The Word

In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth." I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.
~ Neil Postman

Good God!

In my previous post, What is a Christian?, I wrote that Christians believe in a perfectly good and loving God, who rewards those who seek Him. The basis of this belief is the Bible, in verses such as Hebrews 11:6,

...whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

The idea of a maximally good God has also been fleshed out by Christian theologians and philosophers in the Ontological Argument. Anselm's Ontological arguments entail that it is a logical contradiction for a Perfect Being to exist only in the human mind, and that a Perfect Being exists necessarily. I will not argue for either of those philosophical claims here, but anyone who wants to know what I am referring to can refer to my earlier posts A Perfect Being 1 and A Perfect Being 2. For an even better explanation of Anselm's Ontological Arguments, read Douglas Groothuis's Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

Here I want to rebut some of objections non-Christians raise to the goodness of God.

The most common objection to God's goodness is the problem of evil. Skeptics throughout the ages have looked at the evil in the world and reasoned that if a loving and good God exists, He is either unable to do anything about evil, or He is able to vanquish evil but does not, so He cannot be perfectly good or loving.

This paradox is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If there is a God, according to this kind of reasoning, He cannot be the omnibenevolent, omnipotent God of the Bible. Some skeptics go so far as to rule the existence of God out entirely based on the existence of evil. But why should we think that evil disproves God's existence?

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.

~ Dr. William Lane Craig

I have pointed out that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing in convsersations with non-Christians. Without exception, none of them has even attempted to prove it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. They simply continue to baldly assert that because evil exists, God cannot exist. Maybe there is a rebuttal to Dr. Craig's objection out there somewhere, but if so I have yet to hear it. According to the skeptics, if the God of the Bible really existed, the universe would be a magical domain full of sugar, rainbows, and unicorns, and nothing bad would happen to anyone. Ever. Not even once.

Earlier today, a skeptical friend of mine on Facebook posted this meme:

This is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where one should even begin in criticizing it. There is absolutely no indication in the text of Job that God was concerned with impressing Satan. It is true that God allows Satan to steal Job's health and wealth, but God does not pick Job to be afflicted. He simply points out to Satan that Job is godly and upright, and Satan asks permission to attack Job in order to prove that Job only serves God because God has blessed him. Also, Job does not meekly ask why He has been afflicted--He outright accuses God attacking him in order to kill him!

Terrors are turned upon me;
    my honor is pursued as by the wind,
    and my prosperity has passed away like a cloud.

 And now my soul is poured out within me;
    days of affliction have taken hold of me.
 The night racks my bones,
    and the pain that gnaws me takes no rest.
 With great force my garment is disfigured;
    it binds me about like the collar of my tunic.
 God has cast me into the mire,
    and I have become like dust and ashes.
 I cry to you for help and you do not answer me;
    I stand, and you only look at me.
 You have turned cruel to me;
    with the might of your hand you persecute me.
 You lift me up on the wind; you make me ride on it,
    and you toss me about in the roar of the storm.
 For I know that you will bring me to death
    and to the house appointed for all living.

~ Job 30:15-23, ESV

God does not berate Job for not being omnipotent, but for talking about things he could never possibly understand. God does not only restore Job's wealth, but gives him twice what he had. But that is not good enough for the skeptic because God did not raise Job's first children from the dead--He only gave Job new children! Apparently, even if God deals with evil--as He clearly did with Job--it is insufficient because evil was allowed at all. Nothing short of a problem and pain free paradise will do.

Of course, the author of the meme even attempt to prove that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing Satan to assault Job. It is simply assumed that He cannot have a good reason for allowing evil, on the basis of no facts or arguments whatsoever. I encourage my readers to read the book of Job for themselves if they want to know what it is about. Reading a good commentary would not hurt either. At any rate, we ought not be basing our theological views on internet memes.

These sort of objections are often raised by atheists, but the logical problem of evil is not even a valid option for the atheist. If there is such a thing as evil, there must be such a thing as good, and there must be such a thing as a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. Where did this moral law come from? Let's say for the sake of argument that it is something that evolved in humans as a sort of survival advantage. In that case, morality is not based on anything objective or factually true, but on a continually evolving code of ethics based on survivability, not truth. In the words of the famous atheist Richard Dawkins,

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

 

The best explanation for morality, if it is an objective, real thing, is that it came from a transcendent lawgiver--such as God. One can either have God and real evil, or one can have no God and things that happen that one simply dislikes and calls evil. In a godless world, what we call evil cannot actually be so in a factual sense. If atheism is true, everything can be reduced to meaningless waves and particles. Nothing good or bad, right or wrong happens; it is all simply molecules in motion.

But if the problem of evil is a real problem at all, it is a problem for everyone: Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else. But who has the best answer to the problem of evil?

I believe that Christians have the best explanation of evil, and the best answer to it.

God created the world, and called it good. He created humans and called them very good. A perfect God created a good world that was free of evil, but gave humans free will wich allowed for the possibility of evil.

Man chose, and continues to choose evil. That is the explanation of evil.

The wages of sin is death, but God did not want to simply destroy His corrupted creation without a fight.

