Before they went to bed, I said, stay away. Stay
more than six feet away from us. We don't want
it. So Ariana's got music practice every day
except for one this week and every day next week.
And then she has the musical Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday next week. So if she gets sick between
now and then, she's going to be heartbroken.
And if they get a whole bunch of people sick
in that thing, they're going to be in trouble
because they've got a bunch of kids. All right,
let's pray. Father in heaven, we do thank you
that you have made our body, our world, this
universe. with extreme complexity beyond what
mankind has been able to figure out. And to that
end, then, we have doctors all over the place
and hospitals all over the place and scientists
all over the place working to heal the human
body the best they know how. Many of them know
you personally and are doing it out of the goodness
of their heart, service, and because they love
to take care of people. Others don't know you
and need to. And then, Lord, we could list the
people. I've heard that Hannah's sick. Holly's
been sick for several days since Saturday, I
believe. Natalie. It was the urgent care just
now. We've got Kyler and Carson have both been
sick. Caitlin's been sick. I don't know who else
I'm missing, but we continue to pray for Mike
and Jamie, what's going on there, and for Rachel,
even though she's had a good report recently.
She's got a long way to go to be fully out of
the woods, and we just ask that you take care
of her. We'll pray for Carrie, what's going on
with him. We'll pray for Chris McCrory, dealing
with bone -on -bone in his knee and needing a
knee replacement. Father, we just pray that you
would take care of our hurt. We bring our burdens
to you, that you can carry them and make of them
what you will. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.
Okay, so we've been talking about for the last
several weeks, we've been talking about how to
basically prove via argument that God is real,
that he exists. What happened? Oh, no. You know
what? It's two -sided and you only have one side.
So not only did I mess up the hole punches, but
then I messed up and made it only one -sided.
And you have the back side, not even the front
side. Sheesh. So let me go get it. I'll be right
back. Okay. Brother Tim is sick, and Miss Chris
is sick, and I forgot to mention them, so pray
for them too. All right. So, as I started to
say, we have been... working through like proofs
for God. How do we know that God exists? And
if somebody is struggling with a concern, how
do we help them understand not only, you know,
that God exists, but what kind of a God he has
to be, right? And so in that, then if you look
at the very top of your page there, it says exists,
right? And then these are the character traits
of God that we proved. We'll recap the proof.
So don't worry about the fact if you can't prove
them right now, we'll recap that before we're
done. But these are the things that we proved
with the logical arguments that we did two weeks
ago and four weeks ago. All right. So the first
one is that he exists. Does anybody know what
the N is? Okay. It is that he is necessary. Okay.
Necessary. N -E -C -E double S -A -R -Y. Necessary.
Okay. Then he is powerful. And transcendent.
So transcendent means he exists outside creation.
We'll talk more about that later. So if you had
a fish tank and your fish were in the fish tank,
to them you are transcendent. You exist outside
the fish tank. And then non -contingent. Non
-contingent. Which means that... It's a being
that's not based on anything. It doesn't require
anything to exist, like a certain situation or
faith. They used to talk about the old Greek
gods and stuff, and they'd say if nobody believed
in them, they would cease to exist. Well, our
God has to be non -contingent. He doesn't need
anything to exist. And then intelligent, personal.
We know what those things mean. Personal means
he relates on a personal level. Intelligent,
obviously, we know what that means. Moral. which
means he has a set of standards. These are all
on the top there. Got it? Okay, and then say
again. Yeah, exists, necessary, powerful, transcendent,
non -contingent. These are all across the top
of that page. Intelligent, personal, moral, and
then E is engaged. Okay, which means he's still
doing something. There's a pretty famous president
of the United States. Well, I don't think it
was a president. It was a founding father of
the United States who believed that God, he was
a deist and believed that God exists but doesn't
affect humanity. He's just distant. Okay, and
we know that that's not able to be true based
on the proofs that we did. Okay, and then the
last one is unique. Okay, so these are the character
traits. So now, remember that everything that
we did so far does not prove that our God exists
or that a God like we believe in exists. God
like the Bible teaches exists necessarily, but
it proves that that God must have these characteristics.
So if these characteristics then line up with
the God of the Bible, then the God of the Bible
can be that God. And that's where we're going
next. Before we get there, we're going to look
at three ways that people see things, if you
will, three belief systems and why they don't
work. So the first one is atheism. Anybody know
what atheists believe, just generically speaking?
Right. They do not believe that God exists. They
believe God does not exist. And then the weakest
form of atheist says, well, at least if he exists
or something like him exists, then we can't know
anything about him, right? Which is really getting
to be strong agnosticism, which we'll talk about
in a second. So atheism and agnosticism are like
stepbrothers. Atheism says there is no God. I
know there is no God, okay? So there's a couple
of logical fallacies in that. The first one is
it requires a complete and exhaustive knowledge
of all creation. So in order for them to know
that there is no God, they would essentially
have to be God. That make sense? In order to
know that there cannot possibly be a God anywhere
in the universe, then they would have to know
everything that is in the universe everywhere
in the universe. And that doesn't even make any
sense, okay? And then the second part is it does
not meet our requirements as discerned. Obviously,
it says that God does not exist. So therefore,
he's not necessary, powerful, transcendent, non
-contingent, intelligent, personal, moral. engaged,
and not unique. So he's none of those things.
