Can God Communicate with Us?

This will be a short one. I hear the objection raised by non-Christians all the time that if God existed, he wouldn't or couldn't have communicated with us. Frankly, I don't understand such arguments, which are so irrational that I just have to shake my head at the person who makes them.

Clearly, if God exists then He is responsible for everything else that exists as well. If God exists then He is responsible for all the matter in the universe, for every physical and natural law, and for life, consciousness, and rationality. To make the claim that God has the power to create everything from nothing at all, but now doesn't have the power to communicate with His creation is a sign of a mind not functioning well. And yet, I cannot count the number of times I have listened to agnostics, and even theists, make this exact claim.

I imagine that this position is taken by people because they have not experienced a personalized communication from God. After all, if He exists and wants us to believe in Him, the best way to achieve this goal would be to throw back the curtain for all to see and announce His presence to the world. Since He doesn't do this, He is either incapable of doing so or He doesn't exist.

The problem with this kind of thinking is glaring. Those who make the argument are assuming that God is just like them, something which actually goes against the teaching of scripture (Numbers 23:19). They assume that God would behave in this way if He could; because that's the way they think they would behave if they were in His place.

Christians believe that God has already communicated the bulk of what He wants or needs to communicate in a little book known as the Bible. The real issue here for most people is not whether God can speak to us, but whether He already has spoken; through the pages in the Bible. But is the Bible reliable? Many people say that it isn't that it's just full of contradictions and errors. Clearly, the Creator God, if He chose to communicate through the pages of a book would have done a better job than what we find in the Bible, or so they say.

We'll take a look at that problem over the next several posts.

So, Where Does This Get Us?

Over the last three posts I have provided three classic cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Over the course of the next several posts I will probably provide you with some more philosophical arguments for God built upon foundations than origins. However, that can come latter. Right now I want to reset just a little bit.

After those three posts you may be saying to yourself, “That was interesting, but what was the point of that? Where does that get us?” If you look back at my original post that begun this topic, you’ll notice that I proposed to examine several points:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?
2. If such a God did exist, could He communicate with us?
3. Is belief in miracles reasonable?
4. Is the Bible trustworthy?
5. Is the resurrection reasonable?
6. Does the Biblical worldview comport with reality?
7. How does Christianity fare against the other leading worldviews of today?

I believe that those arguments, in part, establish my first point that belief in God is reasonable. I only say ‘in part’ because taken individually they are generally written off by skeptics as mental exercises with little merit. But when presented in groups, especially when you have several arguments which support the conclusion from several different premises, they become far more compelling and more difficult to ignore.

Simply put, the point of thinking about these arguments is that they lead to the conclusion that there must be a being who has the creative abilities that we ascribe to God, based not on passages in the Bible but on reason and observation.

Does this mean that we can throw out the Bible, and follow God solely through reason and observation? Absolutely not. But what it does begin to show is that Christians, whether we know it or not, have good reasons to believe what we believe.

In the next post we'll start examining whether such a God, since it appear probable that He does exist, would or could communicate with His creation.

Why Does Anything Exist?

The final philosophical cosmological argument that I will present here is the Leibnizian Argument. Developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), I find this the most compelling of all the cosmological arguments.
While many people equate this with the Thomist arguments the metaphysic undergirding this argument is completely different. Instead of asking the question “Did the universe begin to exist,” like the Kalam argument, or “Is there a necessary cause,” like the Thomist argument, the Leibnizian asks the simple question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

In my opinion, this line of reasoning makes the most direct observation of all the cosmological arguments; No fact can be real or existent, no statement true unless there is a sufficient reason why it is so rather than otherwise. In essence, why are we here? Why is anything here at all? Since it is far simpler that nothing should exist (seeing that non-existence requires no explanation, whereas existence requires one), why then does so much exist? This is the question for which Leibniz was searching for an answer.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument:

(1) Something exists.
(2) There must be a sufficient reason or rational basis for why something exists rather than nothing.
(3) This sufficient reason cannot be found in any single thing or in the whole aggregate of things or in the efficient causes for all things.
a. Things in the world are contingent, that is, determined in their being by other things such that if matter and motion were changed, they would not exist.
b. The world is simply the conglomeration of such things and is thus itself contingent.
c. The efficient causes of all things are simply prior state of the world, and these successive states do not explain why there are any states, any world, at all.
(4) Therefore, there must exist outside the world and the states of the world a sufficient reason for the existence of the world.
(5) This sufficient reason will be a metaphysically necessary being, that is, a being whose sufficient reason for existence is self-contained.

