Scripture
John 20:31
These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
2 Tim. 3:14-15
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Comment
Are we going to trust the word of 4 guys who apparently don’t even have last names, that there was this guy Jesus, after all weren’t those 4 guys “followers” of Jesus?
Groups of disciples on multiple occasions claimed to have seen the Risen Christ.
That is a fact.
There might be various explanations for this but you can’t just say that they didn’t claim to have seen the Risen Christ.
If you do that, you are writing off all of ancient history
You could also ask: “How do we know if Socrates existed?”
There is probably not a philosopher in the world who doubts the existence of Socrates.
Nobody doubts that there was a Socrates.
Yet how do we know there was a Socrates?
The truth of it is we have only three sources.
Plato, Xenophon, (who were disciples of Socrates) and a satire written by Aristophanes.
Do you hold that because the documents relating to Socrates often came after his death is the reason that we are not going to believe a word of it?
If you apply the standard used by atheists for determining the validity of historic Biblical writings, you may have to right off ALL of ancient history.
We would not believe anything we read.
We wouldn’t believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
We wouldn’t believe Alexander the Great conquered Egypt.
We wouldn’t believe that Socrates was walked the streets of Athens.
Essentially ancient history would be reduced to complete nonsense.
Mainstream historians are in no doubt that there was a Jesus.
Source: Dinesh D’Souza v Dan Barker and John Loftus debates
Showing posts with label Dinesh D’Souza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dinesh D’Souza. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 - Resurrection
Scripture 1 Corinthians 15:12-14
[12] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
Comment
Mainstream historians generally concede these 5 accepted facts of the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
There was a man called Jesus
He lived on the earth, he preached, he made a lot of enemies, they got a hold of him and they crucified him
After they killed him they stuck him into a cave and they put a big stone in front of it and had Roman guards guarding it.
Later, some disciples, notably women, showed up and claimed that when they got to the tomb the tomb was empty
Numerous groups of disciples (a bunch of Jesus followers including some sceptics) on different occasions said
we saw the Risen Christ. We saw Jesus after his death, he spoke to us, we touched His wounds, we saw the guy, He is alive.
The disciples were so excited and animated by this they began a movement of conversion - the greatest conversion movement in history. Even in the face of horrible persecution and opposition such as people saying to them “Renounce Jesus or be killed”, many of them went to their deaths.
What explanation makes sense of those facts?
The Jews, for the first couple of centuries after the death of Jesus said the disciples stole the body.
They stole the body and claimed that Jesus was resurrected.
But think about it, disciples mainly women fought off the Roman guards and rolled back a big stone and then stole the body.
It is a little far fetched.
How would they have done that?
If they have stolen the body they would have known Jesus was actually dead and yet why would they go to their deaths and the face persecution for what they know to be a lie.
Who gives their life for a lie – for what they know to be a lie?
Modern theorists dismiss this.
If the resurrection happened, it makes sense of those five facts.
Source: Dinesh D’Souza v Dan Barker (and) John Loftus debates
[12] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
Comment
Mainstream historians generally concede these 5 accepted facts of the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
There was a man called Jesus
He lived on the earth, he preached, he made a lot of enemies, they got a hold of him and they crucified him
After they killed him they stuck him into a cave and they put a big stone in front of it and had Roman guards guarding it.
Later, some disciples, notably women, showed up and claimed that when they got to the tomb the tomb was empty
Numerous groups of disciples (a bunch of Jesus followers including some sceptics) on different occasions said
we saw the Risen Christ. We saw Jesus after his death, he spoke to us, we touched His wounds, we saw the guy, He is alive.
The disciples were so excited and animated by this they began a movement of conversion - the greatest conversion movement in history. Even in the face of horrible persecution and opposition such as people saying to them “Renounce Jesus or be killed”, many of them went to their deaths.
What explanation makes sense of those facts?
The Jews, for the first couple of centuries after the death of Jesus said the disciples stole the body.
They stole the body and claimed that Jesus was resurrected.
But think about it, disciples mainly women fought off the Roman guards and rolled back a big stone and then stole the body.
It is a little far fetched.
How would they have done that?