So atheism does not work. Remember, we had proofs
that got us those characteristics on the top
up there. So we're going to look at them again
before we're done, but right now we know those
are the characteristics of God. So we know that
atheism does not work because we have proofs
that say that God is personal, for example. So
if God is personal and he clearly exists and
he's personal, then atheism is not correct. That
make sense? Okay. The next one is called agnosticism
and is the stepbrother of atheism. Agnosticism
is actually not a statement about God at all.
It's not a belief about God at all. Basically,
agnosticism just says, I don't know if I can
believe that there is a God. If there's God out
there somewhere, I don't know what we can know
about him. I don't think we can know anything
about him. And so really all it does is tell
you what that person thinks. It doesn't tell
you anything about God at all. So it's not a
belief system that actually stands against God's
existence because it says, well, I don't know
if he exists or not. Or it's necessity. So, well,
if he's necessary, he probably does exist, but
I don't know if he exists and like that. So agnosticism
is not a belief system that speaks about God
at all. It speaks about the person's beliefs.
Can you get that door? Somebody's got it. Okay.
The other one was unlocked. That one was unlocked.
Anyway, welcome. All right. So also notice then,
because they don't know whether or not there
is a God, they're denying personal. So if God
is personal, then they would know that he exists.
And so on. So agnosticism does not line up with
the qualifiers that we have determined by our
proofs. And then the last one we'll look at today,
we're going to do some more in two weeks, but
this last one for today is called pantheism.
So pantheism is that everything that exists is
God. I actually had this the one time I was witnessing
with a person over on Main Street and they tried
to tell me that God was everything and in everything
and every stick was God and every tree was God
and every star was God. And you can kind of understand
how a lost person or a blind person spiritually
might fall on that because all creation testifies
about God. And so if you take the testimony and
you say, oh, the testimony tells me that the
tree is God. The testimony tells me that the
Son is God rather than the testimony tells me
about God. So that's how people get into that.
Anyway, so they say everything that exists is
God. God is impersonal. When we die, we are absorbed
into the impersonal whole. And this is kind of
like Star Wars, right? There's the force, light
side, dark side. You die, you're absorbed back
into the force, right? That's a pantheistic religion
or thinking about God. So this doesn't work.
Because it fails to account for the features
of God expressed in the cosmological design and
moral arguments that we looked at. This belief
system does not allow for engagement since that's
a trait of persons, not the impersonal. So in
other words, you can't engage with God because
everything is God. God doesn't engage with us
because everything is God. In other words, we're
part of God. So if I'm part of God, then there's
no engaging. I don't engage with God. I might
engage with other parts of God, right? So it
doesn't work. It doesn't fit the things that
we proved. And nothing can be transcendent if
everything is part of God. So how could there
be a God that's transcendent outside, existing
outside all of creation, if everything that is
creation is actually God? And we've already proved
that God is transcendent, okay? All right, so
now we're going to remember. the qualifications.
So is there anybody here that feels like they
understand the proofs for God? Because when I
looked at it, even I didn't think so. I'm like,
I don't think I can prove all 10 of those things.
Can you? Anybody can do it? Can anybody prove
by any of the arguments that we used that God
exists? Okay, give me one. Tell me how you would
tell. Say somebody needed to know that God exists.
How would you explain to them that you know that
God exists? Okay, good. So that's the design
argument that you're using there. And that argues
for a lot of things actually. It argues for his
existence. It argues that he's powerful and intelligent.
I guess you could say non -contingent. That's
weak, but maybe. So it gets those other ones
for sure. Exactly. So now we're going to go over
them real quick and see which of these traits
they argue for. And on the back, we have some
case studies of people that have the question,
and then we'll see if we can answer them. So
the first one is the cosmological argument. This
was the first one we went through before, too.
It says that God exists. So observed reality,
that means what we can see is contingent. That
means it's based on something. else so everything
that you can see requires something else right
something must not be contingent or then it would
require a cause to right so whatever it was if
you say Joe Bob created the first million humans
well who created Joe Bob well aliens from Mars
created the Joe Bob well who created the aliens
and so on so you go back as far as you always
have there always to be something that is non
-contingent to be the first cause okay And so
that end there is necessary. So you can fill
in the blank, necessary. Okay. So that being
must exist by its own nature, not related to
time, matter, or conditions. Because time, matter,
and conditions are all part of what? What are
time, matter, and conditions all part of? Say
it again. I can't hear you. Nice and loud. You're
not sure? Okay, so you're saying those are contingent
things and God is non -contingent. That's true.
