaste". Theologian George Eldon Ladd describes the Kingdom of God through the life and ministry of Jesus as "inbreaking" into this present age. 

Thinking of the Gospel of the Kingdom as heavenly cake-batter

What would end up occuring would be the Kingdom's chief manifestation occuring in the hearts of believers in this current age. Christians are as it were what I liken to a child eating cake batter. As a child, I can recall my grandmother making cakes. I always hoped she had some left over batter in the bowl. As the cakes baked, I would sit at the table and lick the bowl and cake-beaters clean. I knew full-well that what I was tasting was not "cake" in the strictest sense. However, it was giving me an idea and in another sense, a foretaste of what would be the finished product. I got me excited because I knew that in a few hours, I'd be tasting the fully-finished cake with frosting and all the trimmings. As a child, that was "good-news" indeed. When Jesus proclaimed the Gospel of the Kingdom, He was setting the stage for what would be the central truth of Christianity - namely the King has come, and He will be coming again. 

The Christian's spiritual soul food

Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words were found and I ate them,And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts."

Introduction:

Before it was all said and done, Jeremiah would end up having the longest prophetic ministry of any prophet in the Bible. For over 50 years he warned the people of Jerusalem and Judah to mend their ways and get right with God. The King in Jerusalem and the court officials accused Jeremiah of treason and the people accused him of treachery. Jeremiah's situation was anything but comfortable. It was painful and he needed nourishment for his soul. How was it that Jeremiah was able to find comfort for his soul? In God's Word. Today's post briefly unpacks how God's word is the believer's true soul food. 

The Bible is the only true "soul food" for the believer

Truly it could be said that the Bible is the only soul food on the planet. Unlike any other book or any other food, the words of the Bible feed the soul and soothe the heart. Whenever Jeremiah speaks of "eating God's words", he is referring to meditating or thinking upon them. Jeremiah's comfort in life derived not from courting popularity - for there was none to be found. Neither did Jeremiah find comfort in his circumstances - since the nation he loved would be conquered and carried away into exile in Babylon. 

Overtime Jeremiah learned that his only sustenance in the spiritual famine of life were the words of God. Elsewhere other Biblical characters speak about this life-giving quality of the words of God being true food for the soul. Job for example refers to God's Word as being more precious than his "daily food" (Job 23:12). David expresses his hunger for God's word in Psalm 119:103 "How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" In the New Testament we find Peter saying to Jesus in response to a question raised by Jesus in John 6:67-69 "So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

As Christians, we need to daily take in the scripture to avoid spiritual malnutrition

Too often Christians attempt to carry on their daily Christian walk without taking the time to spend time in their Bibles. The late Dr. Adrian Rogers once said: "These two things has God ordained together that no man can part; dust on the Bible yields drought in the heart". We so often fill our souls with spiritual junk food, only to find ourselves unnecessarily weak and defenseless. Reading and meditating on the scripture requires dependence upon the Holy Spirit. In our flesh we are inclined to lean upon our own understanding rather than the words of God (see Romans 8:4-8). When we find ourselves not desiring God's word, that is when we need to ask the Holy Spirit to rekindle that desire.  The Spirit's main work entails making clear the contents of scripture (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-13). 

Whenever you and I neglect scripture, we will find ourselves neglecting other spiritual responsibilities. Soon, we will find ourselves going through the motions. We may look good for a period of time to most people while not even realizing that we are spiritually starved. This writer speaks not from anecdote but from personal experience. How much one takes in the scripture will determine how much godly living they live out in life. 

Closing thoughts

Only when we give ourselves regularly to the scriptures and meditate upon them will we then have power to fight the good fight of faith (see Ephesians 6:10-18; Hebrews 4:12). Moreover, by the scriptures is our faith quickened and our focus on Jesus rekindled as we walk out in obedience to the Lord (Romans 10:17; 12:1-2; Hebrews 12:1-2). May you and I take the time to read, meditate and apply the scriptures daily - the true "soul food" of the Christian. 

Why value, meaning and purpose is impossible without God

Isaiah 22:10-13 "Then you counted the houses of Jerusalem And tore down houses to fortify the wall. 11 And you made a reservoir between the two walls For the waters of the old pool. But you did not depend on Him who made it, Nor did you take into consideration Him who planned it long ago. 12 Therefore in that day the Lord God of hosts called you to weeping, to wailing, To shaving the head and to wearing sackcloth. 13 Instead, there is gaiety and gladness, Killing of cattle and slaughtering of sheep, Eating of meat and drinking of wine:
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die.”