If they have stolen the body they would have known Jesus was actually dead and yet why would they go to their deaths and the face persecution for what they know to be a lie.
Who gives their life for a lie – for what they know to be a lie?
Modern theorists dismiss this.
If the resurrection happened, it makes sense of those five facts.
Source: Dinesh D’Souza v Dan Barker (and) John Loftus debates
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Romans 1:20-22 - Atheism
Scripture Romans 1:20-22
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived 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 senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Comment
Fine tuning of the universe calls for a Fine Tuner
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing.
It did so with extreme precision.
In other words, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion but an incredibly precise event.
Source: Frank Turek
Our universe operates according to some very specific numerical values. We have the speed of gravity, speed of light, the weak force, the electro magnetic force, the strong nuclear force.
One physicist who teaches at Princeton said it is sort of like this.
It is like God is sitting at a big desk and He has got loads of different dials each representing one numerical constant each set precisely to a fixed number.
Now what one of the dials were moved? For example what if light were not to travel at 186,000 miles per second but 200,000 miles per second.
What if the values of the universe were a little different?
This question was described by Stephen Hawking in his book a Brief History of Time.
If you move one of the dials not 1% (one percent) but 1 part in a hundred thousand million million you would have no universe and you would have no life!
The entire universe has to be as big as it is and as old as it is and contain precisely the numerical values it does because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here.
The universe is a giant conspiracy it seems to produce us.
Now this argument has put modern atheism completely on the defensive.
Why?
Because it is an argument utterly immune from Darwinian attack.
We are talking why, not just our planet, but the whole universe has the values it does.
I would suggest that the idea of a Creator is the best available explanation.
The universe is fine tuned for life.
The fine tuning of the universe suggests a fine tuner.
I am calling that finer tuner “God”
Source: Dinesh D’Souza vs Dan Barker – The Great God Debate.mp3
The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life makes Gods existence highly probable.
During the last 30 years or so scientists have discovered, that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance on initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that our existence is balanced on a razors edge.
The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine tuned to an accuracy and degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. It has been calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or the weak force by one part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe.
There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do.
Source: William Lane Craig debate
The complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”
Source: Fr Spitzer
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived 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 senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Comment
Fine tuning of the universe calls for a Fine Tuner
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing.
It did so with extreme precision.
In other words, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion but an incredibly precise event.
Source: Frank Turek
Our universe operates according to some very specific numerical values. We have the speed of gravity, speed of light, the weak force, the electro magnetic force, the strong nuclear force.
One physicist who teaches at Princeton said it is sort of like this.
It is like God is sitting at a big desk and He has got loads of different dials each representing one numerical constant each set precisely to a fixed number.
Now what one of the dials were moved? For example what if light were not to travel at 186,000 miles per second but 200,000 miles per second.
What if the values of the universe were a little different?
This question was described by Stephen Hawking in his book a Brief History of Time.
If you move one of the dials not 1% (one percent) but 1 part in a hundred thousand million million you would have no universe and you would have no life!
The entire universe has to be as big as it is and as old as it is and contain precisely the numerical values it does because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here.
The universe is a giant conspiracy it seems to produce us.
Now this argument has put modern atheism completely on the defensive.
Why?
Because it is an argument utterly immune from Darwinian attack.
We are talking why, not just our planet, but the whole universe has the values it does.
I would suggest that the idea of a Creator is the best available explanation.
The universe is fine tuned for life.
The fine tuning of the universe suggests a fine tuner.
I am calling that finer tuner “God”
Source: Dinesh D’Souza vs Dan Barker – The Great God Debate.mp3
The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life makes Gods existence highly probable.
During the last 30 years or so scientists have discovered, that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance on initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that our existence is balanced on a razors edge.
The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine tuned to an accuracy and degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. It has been calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or the weak force by one part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe.
There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do.
Source: William Lane Craig debate
The complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”
Source: Fr Spitzer
Genesis 1:1 - The Big Bang
Scripture – Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Comment
You really must read this article
** God and Modern Physics **
The Big Bang Theory
You don’t look at a book and assume it has no author.