Okay, so time, matter, and conditions are all
part of creation. They're what God made, right?
So what do we call time? Time is actually the
way the planets work, the Solomon revolves, right?
It's the passing of events. So none of those
events would be passing if God did not create
creation, right? The planets would not be revolving
if God did not create creation. The clocks would
not tick if God did not create creation. So all
of those things, time, matter, and conditions,
are all contingent on the creation of creation.
So something has to exist by its own nature without
those things. And that person is non -contingent,
okay? And you can fill that blank in, non -contingent.
This says that God is powerful because causing
literally everything requires immense causal
power. If you're going to create everything,
we know that God spoke everything into existence.
That is a lot of power. What we consider to be
power. Our kid paints a picture at age eight.
We look at it and it kind of looks like... what
it's supposed to be. And we're like, wow, that's
power. That's cool. You're really doing a good
job there. You're starting to look like what
you made it to look like, right? We recognize
that. You build a car from all the component
parts. You have causal power. You put it all
together. You made it work, right? Well, so God
has power. Space and time begin with the universe.
And so the original cause must exist outside
the universe and therefore is transcendent. So
the cosmological argument, that first argument
proves God's necessary nature, his non -contingent
nature, his power, and his transcendent. That's
four of those top ten traits up there proved
by that one argument. And so again, to take them
back to atheism, atheism denies his existence,
therefore his power, his non -contingent nature,
and his necessity. So that's wrong. Because we
have proofs. We know that those things are true.
The cosmological argument proves those things.
Then the design argument. This is the one that
RJ used. The universe exhibits fine -tuning.
It goes even further than just the complexity
and biology of the human body. It also, single
-cell organisms that have many parts that work
in very intricate ways, even though they're only
a single cell. So they can't possibly have evolved
up from other cells because they're not composed
of other cells. They're just a single -cell organism.
There's no evolution possible. And yet they're
extremely intricate. The rules, they say there's
300 rules that are required for life to exist
on the earth. And if they vary just a little
bit in either direction, all life would be wiped
out. So that is amazing intelligence. It implies...
complexity and rational selection and craftsmanship.
And so that's intelligence. Then it says designing
and sustaining a universe requires enormous capabilities.
So that's power, which we have. So now we have
the cosmological argument makes power and the
design argument also power. Fine tuning implies
choice. Physical laws are not logically necessary.
The blank there is necessary. So in other words,
is gravity necessary? or necessary as a constant?
No, it didn't have to be that way. Now, it needs
to be that way for life to exist, but many planets
it's not, right? Meteorites don't have that.
Stars have way too much of it, things like that.
In order for it to be the way it is, something
had to decide for that. Something had to make
one one way and one another. And so what we're
arguing for there then becomes intelligence,
power, and decision, right? Which then I got
ahead of myself a little bit. Okay, so choice
implies agency. If someone makes a choice, that
means they are an agent in that situation. Agency
implies personhood. That means that it's a being,
right? If somebody can carry on something, then
they are a being. If your dog can fetch a bone,
your dog is a being. If your dog can't literally
do anything, it's a vegetable, four legs and
brain dead and whatever, it might be living and
breathing, right? But basically, it's a living
and breathing rug. Because it can't do anything,
right? And so we understand that agency, the
ability to do things, implies personhood. And
then an impersonal force cannot decide constants.
So it's personal. So the P is personal, right?
So in the design argument, then not only can
we prove that he exists, that he's necessary
and non -contingent, but on top of that, we can
say that he's intelligent and powerful and personal.
So now we've got almost all the traits on the
top already figured out. And then we had the
moral argument, which we did. If moral values
exist, there must be a moral grounding for those
values. Objective moral laws require a transcending
grounding for them. In other words, somebody
came up with this idea. And since the very beginning,
mankind walked the earth. Even if you don't talk
about the Bible and Adam and Eve, the history
of men as they have traced it, they've always
accepted that certain things are okay and certain
things are not okay. Now the categories were
brighter. broader back then. So it has maybe
more, like there are more social mores than there
used to be. So there was a time a thousand years
ago, for example, that nobody said, Gesundheit,
bless you. Nobody covered their sneeze with their
elbow. Many of those little things like that
had never been invented. But whether or not you
could murder a person, whether or not you could
rape somebody, whether or not you could beat
up a child, things like that, those things always
have some moral connotation to them. So where'd
they come from? And the answer is they're objective,
which means they came from something outside
the people who are following them. So God is
transcendent and God is moral because he made
up those rules. They are commands, not just prescriptions,
and therefore they require a commander. If there
is a command, somebody gave the command. And
the army, they say, we have to move the rock.