God Himself took on human form in the Person of Jesus Christ. He was tempted with sin, just like any other man, and He lived a sinless life. He was crucified by sinful men. What they did not realize is that God allowed this evil to happen in order to offer a sinless sacrifice for the sins of all humans. He bore the wages of sin in our place by suffering dying on the cross. On the third day He rose from the dead, victorious over sin and death. He ascended to heavan and will one day return to judge everyone according to what they have done and completely destroy evil. Jesus Christ is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. He is the God who suffered with us, and rescued us from evil.

Everyone who places trust in Him and serves Him as their Lord will receive eternal life.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

~ Romans 10:9-13

 

He is a good God, and He rewards those who seek Him. Everyone who believes and calls on Him will be saved. Call on Him today!

God has taken care of evil, the defeat of which will be consumated at His return. But what if we didn't have the historical record of miracles and other stories pointing to God's goodness in the Bible? The skeptic would still have to deal with the "problem of good--things in the world that suggest His goodness. By focusing on evil, the skeptic forgets about all the good things in the world. For instance, they would still have to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity and specificity that suggest the universe had an intelligent Designer. They have to deal with the existence of love, beauty, pleasure, and all the other good things in the world.

Evil certainly exists in the world, but why should we believe disproves the existence of God? Can we prove a good God exists on the basis of good? The truth is we cannot use goodness alone to prove He exists, any more than we can use the problem of evil alone to prove His nonexistence. The problem of evil fails to take things other than evil into account. It is a soundbite sort of objection to God. The world is much more complicated than the problem of evil argument suggests. The skeptic who argues that evil disproves God's existence has jumped the gun, and has failed take into account the whole scope of reality. If the skeptic is genuinely seeking for God, the problem of evil alone cannot stop his/her quest for truth. God cannot be disproved that easily.

The Apostle Paul pointed out that the skeptic is without excuse in the face of the clear evidential support for God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1:18-22, ESV

The problem of evil cannot be ignored, but at the same time we need to take all of reality into account. The skeptic needs to account for good as well as evil, and should not casually discount God's existence simply because evil exists. If the skeptic believes real evil exists in the world, he/she must account for the standard by which good and evil are judged. If such a standard exists, it must come from a transcendent Lawgiver. This should lead the skeptic to seek the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver has plainly shown His eternal power and nature, which is love, in His creation. He has further revealed Himself in the Bible. The skeptic should consider all the evidence, not just the problem of evil.

If more skeptics truly sought out God, they would receive their reward. The other side of the coin is that too many Christians are failures at presenting the evidence for God. While it may be true that God has already plainly revealed Himself apart from His church, He has still given all believers the the priveledge and responsiblity to proclaim the gospel to all the world, make disciples of all nations, and teach them what Jesus taught. If more Christians learned to present the evidence in a compelling manner, more skeptics would be inclined to seek God and receive their reward. Christians must learn to explain and defend the good news that God exists, and He rewards seekers. There is a rational, evidential basis for the Christian faith. Christians need to learn it through and through so they can proclaim it and contend for it.

In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that too many Christians (at least in my neck of the woods), also focus too much on evil to the exclusion of other important facts of reality. In addition to being able to explain and defend the gospel, Christians ought to live as if they actually believed the gospel! While on one hand we cannot ignore evil--abortion, all kinds of sexual immorality (including homosexuality), the decline of the Church in the West, the rise of secular humanism, the rise of Islam, the glorification of sin in the media, etc.--on the other hand we cannot live in despair. Too many sermons and teachings focus on all the things that are wrong with the world. If we believe in the good God of the Bible, and we believe that the Bible is God's Word, let's live as if we actually believe it! Let me preach a little to my fellow Believers.

Jesus said, before He gave the Great Commission,

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

~Matthew 28:18

He told His disciples,

Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

~Luke 10:19

The Apostle Paul wrote,

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

~1 Corinthians 15:57

and,

God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

~Ephesians 2:4-7

and,

For in [Jesus Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

~Colossians 2:9-15

 

Christians, you walk in victory through Jesus Christ! I am convinced that if Christians began to pray the prayer of faith, walk the walk of faith, and proclaim the good news in faith, the God who exists would reward His seekers by using them to bring new souls into the kingdom. God wants to use His people to minimize the problem of evil. This post has turned into more of a rant than I originally intended, so I will end it here. Christians, we serve a good God, and never forget that through Him we always walk in victory!

The Creator

Last week the first essential Christian doctrine I listed was belief in a theistic God.

Some of you may be wondering why it must be a theistic God. Some of you may be wondering what a theistic God is. There are essentially three views on God:

1) Atheism - there is no God
2) Pantheism - the universe is God
3) Theism - God created the universe

Some of my readers may not be familiar with the term theism, but it is not hard to understand. Even if you did not know what a theistic God was prior to reading this blog, if you profess to be a Christian, chances are you believe in a theistic God. That is, you believe that God created all things visible and invisible, and God transcends and is separate from His creation. This is the clear teaching of the Bible from the start.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
~Genesis 1:1, ESV

Not only should you believe in a theistic Creator God if you are a Christian, but you ought to believe in a theistic God on the basis of evidence. As we observe the natural world around us, we might naturally wonder how it all got here. We might even ask ourselves,

Why should there be something rather than nothing?

~Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz

This is just the sort of question that naturally occurs to children, but which we suppress as adults. I think this is unfortunate. However, if we free our minds to question and wonder in awe at the universe, as we did when we were children, we might find the answers that so many people have told us are not really there. This may be part of the reason Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3, ESV).

One thing we've observed about the universe is that things have a beginning and an end, and don't begin to exist without a cause. We have good evidence that the universe itself had a definite beginning in the finite past, and therefore something must have caused it to spring into existence. As William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Alexander Krauss,

There are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically, to doubt that the universe is beginningless. Philosophically, the idea of an eternal past seems absurd. Just think about it! If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the series of past events goes back to infinity, that the number of events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split-second of the universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have evolved—which some scientific popularizations have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have a beginning.

Speculative theories, such as Pre-Big Bang Inflationary scenarios, have been crafted to try to avoid this absolute beginning. But none of these theories has succeeded in restoring an eternal past. At most they just push the beginning back a step. But then the question inevitable arises: Why did the universe come into being? What brought the vacuum state into existence?

Well, unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe. Clearly, then, God’s existence is more probable given the beginning of the universe than it would have been without it.

For quite a while, we've had philosophical and mathematical reasons to doubt that the universe is eternal. Now that we have the scientific evidence for the Big Bang origin of the universe, the idea that the universe began to exist in the past is practically indisputable.

Since the universe is clearly not eternal, we must conclude that it either popped into being out of nothing, or something outside the universe--outside space, time, and matter--caused it to exist. According to the Standard Big Bang Theory, before the universe exploded into being nothing physical existed. By nothing I mean no thing. There was no space, time, or matter at all. As Dr. Craig pointed out, "...unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe." Surprisingly, I have encountered some atheists who are willing to bite the bullet and say that the universe came uncaused from nothing.

If you are the sort of person that is willing to believe such an absurd notion, just stop reading this blog now because now amount of persuasion or logic can convince you.

For the rest of you that are open-minded seekers of truth, allow me to explain what the cause of the universe must be like.

It must be spaceless, because it created space.

It must be timeless, because it created time.

It must be immaterial, because it created matter.

It must be powerful, because it created from nothing.

It must be personal, because it chose to create the universe and impersonal forces cannot choose anything.

It must be intelligent, because the universe is precisely fine-tuned.

 Remember, this description is based on what we know about the origin of the universe by scientific observation. It is not a "God of the gaps" argument, because it is not an argument from ignorance. A supernatural, intelligent, powerful, personal being sounds an awful lot like the God of the Bible to me--although, it could also pass as the God of Qur'an. We will have to turn to other lines of evidence to arrive at the existence of the Christian God, but this is a good start. As far as we can tell, the evidence points to a theistic God. That means that God exists, so atheism cannot be true. It also shows that the universe is something He transcends and created. He is not identical with the universe so pantheism cannot be true. This leaves us with the theistic Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The evidence does not end here, and in its totality points to Christianity, but that is for other arguments in other posts to demonstrate.

In conclusion, anyone who bases their belief in God on the evidence will also believe in a theistic God.. In addition, anyone identifying themselves as followers of Jesus Christ should believe in a theistic God who created the universe because the that is what the Bible clearly teaches, and the Bible is the ultimate source of Christian doctrine. In this area, evidence is clearly on the side of the Bible, which is what we should expect if the same God who created the univserse inspired the Scripture.

What is a Christian?

What is a Christian? What separates Christianity from other faiths; what is Christian orthodoxy; what is heresy?

It is important that we know what doctrines are essential to the Christian faith. There is a lot of in-fighting on secondary issues--too much, in fact. In my personal observation, Christians fight bitterly over non-essential beliefs. At the same time, too many Christians either intentionally depart from orthodoxy, or are simply ignorant as to what Christianity actually is.

I think it is important that we clearly define the essentials, lest we get to the point where Christianity can be defined any way we please. That seems to be the case already for many people. Here are the essentials of Christianity as I see it. Some will say I've left some things out; others will say my definition is too narrow. The purpose of this post is not so much to argue for the Christian view as to define it. This is just a brief snapshot of Christian orthodoxy. I will go more in depth in future posts.

First of all, Christians believe that God exists. More specifically, Christians believe in a theistic God who created the universe from nothing, and transcends His creation. Christians do not believe in a pantheistic god who is identical with the universe, or a panentheistic god who is somehow "in" all His creation. Christians believe in a perfectly good and loving God, who rewards those who seek Him.

Second of all, Christians believe in a triune God who is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Third, Christians believe in Jesus Christ. That is, they do not simply believe He existed as a historical figure, but is God in the flesh, the Son, who was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit in a virgin named Mary. He is truly God and truly man--not a demigod, not just divine, and not just human. His primary mission was to die sacrificially as an offering for the sin of all humanity, and He was able to do this because He lived a sinless life. He was crucified, buried, and rose again on the third day.After His resurrection He ascended to the right hand of the Father and will return one day in glory to judge all people vanquish evil once and for all.