1 Corinthians 15:30-34 "Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame."

The absurdity of life without God

What happens when people adopt a view of life that excludes God? In the two opening passages we see the attitude and the outcome. Though Isaiah and the Apostle Paul wrote over 700 years apart from one another, their observations concerning the absurdity of life without God are identical. The point of both passages is to show that if God did not exist, then the only alternative would be to "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

Now let's make something perfectly clear from both of these passages and thus from this post: I am not saying that lack of belief in God means that one cannot discover meaning, value and purpose in this life. Many atheists and people who claim to have no belief in God can be good parents and fine citizens. The issue at hand is not whether belief in God or lack thereof determines objective moral values and duties. Rather, the point these passages are making is that if God did not exist, there would be no meaning, value or purpose to discover in this life.  Afterall, on atheism, we should not expect to discover such values and duties, and yet atheists themselves will still champion causes for justice, tolerance and the value of human life, and yet such universal moral values are exactly what people know to be the case. 

The people in both these texts are living life as if there were no God. On their viewpoints (which would correspond to Atheism today), since there is no God nor God to regard, then there is no purpose, no value and no meaning to life. Worldviews that deny God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead have no basis for which to assert the value, meaning and purpose of human life. 

Authors such as the late Francis Shaeffer and theologian and philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig have illustrated how value, meaning and purpose are likened unto an upper story in a house, with man living in the lower story:

God

Meaning, Value, Purpose

--------------------------

Human beings

Since meaning, value and purpose are immaterial objective features of reality, this material realm (i.e our universe) could not possibly explain their role and function in our world. If we were to construct an argument as to why value, meaning and purpose are only possible with God, it would go something like this:

Premise #1: If God does not exist, meaning, value and purpose does not exist

Premise #2: Objective Meaning, value and purpose exist as part of our world

Therefore: God exists

Now its not too difficult to prove Premise #2 when you think about it. Whether someone believes the universe and life to have ultimate meaning (i.e significance) or not is to assign some sort of meaning. An atheist such as Richard Dawkins may claim in his book: "The God-delusion" that life is "pitiless indifference", while all the while railing against injustice. Physicist Steven Wienberg in his classic book: "The First Three Minutes" draws out implications from his reflections on the initial moments following the Big Bang. In his estimation, since the universe is all that exists, assigning meaning is pointless. However, Weinberg obviously doesn't consistently hold to such a notion, since he spent countless hours co-developing the scientific theory that explained the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces that netted him the Nobel Prize in physics in 1979. To say that the universe is without meaning is to assign a meaning to it!

The atheistic worldview is inconsistent and breaks down in the realm of livability and practical application.

When we speak of "value" in premise #2, we are referring to moral values and duties. Morality deals with right and wrong and duties deal with good or bad. Morality is the behavior of individuals that stems from ethical norms that transcend cultures. There is an objective right and wrong. Duties have to do with the obligation I have to perform what is right and wrong. The question we must raise is: "are moral values and duties immaterial, universal and abstract or are they material, personally subjective and concrete?" The atheist would try to argue the latter, with people like Sam Harris for instance asserting that moral values and duties arise from physical brain states and are measured by human well-being. Yet did moral values and duties exist prior to the existence of human beings? If not, then Harris' view of "good and evil" being defined by the level of human well-being does not escape the trap of morality being a matter of personal choice or society. People who murder may find doing such makes them feel good, and thus promote their own sense of human flourishing and well-being. Thus we find meaning and values cannot be grounded in this material realm.

What about purpose? Does the universe, life and humanity have a purpose? Just like the previous two observations, purpose is connected to meaning and value. If meaning and value are derived from outside our material universe, then purpose is as well? Why? Purpose is a value judgment. Again, on atheism there is no purpose to the universe, life and humanity. Athiests like the late athiest Bertand Russell will on the one hand assert that life has no purpose, while all the while producing volumes of philosophical writings declaring that in the end, we have no purpose to discover, and thus we need to bravely hold onto the despair of it all. But now even such a statement begs the question: "why even bother to be brave?" 