Why? You're a private, I'm a private, why do
we have to move the rock? Well, because the corporal
said we have to move the rock. He's a higher
level than me, so we have to move the rock. Okay,
so we'll go move the rock, right? So if there
was a command, there has to be a commander. That
means he's personal. God has a trait of being
personal. Also, he's moral, because that's what
we're talking about is a moral code. And then
he's engaged. The E is engaged. So moral duties
are owed to someone. A moral lawgiver is not
indifferent. Justice, accountability, and moral
order imply involvement in the moral structure
of reality. So in other words, if God said do
this or else, and he did a number of times, and
sometimes he said do this and I'll do this, then
that... that would make him a moral actor and
he's engaged with society. Okay. And so we know
in the Bible that all these traits line up. So
he, let's see, he has involvement in the moral
structure of reality that makes him personal.
So it's personal, engaged, existing. And then
we already got transcendent and moral from earlier
in the same paragraph. So now we've got all of
them on the top, except which one? And if you're
looking ahead, you know, unique, right? The only
one that's on the top that we've not covered
in those three arguments is unique. So if the
the necessary, the word there is necessary being,
is the grounds for all existence, meaning he
has pure actuality. He brought everything into
existence himself. If he's infinite and unlimited,
which God is infinite and unlimited, then two
such beings could not exist. So there have always
been lots of religions, false religions over
the years that have had multiple gods in the
pantheon. And even now, There is a large swath
of charismatic Christianity that would add Mary
as the fourth person in the Trinity, which is
heretical, right? The Bible says no. It's an
absolute sin against God to ever do that. And
the Pope, because they're Catholic, the Pope
has restrained them from doing that to this point,
and the bishops and so on. But there are bishops
who support that. And there actually was a delegation,
not during this pope's reign, but in the previous
pope's reign, that actually came and requested,
asked the pope to name Mary as the fourth person
of the Trinity. And it was from the part of the
world where Catholicism is growing. Everywhere
else in the world, Catholicism is dying. But
there's a huge section of the world where it's
growing. And so the fear was that this pope would
be from that region, and he would name Mary as
the fourth person of the Trinity, which is unbiblical.
So that's adding to a pantheon. That's adding
another god. But you can't do that. So if the
necessary being is the grounds for all existence,
pure actuality, infinite and unlimited, two beings
could not exist. That would require a limitation
or a differentiation. How do you know that Tony
Tate and I are not the same person? Because he's
over there and I'm over here. Because he looks
like he looks and I look like I look. He talks
like he talks. I talk like I talk. Okay. If I
am infinite, then there would be no room in the,
if the way I talk is infinite and covers every
possibility, then there would be no room left
for Tony Tate to have a way to talk. If I am
infinite and everything that I cover, all the
looks of anything that could ever look like anything,
right? Then there's no room for him to have a
separate look. If I am infinite and my boundaries
of my skin involve all that is. As far as the
stars and everywhere, like I fill the entire
world, then there would be no room for Tony Tate
to have a skin. See, so God has to be unique,
a truly necessary, the word there is necessary,
infinite being could not be divided. or multiplied.
Therefore, uniqueness follows logically, okay?
So we didn't talk about the actual arguments,
but we see where the arguments, which part comes,
okay? So these are the three arguments summarized
for you. We're not going to read the whole thing,
but I'm just going to take just a couple quick
excerpts just to remind you, okay? I would encourage
you to read them, all right? So the first one
is the cosmological argument. contingent things
exist that is to say things that are based on
other things exist everything that exists is
like that so everything has a cause right can
continue things require an explanation outside
themselves the universe is contingent therefore
the universe requires an external explanation
you go down to the bottom there it says therefore
there must be a necessary that's a blank non
-contingent that's a blank the spelling is on
the front if you need it being that grounds all
reality a that's a blank necessary transcendent
powerful cause exists okay then the next argument
was the design argument and it goes like this
the universe contains fine -tuned constants and
complex information stuff like that happens because
of a mind basically The best explanation of fine
-tuning is an intelligent cause. And then the
last one was a moral argument. If objective moral
values and duties exist, they require a sufficient
foundation. Objective moral values and duties
do exist. Therefore, a transcendent moral lawgiver
exists, okay? So that's the three arguments now
broken down. You got them right there in front
of you so you can use them. So together, here's
the set of values again. These arguments point
to a being that is, the N is? We've said it a
bunch of times. He is necessary. He is transcendent,
which means he exists outside of his creation.
And then he exists, which means he exists, right?
He's real. He exists. He is unique, which means
no one else is like him. We can be like him a
little bit, but we're not the same as him. He
is powerful. He has the power to do things. He
is non -contingent. The blank in the middle is
non -contingent, which means he is not dependent
on anything to be who he is. God does not need
you to believe in him. In fact, if you choose
not to believe in him, that's your own stupidity,
basically, especially based on these arguments.
And then intelligent. He is intelligent. And
then the P was what? Personal. RJ's nailing it.
He's got every one of these things down. Personal,
moral, and engaged. OK, so again, if you can
nail down those traits and we're going to use
them again in two weeks, if you can get those
things in your head and when you're talking to
people, you'll hear them say something like,
well, I question whether or not, you know, there
really had to be someone to create the universe.