Fourth, Christians believe salvation is by the grace of God alone, received by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Christians believe that forgiveness of sin cannot be earned by good deeds, but can only be removed by God's unmerited favor, called grace. Grace is received freely by those who trust in Jesus Christ, because He died sacrificially on our behalf and rose from the dead. This trust in Jesus is called faith. No other person in history could have served as an unblemished sacrifice for human sin, so salvation is through Him only.

Fifth, Christians believe that the Bible is a reliable source of revelation from God. I do not say it is essential that all Christians believe the Bible is inerrant (although personally, I do believe it is). However, if a professing Christian believes the Bible is not even generally reliable, one would wonder on what basis such a "Christian" would believe other essential Christian doctrines?

Any deviation from these essentials is a deviation from Christianity. I do not say that deviations from orthodoxy necessarily bar anyone from salvation. The basis of salvation is faith in Jesus, not particular doctrines about Him. However, heterodoxy may be an indication that one has placed faith in something other than the Christian God--an idol.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. - 1 Timothy 4:16

As I said, I am not going to argue for the truth of these classical Christian doctrines here, but I will will argue for each of them in later posts.

Has Science Destroyed the Need for God?

In most of my blog posts, I usually think an issue through fairly thoroughly, and study hard the ideas I blog about before even publishing a post. This will not be one of those posts. This post will most likely be a somewhat discombobulated collection of thoughts on the relationship between science, science fiction, and religion. It may have the inkling of some conclusion, but my main purpose at this point is to simply get these thoughts out of my system.

I have been watching reruns of the sci-fi cult classic Firefly today. Firefly is set in a distant future universe in which humans have used a process called terraforming to colonize formerly uninhabitable planets and moons. As I enjoyed the science fiction of the show, I began to wonder how plausible terra forming might be in science fact.

This lead further to a Google search of terraforming, and then a search on Amazon for books on the subject. As it turns out, some serious thinking has been done on the concept of terraforming Mars and Venus (and probably the moon, but I didn't find any literature about terraforming that particular celestial body). On a more terrestrial scale, a strong movement in favor of seasteading has emerged in recent years to colonize the earth's oceans.

The primary motivation for seasteading is freedom from the taxes and laws of strong, centralized governments (the Serenity, spaceship of Capt. Malcolm Reynolds and crew on Firefly, serves much the same purpose). The primary motivation for terraforming is the fear that one day humans will exhaust the resources of our home planet. Whatever the motivation for making the inhabitable habitable, new worlds and the possibility of new rules and new ways of living is exciting. This is one of the things that made Firefly so entertaining.

Science has given modern humanity access to myriad new worlds and ideas. This has led some to reject old ways of living and seeing the world. The Christian worldview that gave rise to modern science is now mocked as arising from tribal, bronze age myths. But is this justified? Have we evolved beyond the need for a supernatural God, Christian or heathen? Has science proven religion to be an outmoded superstition? Has scientific fact shown that the supernatural is only mythical? Can we actually burst the bonds of faith, or cast away the chords of a transcendent Creator and Lawgiver?

I think not. Not even close.

If the natural world is all there is, there is no reason to think that any one thing is greater than any other thing. Yet, everyone persists that somethings are important, and some actions are better than others. Oh, there are certainly some who give lip service to nihilism, but none if those people actually live as if there were no good or bad, right or wrong. For the seasteaders, is freedom really better, or is it just their personal preference? If there is no inherent worth in the continuing survival of the human race, why bother with terraforming?

If we have causes or moral standards they are real or they or not. Unless, and until, humans are prepared to give up completely on any notion of moral duties (right and wrong) or moral values (good and bad), then we can never be rid of God.

I do not believe this will ever happen. We know intuitively that some things are true, and some are not--even if we cannot agree on what is true. We know intuitively that some things are beautiful, and some things are ugly--even if we disagree on what is beautiful. We know intuitively that some things are good and some things are bad--even if we disagree on the value of things. We know intuitively that some things are right and some things are wrong--even if we disagree about the details of a moral standard. We know intuitively that freedom is greater than tyranny. We know intuitively that life is better than death.

1. If God does not exist, then moral duties and values do not exist.
2. Moral duties and values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Contrary to what some scientists and sci-fi authors have concluded, we cannot evolve beyond our need for God. Science needs truth, and truth must transcend us. We cannot run far enough to escape from God in the ocean, or on Mars, or in the science lab. Nor do most people really want to, if it means abandoning truth, beauty, meaning, or morality. As I warned at the top of the post, these are just some random musings, but I hope I've got my readers thinking. At the very least I've gotten these thoughts out of my system.

Live From the Foxhole

The Foxhole Evangelist blog title is turning out to be prophetic. Not that I'm fighting against anybody, but I am wrestling against ideas. I am not out to defeat any person, only false ideas.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. ~ Ephesians 6:12

After posting links to this blog on Twitter and Facebook, a lively debate is going on in the GOD group on Facebook. Thankfully, my opponents also seem to see this as a battle of ideas rather than a battle between people, and have been respectful rather than hateful. In this post I am responding to some of the objections raised to my introductory post. Anyone who wants to see the whole thread can go here.

The objections I address here deal with the justice of God punishing sinners in an eternal hell, and to the idea of free will.