Distinguished biologist Edwin Conklin, an associate of Albert Einstein at Princeton university, agrees with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274AD) proofs for the existence of God when he said “The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop”.
God may have created the world through a “big bang” followed by millions of years of evolution, or He may have simply created everything at once in its current form. We do not know for sure.
What is certain, however, is that it is absolutely impossible to look at an intelligently ordered and beautiful creation and deny that an intelligent creator is behind it.
Source: Do I Have To Go by Matthew Pinto and Chris Stefanick
A feature of this “scientism” is the extremely disturbing assumption that science and religion are, by their natures, implacable enemies.
Thoughtful Christians must battle the myth of the eternal warfare of science and religion.
For example, the formulator of the Big Bang theory was a priest.
When I say that the Big Bang theory itself demonstrates that the universe in its totality is contingent and hence in need of a cause extraneous to itself, atheists think I’m just talking nonsense.
Source: Fr Robert Barron
****************
MORE DETAIL
Extract of Christian v Atheist Debate transcript
How did we get a universe?
Now for a couple of centuries there was a kind of scientific answer to this question that seemed to support atheism.
Namely the universe has always existed. There has always been a universe and there is no reason to ask how we got it.
It has always been there. The universe is forever.
However one of the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century is that this notion that the universe is forever is factually false.
The universe is not forever.
The universe had a beginning.
In physics, it is called the Big Bang theory.
In a sense, first there was nothing and then there was a universe.
Now if you think about this for a moment.
This idea that first there was nothing and then there was a universe actually was stated before.
Before the scientists figured it out, the writers of the first book of Genesis, a bunch of Hebrews, said ‘first there was nothing and then there was a universe’.
Interestingly, if you asked these ancient Hebrews if they did any scientific experiments to figure it out they would have said:
No, we didn’t do any experiments, God told us, this is how it happened.
You may say this is common to every other religion, but actually it is not.
In most other religions, they believe God (or god’s) fashioned the universe out of some other existing stuff.
The Jews were the first to say, in effect, the universe was made out of nothing.
What I am saying today is that modern science has discovered that the belief that the universe was made out of nothing is basically true.
Not only did the universe have a beginning, interestingly space and time had a beginning.
Scientists used to believe space and time was eternal.
And so if space and time are properties of our universe, it follows that the term ‘before’ only applies to our universe.
In other words, before the Big Bang there was no ‘before’.
Source: Dinesh D’Souza vs Dan Barker – The Great God Debate.mp3
Or put a slightly different way
Discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics in the last 70 years have rendered the theory that the universe is eternal as improbable.
According to the Big Bang model of the universe all matter, energy, space and time came into being at a point in time, prior to that point the universe simply did not exist.
This fact tends to be very awkward for the atheist.
An atheist proponent of the Big Bang theory must believe the universe came into being from nothing and by nothing.
No such difficulty confronts the Christian theist.
Since the Big Bang theory only confirms what he has always believed, namely in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Source: William Lane Craig debate
A More Scientific Response (news article extract)
As science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.
Fr. Spitzer quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who 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.
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.
He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawkins to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”
“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is... nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”
“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.
“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.
According to Fr. Spitzer, “this theory has become so scientifically solid, that 50% of astrophysicists are “coming out of the closet” an accepting a metaphysical conclusion: the need of a Creator.”
“What can we conclude of this? First that the Creator is really smart... and second that it must be a loving one, because He could choose so many more violent and chaotic alternatives, that it really has to make you wonder.”
Fr. Spitzer explained that “all this information must be conveyed in a simple manner to our seminarians, our college and high school students, who are mostly ignorant of the powerful Theistic message of today’s astrophysics.”
Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD - philosopher and physicist
Source: 1-October-2009 -- Catholic News Agency
If current Big Bang cosmology is correct (and the evidence is very good that it is) then the entire space-time universe exploded into being out of nothing.
Therefore, the Cause of the universe would seem to have these attributes:
· spaceless because it created space
· timeless because it created time
· immaterial because it created matter
· powerful because it created out of nothing
· intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
· personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
Source: Frank Turek
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Comment
You really must read this article
** God and Modern Physics **
The Big Bang Theory
You don’t look at a book and assume it has no author.