At first glance, this argument is harder to follow than the previous two that I posted, however, lets walk through it quickly, and it should become clear.

The first and second points are obvious, clearly something exists rather nothing, and we know that things that exist require reasons for their existence (whether we know what those reasons are or not). Point (3) begins clearly enough, with the observation that the reason for the existence of everything cannot be found in any one thing that exists, or even in the total collection of things that exist.

The sub-points of (3) are where the argument generally becomes confusing; however, if you keep in mind that the sub-points are only there to justify the point that they go with, it may be easier to follow. Essentially, what these points attempt to justify is that the necessary cause (remember the Thomist Argument in the last post) cannot be found in the universe, or in the total collection of things that make up the universe. These arguments don’t look at the reason for any one thing, but ask instead why anything exists rather than nothing. Thus, since the argument concludes that the reason for the existence of anything (and everything) can’t be found with the physical universe we must look beyond into the non-physical world, to find the necessary reason why we, and everything else, exist.

I will leave it up to you to decide what one should call a non-physical, necessary being, who is the reason for everything that exists.

We Require a "Necessary" Cause

As I hinted at in the last post, there are many different cosmological arguments that have been made over the years, some more persuasive than others. It probably won't come as a shock to anyone to discover that Thomas Aquinas is responsible for several of the most well known arguments.

All of the Thomist arguments are variations on a common theme, Thomas Aquinas was looking for a "first cause" for the universe, but not in a time related sense. He was looking for a "First Cause" in terms of rank. What this means is that the thing that causes must be"big enough" to adaquetely explain the resulting thing that is caused. If the thing that is caused is everything that exists, then it's cause must truly be substantial. In the case of the Thomist arguments, that thing which causes everything else must be so big, so all encompassing, that it transcends the status of "possible" and thus must have the status of a "necessary" thing.

What does this mean?

Everything you see around you is "possible," but not "necessary." Is the world such that the specific chair you are sitting in, or even you yourself, HAVE to exist? Certainly both you and the chair are "possible" since you and it exist, but could the world have been otherwise such that you or that chair did not exist? Of course it could. That is what is meant by "possible," but not "necessary." Is there anything that is absolutely necessary, such that there could be no conceivable world where that thing did not exist? That is the definition of a "necessary" thing, or being, and the question that Thomas Aquinas was trying to answer.

Below is the Thomist argument that I find most compelling:

(1) We see in the world things that exist but do not have to exist, that is to say, their existence is not necessary but merely possible, for we see them coming into and out of being.

(2) All things cannot be merely possible things, because:

(a) If a thing is merely possible, then at some time it did not exist.

(b) And if all things were merely possible, then at some time all things did not exist: there was nothing.

(c) But if at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist now because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.

(d) But this contradicts observation.

(e) Therefore, all things cannot be merely possible things; there must be something that is necessary.

I have to add a brief comment about point (b). The argument rests on this point, and this will probably be the area where the natural materialist picks his fight. However, because of the nearly universal acceptance of the "Big Bang," natural materialists will not be able to make a strong case that there was a moment in the past when nothing existed. While there have been a few attempts to incorporate the "Big Bang" into theories of an eternal universe (these theories paint a picture of a universe expanding and then reversing to collapse on itself, which in turn causes another "Big Bang," which is followed by another outward expansion, repeated endlessly into eternity) such theories have mostly received little attention and cannot be confirmed, verified, or even refuted in any way, due to our inability to see beyond the Planck Boundary. Such theories with so little to offer scientifically will never rise to a level of importance beyond "sideshow curiosity," and are thus unimportant.

That said, I think the rest of the argument is beyond reproach.

So, if the argument is true then there is such a "necessary" thing. What does that mean? It means that whatever this "necessary" thing is, it is responsible for everything else that exists. Most of us would call such a necessary thing, or being, God.

In the Beginning...

Over the next several posts I would like to present what I consider to be several compelling philosophical arguments for the existence of a God.

Let’s get started with the classic cosmological arguments. What is a cosmological argument, you ask? A cosmological argument makes the case for God from “universal causation;” that is, it is an argument based on the beginning of the universe. It will probably make more sense once you’ve seen one.

Cosmological Arguments – The Kalam Argument

The Kalam argument was originated by medieval Islamic theologian Al-Ghazali, and is probably the most well known of all the philosophical arguments for God.