Or I question whether or not, you know, really
is abortion really wrong? You know, why is it
wrong? You know, and things like that. And you'll
realize what they're doing is they're questioning
God's traits in order to get out from underneath
God's standard is what they're doing. They don't
want to. believe that God exists because if God
does exist, then they have to make some kind
of a decision. I have to do something with that.
If God is real, I have to do something with that,
right? If God is real and he's moral, then I
have to be moral. And I'm not. In my flesh, I'm
not moral. And then, so then what do I do? Just
go to hell? Be away from God for eternity? You
know, that's the end result of that. Well, that's
not good. I need a savior. I need someone to
stop that from happening. Jesus comes in. Jesus
saves me. Now I don't go to hell for eternity.
And a moral God can rightly not send me to hell,
even though I sinned again. him because Jesus
paid the price make sense yeah Yeah, so let's
talk about that for a second. We take the extreme
and we say women and children. To us, that's
the extreme. But it's not a question of a universal
moral standard because there are people in prison
right now who ate women and children. There are
people who raped women or beat them or killed
them. And they may or may not accept that what
they did was wrong. They may or may not think
it was wrong. They may say, well, I wouldn't
have killed her if she wouldn't have been so
lippy. And they may argue that morally that's
okay. That's not the question. It's not the question
of whether. or not everybody has the same moral
standard. The question of is there a universal
moral standard does not mean that the universal
moral standard is the same for everybody. But
every person, no matter how bad they are, For
example, Jeffrey Dahmer, who was the guy who
went to jail and then he was put to death eventually.
And the last week he was alive, he accepted Christ,
allegedly. He said he accepted Christ. But Jeffrey
Dahmer, for example, may have been somebody who
believed that you don't tell a lie or you don't
take money that doesn't belong to you. So he
had a moral code. I'll get you in a second, Tim.
He had a moral code, even though his moral code
did not stop him from murdering people and eating
their body parts. So the fact is, if the only
way that it would not. this argument of moral
standards would not hold up is that the people
in general did not have a moral code in general.
Does that make sense? It's not that they have
the same moral code, but it's that there is a
moral code. And so there might be a classic example.
In the Jewish society, for example, it was considered
morally acceptable and even you were a person
of prowess and intelligence if you could lie
to a government official and get away with it.
When I was growing up, there was a moral standard.
cop didn't see it, I didn't do it, okay? That
was the standard. In our house, we joked about
it all the time. And so you could run a red light
if there were no police around. There was no
reason not to. Yeah. So, but listen, it's only
illegal if you get caught is a moral standard.
It's not an amoral standard, right? It's a moral
standard. It's just a moral standard saying that
I fully tolerate a set of things that I think
these set of, even like, so if you say there
are people who are for abortion and there are
people who are against abortion, right? And arguably
they are the pro -lifers who think that the baby
should live no matter what. And the women's rights
saying the woman should have a choice to do whatever
she wants. That's what they arguably say. So
they have a differing moral standard. Some people
think abortion is okay and some people think
it's not okay, right? But both of those things
are a moral standard. So the truth is mankind
has an understanding of a moral standard. Even
if Mike and I disagree what that moral standard
is, I have a moral standard and he has one too.
Why? Why were we treated with any concept or
any idea of any morals whatsoever? Somebody had
to be the originator of the idea that something
is moral and something is not, even though we
may completely disagree with what's moral. So
you go to Rome. for example, or let's take Germany.
In Germany, they feed their six -year -olds wine
with dinner, right? And 10 years ago, 70 % of
children were on Ritalin, for example, you know,
in several European countries. And America was
going, oh, that's wrong. You can't be medicating
your kids. But now in America, 70 % of children
are a ridiculously high percentage. At one time,
it was morally acceptable for them to do it and
not morally. Right now, abortion is illegal in
Mexico for any circumstances. You're not allowed
to get an abortion in Mexico. In Canada, you're
allowed to get an abortion, but only under certain
circumstances. In the United States of America,
it's fully legal. And they live, the guys in
Canada that believe in that moral code of no,
of. abortion only under certain circumstances,
are an hour away. And some people came from here
and came from there. It's not a question of what
the moral code is. It's a question that there
is a moral code. Why do people even care? Why
are we, what, that makes us different from animals,
right? And the funny thing is like some animals
seem to have a moral code. Like wolves, pack
animals, right? They seem to have an implication
of moral code, even though their intelligence
is so far, they'll never learn to read or program
or change the TV remote, really. I mean, they
may get bumble on it. But so why, why, why does
creation seem to have a moral code? And the answer
is because it transcends your thought processes,
my thought processes. It's not like I woke up
one morning and decided what was right or wrong.