Distinguished biologist Edwin Conklin, an associate of Albert Einstein at Princeton university, agrees with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274AD) proofs for the existence of God when he said “The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop”.
God may have created the world through a “big bang” followed by millions of years of evolution, or He may have simply created everything at once in its current form. We do not know for sure.
What is certain, however, is that it is absolutely impossible to look at an intelligently ordered and beautiful creation and deny that an intelligent creator is behind it.
Source: Do I Have To Go by Matthew Pinto and Chris Stefanick
A feature of this “scientism” is the extremely disturbing assumption that science and religion are, by their natures, implacable enemies.
Thoughtful Christians must battle the myth of the eternal warfare of science and religion.
For example, the formulator of the Big Bang theory was a priest.
When I say that the Big Bang theory itself demonstrates that the universe in its totality is contingent and hence in need of a cause extraneous to itself, atheists think I’m just talking nonsense.
Source: Fr Robert Barron
****************
MORE DETAIL
Extract of Christian v Atheist Debate transcript
How did we get a universe?
Now for a couple of centuries there was a kind of scientific answer to this question that seemed to support atheism.
Namely the universe has always existed. There has always been a universe and there is no reason to ask how we got it.
It has always been there. The universe is forever.
However one of the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century is that this notion that the universe is forever is factually false.
The universe is not forever.
The universe had a beginning.
In physics, it is called the Big Bang theory.
In a sense, first there was nothing and then there was a universe.
Now if you think about this for a moment.
This idea that first there was nothing and then there was a universe actually was stated before.
Before the scientists figured it out, the writers of the first book of Genesis, a bunch of Hebrews, said ‘first there was nothing and then there was a universe’.
Interestingly, if you asked these ancient Hebrews if they did any scientific experiments to figure it out they would have said:
No, we didn’t do any experiments, God told us, this is how it happened.
You may say this is common to every other religion, but actually it is not.
In most other religions, they believe God (or god’s) fashioned the universe out of some other existing stuff.
The Jews were the first to say, in effect, the universe was made out of nothing.
What I am saying today is that modern science has discovered that the belief that the universe was made out of nothing is basically true.
Not only did the universe have a beginning, interestingly space and time had a beginning.
Scientists used to believe space and time was eternal.
And so if space and time are properties of our universe, it follows that the term ‘before’ only applies to our universe.
In other words, before the Big Bang there was no ‘before’.
Source: Dinesh D’Souza vs Dan Barker – The Great God Debate.mp3
Or put a slightly different way
Discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics in the last 70 years have rendered the theory that the universe is eternal as improbable.
According to the Big Bang model of the universe all matter, energy, space and time came into being at a point in time, prior to that point the universe simply did not exist.
This fact tends to be very awkward for the atheist.
An atheist proponent of the Big Bang theory must believe the universe came into being from nothing and by nothing.
No such difficulty confronts the Christian theist.
Since the Big Bang theory only confirms what he has always believed, namely in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Source: William Lane Craig debate
A More Scientific Response (news article extract)
As science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.
Fr. Spitzer quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who 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.
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.
He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawkins to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”
“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is... nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”
“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.
“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.
According to Fr. Spitzer, “this theory has become so scientifically solid, that 50% of astrophysicists are “coming out of the closet” an accepting a metaphysical conclusion: the need of a Creator.”
“What can we conclude of this? First that the Creator is really smart... and second that it must be a loving one, because He could choose so many more violent and chaotic alternatives, that it really has to make you wonder.”
Fr. Spitzer explained that “all this information must be conveyed in a simple manner to our seminarians, our college and high school students, who are mostly ignorant of the powerful Theistic message of today’s astrophysics.”
Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD - philosopher and physicist
Source: 1-October-2009 -- Catholic News Agency
If current Big Bang cosmology is correct (and the evidence is very good that it is) then the entire space-time universe exploded into being out of nothing.
Therefore, the Cause of the universe would seem to have these attributes:
· spaceless because it created space
· timeless because it created time
· immaterial because it created matter
· powerful because it created out of nothing
· intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
· personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
Source: Frank Turek
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)