I think you’re missing about eleven million steps of reasoning in between ‘doesn’t believe in the existence of one particular interpretation of one particular deity’ and ‘deserves to suffer for all eternity.’ ~ Andrew Magee

Jared, I second Andrew’s point about the gargantuan jump in reasoning between not believing in one ‘particular deity’ and deserving to suffer for all eternity.’ ~ Steve Curless

I would say that we know enough to choose God or not. God has given sufficient (but not exhaustive) revelation so that if we seek Him we can find Him. Revelation leads to knowledge, which leads faith and to God Himself, which leads to obedience. We are ultimately judged by whether we obeyed God or not. As the Creator and Designer of the universe, if God created humans for a particular purpose, and they fail to fulfill that purpose, then God is “just” or “right” or “correct” to deal with those that refuse His purposes by removing them from His presence and His perfect world (a new heavens and a new earth completely free of evil). Since they have chosen separation from him, they get what they want (or at least what they think they want).

Believe it or not, I think your objection has some merit. The typical evangelical view is that a minority of people will be saved who hear an evangelical Christian preaching from the Bible, and receive the gospel message by faith. I disagree with several points of this view. To begin with, nowhere does the Bible actually teach that justification is by faith alone and nowhere in the Bible does it say that correct doctrine can save anyone. I know this runs contrary to what most evangelical Christians believe, however James 2:19-26 makes it clear that justification is not by faith alone:

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Faith alone is not enough; even the demons believe in God. God judges us based on what we do, which is an indication of what we believe. Even Paul (who is normally credited with “salvation by faith alone”) agrees. In Romans 2:6-11 he wrote,  

He will render each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

In every account of the judgment, people will be judged based on what they did or did not do (see Matthew 25 or Revelation 20:11-15 for examples). Rather than promoting salvation by faith apart from works, Paul taught that good works were the natural result of faith (though he vehemently denied works alone can save anyone). That is why he insisted that, “The righteous shall LIVE by faith,” not that they shall merely believe in Jesus, and therefore be saved. When Paul wrote of justification by faith, it was shorthand for faith leading to obedient good works (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

Paul emphasized faith as a prerequisite to the obedient works God requires. In essence, Paul was highlighting that works without faith are dead, and James was highlighting that faith without works are dead. Works can never earn God’s favor, but God certainly cares about what we do. In the case of the person who is justified by faith and works, works are the result of the transformation of God in the individual in response to faith. Christ in us is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). The fire of God burns within the believer, and the smoke of obedience naturally follows. God ultimately only accepts those who know Him and obey Him (see Matthew 7:21-23).

Moreover, I notice that you didn’t answer my question about what hell is like. But am I correct in assuming that you think it’s a horribly unpleasant place or condition and could justify this understanding with scripture? If so, please tell me how any culpably SANE soul would ‘choose’ to endure this horrible unpleasantness forever and ever and ever. And if it isn’t chosen, how is it NOT ‘forced’? ~ Steve Curless

Your assumption is correct, although I couldn’t say specifically how hell is a “horribly unpleasant place or condition.” The scriptures that describe hell seem to be symbolic, which makes sense because it is not accessible until after biological death and therefore cannot be anything we can know about exhaustively. Jesus describes hell in parables as a place of “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12) and “eternal fire” (Matthew 18:8). Obviously, fire and darkness are mutually exclusive, and since He uses these descriptions in parables we can safely assume these descriptions are symbolic of torment beyond what we currently understand.

Which leads us right into your next objection that a sane soul would never choose such conditions. To clarify my position, of course I do not believe anyone would purposely choose eternal torment. They either choose to ignore or reject the revelation of God. None of us debating this topic on Facebook have an excuse. We have access to God’s revelation. Paul affirmed this in his letter to the Romans. Romans 1:18-20 says that,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

He reiterates this in Romans 10:9-13,

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Unfortunately, most Christians are content to stop there. So far, Paul has preached that faith in Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation (keeping in mind that for Paul salvation by faith is shorthand for faith leading to good works). What about Native American tribes and other remote ethnic groups and people who never had a chance to hear the gospel message preached from the Bible by a Christian evangelist?

Paul continues in verses 14-17,

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes through hearing and hearing through the word of Christ.

Unfortunately, most Christians stop to early at this verse, assume the “word of Christ” (or the “word of God” in the King James Version) must mean the Bible only. This would mean eternal damnation for anyone who does not have access to the Bible, since faith comes by hearing… the Bible alone. This interpretation is premature, and obviously conflicts with Paul’s words in chapter 1 that state that we have no excuse because God’s nature and attributes are plainly revealed in the material universe.

But pay attention to what Paul says in verses 18:

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'

Paul is alluding to Psalm 19, which says,

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

“Their” refers to the sky (“heaven” in the context of Psalm 19 is synonymous with the natural sky, as opposed to the spiritual abode of God). The sun, the stars, the moon, and the clouds “reveal knowledge” and their voice “goes out through all the earth.” I am not referring to some mystical communication either. When we see the apparently designed natural world, the most obvious conclusion is that an intelligent agent created the universe (although I’ll leave it at that since it is an entirely different topic).