We never. even think about it and it's not your
parents programmed you either because in order
for your parents to program your moral code they'd
have to talk to you every moment from the time
you got up to the time you went to bed every
single day all day to program your moral code
and we don't do that we just pick it up well
now i've never been in this situation before
what do i think i'm allowed to do here okay i
pull up the red light there's no police officer
around at all and the red light's been sitting
unchanged for two minutes and like it must be
on a sensor and it's not going to change is it
morally okay for me to run the red light or not
now it's breaking the law but is it morally okay?
If the red light's broken, is it okay? Why do
I even care? Why would anybody even ever have
that thought? We do have that thought. One person
decides it's okay. Another person decides it's
not okay. But we have the thought. And because
we have the thought, that proves the kind of
God that exists. Pretty cool stuff, by the way.
If you get in a conversation like that with somebody,
they'll go, well, I don't agree with you morally.
And you say, well, you cannot agree with me morally,
and all you're doing is proving that God exists.
If we disagree on morals, we both have morals.
That just proves we both have morals. have morals
therefore God exists yeah exactly and so yeah
yeah most people just yeah most people just don't
they don't People don't want to take it to that
next thought level. They just want to think,
well, you're dumb and I'm intelligent. Your morals
are ridiculous. My morals are right. And that's
what most people want to do, but they won't go.
But even though your morals are ridiculous compared
to mine, by my assessment, I still recognize
that you have morals and I have morals. Where'd
that come from? That's the question. And the
answer is God or is a God, right? We haven't
proved that it's the Christian God or the Bible
God yet. We're going to get there before we're
done, but we're not, not today. Okay. We got,
we got scripture here. So we do need to, that
was cool by the way. I don't know if you enjoyed
that or not, but that was cool to me. Okay, so
look under number one right there. The N is necessary.
Yes, sir? Cosmological argument. Yes, a necessary,
yep, transcendent, powerful cause exists. So
each one of those conclusions is really what
gives you your meat. It's like gives you your
teeth when you're talking with somebody. Good
stuff. And it's necessary, non -contingent, and
personal. Are those blanks? And now we're on
number one, and it's necessary slash creator.
So it says, Marcus says he understands how things
inside the universe have causes. He looks around
and says, I see that one thing causes another.
But he struggles to see why the universe itself
needs one. Why does the universe need a cause?
He doesn't understand that. He wonders if existence
might simply be just there. without any ultimate
explanation, okay? And so what, the big blank
there, what argument would you use? Are the ones
we're talking about cosmological argument, design
argument, or moral argument? Which one of those
would you use to reach him and help him make
up his mind why the universe needs somebody to
have started it? Anybody want to take a stab
at it? There's only three possibilities. You've
got a 33 % chance if you have no clue, okay?
The design argument works when looking at the
complexity, but he's talking about causes, right?
So he's saying, I see that things are caused,
like I exist because my dad and my mom got together
and did the deed, right? So I see that things
exist because of a cause. So the only one of
the arguments that actually addresses the cause
-effect thing is the cosmological argument. It
says that everything that you see is an effect,
everything. It also can be a cause that causes
something else. You go outside, you see the cold
weather, right? It is an effect. It's an effect
of the... that right now the planet is tipped
away from the sun on our side we're getting less
direct sun right wind patterns it's an effect
of all those things but it also can be a cause
because it can cause me to wear a coat right
so he says i see a bunch of stuff is caused but
if i to the cosmological argument says so if
we go back to the beginning is the first thing
going to be an effect or a cause and the answer
is it's got to be a cause and so it has to be
a cause that is uncaused right it's not an effect
of anything and that's the argument that you
could make to help and Right away, an intelligent
person that's not doing it because they're, you
know, mean or trying to be vindictive or something,
it should latch onto that and go, oh, yeah, that
makes sense. The first thing has to be a cause.
Something had to start this cause and effect
chain, okay? And then we have some scripture
references there that go, so the next thing,
in the next smaller blank, write Exodus 3 .14.
You got a boogie now. I dilly -dallied on that
one point because I was excited about it. Now
it's going to take a little bit. It's Exodus
3 .14. Okay, Exodus 3 .14 basically is where
it says, I am who I am. God says, I am who I
am. He's self -existent. The next reference is
Romans 1 .20. You can abbreviate like R -O -M
1 .20. We're still on number one. So the first
box was cosmological. The first longer line was
cosmological. The next short line is Exodus,
so I just put E -X 3 colon 14, like that Exodus
3 .14. And then the next is Romans, so I put
R -O -M 1 .20. And Romans 1 .20 says, God's eternal
power and divine nature clearly seen. 120 romans
120 so it's cosmological then exodus 3 14 then
romans 120 and the last one is hebrews 3 4 and
hebrews 3 4 is where it says every house is built
by someone and it goes on to say all all the
creation was built by God. Okay? All right. So
again, if you're talking with anybody and they're
struggling with causality, like why does there
need to be an intelligent designer? If I, you
know, why couldn't things just always exist?