Therefore in reflecting on the philosophical and scientific evidence, we can see that even among foremost athiestic thinkers, the reality of objective meaning, value and purpose cannot be escaped. Even by asserting that there are no such things as value, meaning and purpose is to proclaim that there are indeed such features! Thus, premise #2 holds in the following argument:

Premise #1: If God does not exist, meaning, value and purpose does not exist

Premise #2: Objective Meaning, value and purpose exist as part of our world

When we consider how both premises together are logically airtight, the conclusion thus follows:

Therefore, God exists.

P2 How God is the explanation of the universe - Clarifications and Applications

Acts 17:17-19  "So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. 18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What wouldthis idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching iswhich you are proclaiming?"

Introduction:

In yesterday's post we considered how Christian apologetics utilizes logical arguments in demonstrating its truth claims. We further presented a classical argument for God's existence that aimed at establishing how God is the explanation of the universe. Today's post will take the time to tease out the argument and why the argument is practically relevant to you. 

A sample argument for how God is the explanation of the universe

With the idea of logical arguments explained, we can now consider a particular argument for God's existence that deals with how he is the explanation for the universe. Keeping in mind what we learned about what comprises a good sound, valid argument, we can offer the following argument as originally conceived by the 18th century mathematician G.W.F Leibniz:

Premise #1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

Premise #2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God

Premise #3: The universe exists

Premise #4: The universe has an explanation for its existence

Premise #5: The explanation for the universe is God

Therefore: God exists

Now let's look at this argument. Premise #3 is virtually without controversy, since almost no one would deny that the universe exists. Something as simple as looking up at the night sky can confirm this fact. so, premise #3 is the easiest premise to prove. Premises #1 & #2 are typically the most attacked premises. Concerning premise #1, athiests and skeptics will either say that the universe is simply "there" and has no need for explanation or that if God would exist, He Himself would need to have an explanation for His existence. The typical response to this first objection is to point out that God is a being Who must exist by necessity in any possible description of reality. The universe, however, does not have to exist, since it began a finite time ago. To say that the universe simply "popped into being" out of nothing doesn't make sense, and thus the universe needed to have a Cause that was greater and different than it and more importantly, possessing a Free Will and Personality. Thus concerning Premise #1, the objection leads us to reinforce, not reject, the truth of the claim: "Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, whether by necessity of its own nature (i.e God) or by an external cause (i.e something or Someone causing the universe). 

Premise #2 is typically objected by Atheists too, since it sounds like the argument is simply asserting that if the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation must be God. However, what the Atheist doesn't realize is that their own take on the universe is that on atheism, the universe has no explanation for its existence. The athiest will typically try to formulate their own response to premise #2: "If athiesm is true, then the universe has no explanation for its existence." Furthermore, in trying to assert this premise, the athiest is forming an argument that is logically equivalent to the original premise of the universe having an explanation for its existence, and that explanation being God. Either both premises will be true or false, but one cannot be true and the other false, nor vice-versa. To say that the universe doesn't have an explanation is in fact an explanation! There are other points that could be brought out to demonstrate why the athiest objection won't hold water, but for now we can rest sufficiently in the soundness of premises #1-2, which state again:

Premise #1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

Premise #2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God

Premise #3, as we've already noted, is virtually without question: "The universe exists

With premises #1-#3 established, the fourth premise then states: "The universe has an explanation for its existence", with premise #5 reading: "The explanation for the universe is God". Without going into further detailed explanation, if the reader considers how we worked through the first three premises, premise #4 logically progresses from those first three and premise #5 serves to clarify everything argued for and demonstrated in premises #1-#4.

Therefore, with premises#1-#5 demonstrated to be true and valid, the conclusion naturally follows: "Therefore, God exists". 

So why does this matter to you?

When we consider the above argument for God's existence, why does it matter? With God being the explanation for the universe, that means He is also the explanation for life and humanity. Humanity's quest for significance (i.e meaning); morality (i.e values) and goal for living (i.e purpose) must have a grounding in one of two things: either the universe or God. People who believe that they determine meaning, values and purpose or that the universe has somehow programmed people to desire such have opted for grounding the explanation for everything in the universe. But as we've already observed, the universe exists not because it has to, but because it was caused by God who by nature must exist. God is therefore the proper ground for understanding meaning, value and purpose. As the Apostle Paul will aim to argue, unless one's apologetic leads the listener from the existence of God to the Person and work of Jesus, the apologetic task will not be achieved. Thus, this is why the idea of "God being the explanation of the universe" is so practical and true.