God has also revealed Himself by writing his eternal, transcendent moral law on our hearts. Although there is some disagreement on some moral standards due to the noetic affects of sin, most people generally agree as to what it is. Every human society believes that lying, stealing, murder, and so on, is immoral. Despite confusion about morality, we tend to know it better by our reactions than our actions. That is, sometimes we do something we think may be right but are not 100% certain, and we may question whether what we did was right. For example, after handing an apparently homeless bum a $5 bill, we may later read an article about people with nice homes who make their living panhandling and wonder whether we did the right thing. But if a homeless bum robs us of a $5 there is no doubt in our minds that the homeless bum did something immoral. Paul affirmed that the moral law is written on our hearts in Romans 2:12-16,

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. The show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So all sinners will be judged guilty for their actions, whether or not they had a Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, because the law is written on all our hearts.

In addition to general revelation and intuitive moral knowledge we have the Bible, but everyone has access to general revelation and moral knowledge and they are enough. As Leonard Ravenhill used to preach, “Sodom had no Bible.” They were judged based on what they did with the revelation they had access to. This is the same standard that all people will be judged according to. While I am not an inclusivist, I do believe salvation will be more inclusive than the typical evangelical Protestant vision of only a “righteous remnant” being saved while the majority of people go to hell. This view is generally based on Matthew 7:13-14,

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

However, I think Luke’s more thorough record gives more hope. In Luke 13:23, someone asks Jesus directly, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” First Jesus says, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able” (Luke 13:24). In verses 25-30 Jesus warns of a time in the future when “the master of the house” will “shut the door.” Once this happens, those left outside will plead, “‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’” The outsiders will say, “We ate and drank in your presence, and YOU TAUGHT IN OUR STREETS.” It seems to me that Jesus is speaking directly to and about the Jewish people at that particular time and place. In that case, He is not saying that only a few of mankind in general will be locked out, but only a few of His Jewish contemporaries living at that time, first century Roman occupied Palestine. “But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’” (there’s that emphasis on being judged according to our deeds again). He ends the parable in Luke by saying,

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.

Most of the Jewish people of Jesus’ own time rejected the gospel in spite of the fact that they had the greatest access to God’s revelation at that time. Such people will be judged accordingly. It was not a particular doctrine that they rejected, but God incarnate. Doctrine is important as a guide to God, but in and of itself it cannot save. Only God can save. You may have noticed that those included in the kingdom of God include the Patriarchs (who did not have a Bible) and people “from the east and west, and from the north and south” of national Israel. “Some who are last [Gentiles] will be first, and some who are first [Jews of Jesus’ time on earth] will be last.” In the visions of Revelation, John saw,

…a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in the hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ ~ Revelation 7:9-10

Passages like this give me hope that the majority of people will be saved. Jesus doesn’t specifically address the question, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” Instead, He advises the people to “Strive to enter through the narrow door,” and that all sorts of people they thought could not be saved will come from the four corners of the globe to dine in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. John the Revelator sees a vast multitude that is impossible to count from every ethnic group God created. Romans 10:11, 13 says, “EVERYONE who believes in him will not be put to shame,” and “EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” While the Bible never specifies whether the majority of humanity will be saved or damned, passages like these give us hope that many, not few people will be saved.

So in conclusion, God has plainly revealed Himself in the natural universe, in our inborn knowledge of the moral law, and in the Bible. Some ignore God’s revelation, some actively reject it, and some receive it. The knowledge of God leads to faith and to God Himself, and we all have access to that knowledge in God’s revelation. Faith in Jesus leads to God and to holy living (although not perfectly sinless living in this world; however, Christians ought to become better people over time culminating in complete transformation at Christ’s return). Finally, God “will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” How do we know who the real seekers are? “Seek, and you will find.”

The genuine seekers all find their way to Jesus. They either choose Him or not. To choose Him is to find Him, and to reject Him is to choose eternal separation from Him. No one actively chooses the eternal torment; that seems to be the natural consequence of eternal separation from God. They can know enough from provided revelation to choose God and avoid hell, but some reject God out of willful ignorance, and some reject God outright. To more directly address your objection, salvation will not depend on a “particular interpretation” but it will depend on a “particular deity.” It cannot help depending on a “particular deity,” because He is the only one who actually exists. Also, while the “particular interpretation” cannot save us, it might be a reliable indicator of whether we know the “particular deity” that exists in reality and saves sinners from just punishment, or are actually serving an usless idol.

God has plainly revealed Himself. Some suppress the truth about God by ignoring it or opposing it. Others trust in the revelation God has provided them and receive Him. Those people are transformed by God and obey Him. He judges all in the end based on whether they obeyed Him or rejected Him. He made humans with a particular purpose in mind. Just as an employer justly fires an employee who does not fulfill the purpose he was hired for, God justly casts those who refuse His purposes into a lake of fire. Just as a government justly punishes lawbreakers, God justly punishes lawbreakers. The difference is employers and governments are temporal and only deal out temporal punishment. God is eternal and deals out eternal punishment.