Then you can, from the cosmological argument,
you say, well, everything that you see is an
effect, right? And it can also be a cause. But
because everything you see is an effect, it has
to have come from a cause, which also was an
effect, come from a cause. And you can go with
a piece of paper and write C -E -C -E -C -E all
the way back. And so E -C -E -C. all the way
back and say, well, when does it stop? What was
the first thing? Was it an effect or was it a
cause? And they'll say, well, it had to be a
cause, right? You can't be, there's no infinite
and it has to be a cause. And then you can help
them see that God needed to be there. Okay. The
second one then, and I kind of got the clue on
the top there in the parentheses, intelligent.
Leah is fascinated by the complexity of DNA and
the precise balance required for life on earth.
But she believes these things are probably the
result of chance over time. She struggles to
see why intelligence must be involved in the
structure of the universe. And I already. gave
you the clue at the top. That's the design argument,
right? Now, how does that make sense? If that's
the question she's asking, how would you explain
it to her? She's fascinated by DNA and the precise
balance, but she believes these things are probably
the result of chance over time. So what would
you say to help her understand that can't be
right? Yeah, it's not in a short time frame.
It doesn't happen ever. There is no observable
place in creation where creation moves to more
complexity over time. It falls apart. There's
a scientific principle called entropy where everything
decays. Everything falls apart. Now some people
say, oh, we swirl the water and it goes down
the drain and the water gets more complex as
it goes down the drain, right? And it'll go faster.
But it took you or someone doing something to
cause the swirl. So if you leave the water alone,
does it swirl automatically? No, it does not.
There is no place in creation that creation becomes
more complex on its own. And then they'll say,
well, but there is a one in a 74 gazillion chance
that something could have fallen together and
become what it is. But that's mathematically
impossible, right? And actually, the numbers
are much, much, much higher. They're infinite.
There's a one in infinite chance, really, that
those complexities could have developed randomly.
And then lastly, remember we talked about DNA?
How DNA is complex parts organized in certain
orders, and what do we call that? What's on this
page? Language, right? So DNA is a language.
and if dna is a language where does language
come from someone right a person an intelligent
person right if i find a note someone wrote the
note dna is intelligent communication in the
form of a language there's actually to the point
now they're getting the point is they know it
so well you could write a letter to your friend
using the parts of dna because it's it's language
it's so complex right now it's a specialized
language for a specific purpose so it would not
make a lot of sense but it would make enough
sense that you could probably convey once we
know it all you could convey the message because
dna is language so to argue that dna is random
doesn't make any sense it came from an intelligence
because it is a language okay now the scriptures
then for that that you could use to support it
connect it to the bible psalm 19 1 and that's
where it says the heavens declare the glory of
god Then, Isaiah 40, 26. You can shorten those
up. Psalms can be PSA and Isaiah can be ISA because
nothing else is the same. And 40, 26. Isaiah
40, 26. God brings out the stars by number. And
then the last one is John 1, 3. Through him all
things were made. Of course, that's talking about
Jesus. John 1, 3. That was the easy one. Don
won three, but you're probably tied up on the
harder one. Okay, next. Three left. Anthony believes
some kind of higher power exists, but thinks
it must be an impersonal force like gravity or
energy. He finds it difficult to believe God
could think, choose, or relate to people. Which
of the three arguments above would you use most
easily anyway to argue, to help him understand,
basically? And I gave you a clue already. It's
the design or moral argument. Either one of those
things would work, right? So the design... argument
works because the best explanation of fine -tuning
is an intelligent being, right? And so why would
he do that? Why would he create those perfectly
oriented rules to make the universe work? And
could the force or gravity do that? And the answer
is no, right? And then also the moral argument
works really, really well because objective morals
and duties do exist. Therefore, a lawgiver exists
and the force, gravity, these things are not
that right they can't give laws they can't give
commands because they're impersonal okay and
then the verses then for those Genesis 1 27 we
know that that's where humanity was made in God's
image Genesis our first one was Genesis 1 27
and then Jeremiah 29 13 and that's where he says
you will seek me and find me yep 29 13 sorry
did I say 29 13 and then James 4 8 draw near
to God And he will draw near to you. So if the
person is willing to accept biblical testimony,
you can use those verses. And you can make connections
between those verses and the arguments that you've
made. That's the value of them. Number four,
Jasmine. Why would morality require God? So which
argument explains why objective morality points
beyond us or beyond government or whatever? You
already know the answer, right? The moral argument.
Moral values are truly objective, not merely
cultural preferences. They have to be grounded
in something beyond human opinion. Moral law
reflects moral character. If there is a binding
moral ought, like I ought to do this, whatever
that is, it's different for each person. If there
is an ought, then there must be a moral law giver.