Jared, If a God created us then we would be robots to his will. There would be no actual ‘I,’ we’d simply act and decide by how each of us were individually manufactured. ~ Tim Anderson

Tim, if we’re just created by God as robotic automatons how would we ever know it? We couldn’t actually reason it out; reason requires freedom of thought. Strictly speaking, I cannot prove or disprove that we are robotic automatons, any more than I can prove or disprove that I am or am not actually just a brain in a vat of chemicals, or that we were created five minutes ago with all the apparent evidence of age and false memories of the past. I think your statement fails because it is an argument, and arguments presuppose the ability to think rationally. If you are right, then we cannot actually think rationally, so any argument that leads to the conclusion that we are mindless robots devoid of individual personality are the meaningless and inevitable results of our design if the conclusion is true. If the conclusion is not true, of course it is just plain wrong. To put a twist on Descartes, “I think therefore I am” probably not a robot. Consider this (if you aren’t a robot): If you are right and I am wrong, it makes no difference whatsoever—que sera, sera. If I am right and you are wrong, it makes all the difference in the world.

A Perfect Being 1

As I said in my last blog post, those who continued to follow this blog would hear reasons why I believe in the classical, orthodox Christian worldview. As one of my Facebook friends commented, I may as well have posted the Athanasian Creed. Now that my readers know what I believe, I want you to know why I believe as I do. The purpose of this blog is not only to answer skeptics of classical Christianity, but also to help other Christians who have questions about the faith. Unfortunately, most people do not think deeply about why they believe what they believe. In fact, I did not always think much about my faith in Christ. I was sure I had really experienced God and knew Him, but I would not have been able to tell you much else before I began studying Christian apologetics.

While serving in the United States Marine Corps, I found myself in a foxhole* with an atheist in Baghdad, Iraq (contrary to the popular saying). He was not a particularly bitter or angry atheist. He had never had a bad church experience or strong objections to theism. He merely did not see any good reason to believe in God. I desperately wanted to give him a reason to embrace God, but I was not prepared to make a defense to anyone who asked me for a reason for the hope within me (1 Peter 3:15). I hope and pray that someone reached that Marine with the gospel, because I was taken off guard and an ineffective witness for Christ. It was several years later when I discovered Frank Turek’s television show I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Soon after I read the book of the same title he co-authored with Norman Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist was my introduction to Christian apologetics, but  I wish I had begun to think more clearly about my beliefs for the sake of the atheist in the foxhole and other atheists I encountered before I discovered apologetics. In memory of that foxhole atheist, I have decided to re-name this blog The Foxhole Evangelist. Now that I have some answers, I want to give them to anyone willing to read this blog.

One of the most fascinating arguments for God’s existence is the ontological argument. My mind was first opened to this line of reasoning in Dr. Douglas Groothuis’s outstanding book, Christian Apologetics: AComprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. In his words,

The ontological argument claims that proper reasoning about the idea of a Perfect Being generates the conclusion that God exists. For this argument, God’s existence is not merely possible or probable or very likely, but is logically guaranteed. In this sense the ontological argument is “the king of the hill” of all the theistic arguments. It is a priori (depending on no debatable empirical conditions); it is deductive in form, thus making its conclusion certain and not merely probable; and its conclusion is metaphysically superlative: there must be a Perfect Being. If successful, the ontological argument is a masterpiece of a priori or rationalist reasoning and, as such, sharply and deeply cuts against the grain of the empiricism that dominates both the popular and the academic mind.

I was intrigued, although part of me thought at first that this argument might be too good to be true. I have friends who claim to only believe in what is observable, testable, and repeatable. On one hand I realized that the empiricist viewpoint is obviously self-contradictory; the idea that only the observable, testable, and repeatable evidence is trustworthy cannot itself be observed, tested, or repeated. On the other hand, an argument for God that relied purely on logic without reference to tangible evidence seemed like a bit of a stretch to me. Dr. Groothuis persuaded me otherwise.

The ontological argument was first conceived by the monk Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 A.D.). Anselm gave two versions of the argument. For the sake of brevity I will quote Dr. Groothuis’s summary of the arguments, but I encourage my readers to read Anselm’s Proslogium for themselves. Inspired by Psalm 14:1, Anselm reasoned:

1.       God is understood or defined as a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Even the fool possesses this concept of God.

2.       A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.

3.       It is “greater” to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.

4.       If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.

5.       But God is by definition the greatest possible being (from 1).

6.       Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well. By reductio ad absurdum.

In other words, even the atheist understands that God is a Perfect Being—the greatest possible being by definition—even though the atheist does not believe such a being actually exists. The atheist understands what God is; if the atheist did not understand God as the greatest possible being, such a being’s existence could not be denied. Things that exist in the real world also exist as concepts in the human mind, but there are also things that only exist in the human mind that are strictly imaginary. The atheist claim is that any Perfect Being is imaginary. Things that exist in the real world are greater than things that only exist in the human mind. If God is only imaginary, obviously He cannot be the greatest possible being, since the real is greater than the imaginary. However, God is by definition the greatest possible being, so He must be real since the real is greater than the strictly imaginary.

Dr. Groothuis points out that,

This argument is deductive and is formally valid. If the five premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily from them.

Of course, that’s a big “if.” If the premises are true, then so must be the conclusion. If any of the premises are faulty, the argument is too good to be true.

Premise 1 is not controversial. God, whether He really exists or is make-believe, is by definition the greatest possible being. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He is perfect in every way and to the nth degree. He has every quality that it would be better to have than to lack, and He has no bad qualities whatsoever. He is as good as any being can possibly be, and cannot be (even a little) evil. He is all powerful, and has no weakness at all. He created the heavens and the earth, and so nothing is hidden from His sight and nothing is too difficult for Him to understand. He is perfect love. He is perfectly holy, perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise, perfectly merciful, perfectly compassionate, perfectly creative, perfectly humorous, perfectly clever, perfectly witty, perfectly playful, perfectly delightful, perfectly beautiful, perfectly glorious, perfectly awe-inspiring, perfectly victorious, perfectly perfect, and so on. As the Bible says, He cannot lie, and He cannot fail. The Christian insists that such a being not only exists, but is experientially knowable. The atheist denies the existence of a Perfect Being, but even so must know what God is by definition in order to deny His existence.

Premise 2 is also easily agreed upon. Either a Perfect Being is pure hokum, or a He exists in reality. Both theists and atheists can conceive of a Perfect Being. The concept of God is universally understood, and even those who deny the existence of a Greatest Conceivable Being must be able to understand what such a being is in order to reject Him.

One objection is that such a great being is beyond human comprehension. After all, how can finite humans truly understand an infinitely Perfect God? This is something that had actually occurred to me when I had heard of the ontological argument from Dr. William Lane Craig, who prefers the term Greatest Conceivable Being, where Dr. Groothuis used the term Perfect Being. I thought this description limited God to the scope of the human mind, and I realized that even the greatest genius could not fully comprehend his maker. Such a god could not be the transcendent God of the Bible, but only an idol. While I figured that I must have misunderstood Dr. Craig, given his prominence as a philosopher and theologian, this is how the argument sounded to me, and I ignored it for a spell. However, Dr. Groothuis’s explanation helped me to understand where I had gone wrong. When Anselm wrote of God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” he did not mean a God that could be neatly fit within the confines of the human mind, only that we could conceive of such a thing as a Perfect Being. An exhaustive knowledge of God was not implied or necessary to Anselm’s argument.

A possible flaw in the argument might be in Premise 3. Why was God’s existence greater than His nonexistence? The strength of the whole argument seems to hinge on whether or not Premise 3 is true, but this also seems to be the most questionable premise.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted that the idea of existing added nothing to the concept of God, and it was therefore conceivable that God did not exist. A helpful example of Kant’s reasoning was given by Dr. Groothuis,

Kant claims that while being almighty is necessary to the idea of God, existing is not necessary to the idea of God. In the same way, having three sides is necessary to the idea of a triangle, but existing is not necessary for the idea of a triangle. That is, it might be the case that no triangles exist even if the very idea of a triangle requires that it have exactly three sides. One can conceive of God as non-existent, just as one can think of a triangle as nonexistent.

Premise 3 states, “It is ‘greater’ to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.” However, if Kant is right then this is an odd statement to make. We do not typically think of things being greater simply because they exist. We might say a well-trained dog is greater than an undisciplined dog, but we would not think a dog “great” only because it existed. We can apply the same kind of logic to almost anything. To merely say something exists doesn’t seem to add to its greatness. Dr. Groothuis agrees that in most cases, this is true.

It is not a settled principle that for any possible being it is better for that being to exist than not to exist. Indeed, it is better for an unstoppable flesh-eating virus not to exist than to exist, and Anselm is not suggesting otherwise.

The difference here is that we have a Perfect Being in mind. A Perfect Being that actually exists is obviously greater than an imaginary Perfect Being. If the greatest conceivable being that Anselm wrote of exists, then this universe was created for a reason, the best of reasons in fact, because its Creator is maximally good. Our existence has real meaning and purpose. We can take comfort in the fact that fine-tuning is not merely apparent, but evidence that the universe was designed with the greatest wisdom and precision. We can rest in the knowledge that God is not malevolent or arbitrarily making up the rules as He goes along; rather, the standard of all goodness and morality is rooted in His maximally great nature. He is sovereign and just, and worthy of our trust and worship.

Premise 4 states that if God is imaginary, only existing as a figment of the imagination, then He cannot be the Greatest Conceivable Being. If a Perfect Being does not exist then there is no good or evil, right or wrong, truth or falsehood. Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, and Adolf Hitler was no worse than Mother Theresa. The world has no purpose or meaning, and we are simply the arbitrary result of the blind physical forces of the universe. However, we are rescued from despair by Premise 5, which reminds us that by definition God is the Greatest Possible Being. The inescapable conclusion is a Perfect Being really does exist. Hallelujah!

There is a bit more to this argument. In fact, I have only given the first version of Anselm’s ontological argument. However, the second argument will have to wait until next time.

*To be perfectly accurate, no Marine nowadays uses the term “foxhole.” It is now known as a “fighting hole,” and any Marine who unwittingly uses the term “foxhole” will be swiftly corrected by their superiors. However, since the proverbial saying is that, “There’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole,” I have retained the older, more popular nomenclature.