Verses Romans 2, 14 and 15 talk about the law
written on the heart. By the way, Romans 1 and
2 do a great job with this because they even
say, I'm going to paraphrase, but it even goes
on to say that what people do who don't know
God is they set up their own rules and then they
break them, which is what people do. Like you
marry your wife and you tell her, I'll never
lie to you. And then you lie to her, right? That's
what people do. I'm going to get by nine. I got
to get by nine every day to be successful. I
got to get by nine. 9 .15, still snoozing the
clock. That's what people do. They set their
own rules, and they break them. And then God
says, based on that, they deserve what they get,
basically. Micah 6 .8. Micah 6 .8 is the next
reference, and it is, what does the Lord require?
That's what Micah 6 .8 says. And then it gives
some answer to that question. But the point is,
the Lord requires something. Psalm 89 .14 is
the last one. So the first big box there was
the moral argument. The first big line, I mean,
should say moral. And then it's Romans 2 .14
-15, Micah 6 .8. You can just write moral on
the open line, whatever line you have open. It
doesn't matter what order they're in. So one
line says moral, then Romans 2 .14 -15, Micah
6 .8, and Psalm 89 .14. And the last one! Derek
believes God may have created... 89 .14, correct.
Oh, sorry, did I not read it? Righteousness and
justice are his foundation. Okay. Yeah. Teleological
slash design. Design or moral. Right. You got
it. Okay. Last one. Derek believes God may have
created the universe, but doubts God is still
involved in human life or concerned with justice.
He wonders why a creator would remain interested
in human behavior after creation. This one's
a little bit more tricky. Picking which argument
to use isn't really, that's pretty easy, but
how to make the connection is the hard part.
Okay. So first of all, you're using the moral
argument. Okay, that's the moral argument. And
then you're trying to extend it by using Scripture.
But let me ask you this. What if Derek's not
a big fan of Scripture? What if he doesn't want
to use the Bible or your idea of what the Bible
says or whatever like that to make that extension?
How would you still do it? So think about what
the moral law is. The moral law is given to us
by God. If you have a moral law, it's a command,
right? It's not a description, but a command
from a moral law giver. So if someone gives you
the direction on what to do, then they are doing
that. Okay, good. Yeah, so you're... Yeah, so
that's an analogy, what you're doing, a parent
and child analogy, and that's a good way of doing
it. Basically, if a person... is taking the time
to give you the direction on what the right thing
to do is, and it's justice, then clearly they
are interacting and engaged, right? Otherwise,
why would God give the direction? Same thing
as the parent. Let's use a parent analogy. The
parent's directing their children on what to
do because they think that's what's going to
get them the results that the parents want. And
when they get older, they may say, well, you
got to make up your own mind when they get to
be 18 or whatever. You got to decide what you're
going to do with your life kind of thing. But
even that. They're doing because they think that's
what's going to get the good result. They're
not trying to intentionally sabotage. Or if they
are, maybe that's their morals. They're trying
to intentionally sabotage their kids the way
their parents sabotaged them. But it's still
a moral directive, and they're still engaged.
So good analogy. So that's the moral law, but
you have to use a little bit of an extension
on it, whether it be an analogy about parents
and kids or an explanation of what it means to
be a commander. If the lieutenant, for example,
use another analogy, if the lieutenant gives
the privates an order to move the rock, and then
he comes by later and the rock is not moved,
and the one private says to the other private,
or says to the lieutenant, well, I didn't believe
him. He told me, but I didn't believe him. The
lieutenant's going to say, I don't care. Go get
your toothbrush. You're scrubbing grout. Or drop
and give me $6 ,000. You know, whatever. Because
he gave an order. It was prescriptive. It was
a command. And now it was not followed. Okay,
so to back that up then are some scriptures.
Acts 17, 27 to 28. Acts 17, 27 to 28. This is
part of the speech of the Areopagus, and Paul
basically paraphrased here as he is not far from
each one of us. So God ordered your life intentionally
to put you exactly where you are so that you
could grow up around for him. And finding him,
you would find that he was never far away in
the first place. God has always been engaged.
And then Hebrews 4 .13, which says all things
are exposed to him. Again, that's a paraphrase.
Hebrews 4 .13. And the last verse, 2 Peter 3
.9. And we know what that says. Somebody knows
what that says without me telling it. That is
not slow as some men count slowness. 2 Peter
3 .9. Two Peter. Exactly. And so God does have
a vested interest. He is engaged. He does care
about the outcome. God's patientness, if you
will, God's patience, can be why people start
to think that God is not engaged. So they make
an argument and say, well, if God is engaged
with humanity, then why is it that so many bad
things are allowed to happen? Why is there so
much suffering? Why is there so much evil? Why
is there so much wickedness? So some people will
ask that question like they think, oh, that's
it. I've got you now. I've got a noose around
your neck, Christian. You can't possibly explain
that. And the truth is that Jesus has set the
standard for us that we will suffer and die as
necessary to see another generation of Christians,
to see more people come to Christ. And people
have been doing it ever since the church has
existed. And the truth is they did it all the
way back into the Old Testament. All the people
that had lived waiting, hoping for God to send
the Messiah, lived and died and never saw him.
And they did that for us.