(1) Everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its origin.
(2) The world began to exist.
a. There are temporal phenomena in the world
b. These are preceded by other temporal phenomena
c. The series of temporal phenomena cannot regress infinitely because an actually existing infinite series involves various absurdities.
d. Therefore, the series of temporal phenomena must have had a beginning.
(3) Therefore, the world has a cause for its origin: it’s creator.

In plain English, this argument begins with the recognition that nothing comes into being without a cause. That chair you’re sitting on, the computer you’re reading this on, even the rock used in the foundation of your house, all have a cause, whether we can discover it or not.

The next step recognizes that the universe has a beginning before which nothing existed.

The four sub-steps following (2) establish the heart of the argument. In case you didn’t know, “temporal phenomena” are simply occurrences in time; your alarm clock going off on Monday morning would be an example. In fact, everything that happens in this universe is an example of “temporal phenomena.” As we work our way backward through time, we discover that every event was preceded by other events, creating a long series of events over the course of time.

For a moment, suppose the universe had no beginning. If this was the case, then the series of “temporal phenomena,” would stretch away into the past forever – an infinite series of events. The problem is, while infinity may be useful in math, it is actually an “irrational number,” that is, a number that can’t exist. It’s literally absurd.

Allow me to demonstrate: The planet Mercury orbits the Sun once every 88 days while the planet Neptune orbits the Sun once every 60,189 days. Working under the assumption that the universe has no beginning, which planet, Mercury or Neptune, has accumulated more complete orbits of the Sun to date? The natural response would be to say Mercury (after all, it orbits the Sun approximately 684 times for every single orbit of Neptune), but that answer is wrong. Given an eternally existing universe, the correct answer would be “neither,” both would have completed an infinite number orbits.

Because of such absurdities as this one, Al-Ghazali came to the conclusion that the series of “temporal phenomena” must have a beginning, and that beginning had to be the advent of the universe. Going back to (1), everything that begins to exist must have a cause, now having established that the universe itself began to exist, we realize that it too must have a cause and that cause could only be God.

Belief in Unicorns = Belief in Christ?

Do you ever wonder what sets Christianity apart from other belief systems? Is Christianity truly more worthy of consideration than other religions we simply call myths today? What got me thinking about this was a conversation I recently heard on Dennis Prager’s radio show on May 13^th, 2008. During the third hour Mr. Prager was dialoging with callers about the lack of doubt among atheists on the question of God’s existence when an atheist called up and said (I'm paraphrasing), “Of course we don’t have any doubt. Do you ever doubt the non-existence of unicorns? No you don’t. We see the existence of God the same way you see unicorns.”

This got me thinking. Is what the atheist caller said valid? What would you say to such a person? For the one who doesn’t already follow Christ, is there any reason why Christianity should be given more consideration than other religious systems, such as ancient paganism? After thinking about it for the last several weeks I have come to a conclusion:

Whether you believe in Christianity or not, there are good, objective reasons why this system stands alone on the world stage as being worthy of consideration.

There are a number of reasons that I make such a claim, although I will not be able to touch on them adequately in this post. I guess that means that I will be starting another series to flesh out my thoughts on why Christianity should be considered before other systems, and even if rejected, cannot be put in the same class as unicorns, ancient pagan religions, or even other modern alternatives.

Regarding religious systems, you’ve probably heard people say things to the effect of, “Religions are matters of faith, and matters of faith cannot be proved or disproved.” If what such a claimant means is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of God conclusively enough to sway the hardened skeptic, then I have to agree. However, all religious systems make claims about history and the way the world is that can be checked against what we know about these subjects. If we begin checking such claims and find that, over and over again, the claims don’t comport with reality, then we probably have good reason to reject the system making the claims.

For instance, Hinduism makes the basic claim that the world is an illusion and that we are all figments in the imagination of the divine unconsciousness. Because of this basic Hindu claim, I feel safe in rejecting Hinduism as a whole because the system simply doesn’t agree with reality. If you and I are only figments of some cosmic unconsciousness then why are we aware of ourselves? When you dream, the characters in your dreams don’t have individual consciousness or awareness, they don’t think they exist nor do they know they don’t exist.

To make this as simple as possible, ask yourself this question: Does Mickey Mouse know that he’s a cartoon character? No. In fact, there isn’t even a “he” there, the cartoon character is a figment of the imagination, transferred to film, of Walt Disney. As you and I are aware ourselves we can safely say that we are not figments of anyone’s imagination; or as René Descartes would say, “Cogito ergo sum” (best known as, “I think therefore I am,” but better translated as, “I am thinking therefore I exist”).

Over the next several weeks, I will be attempting to build a case for the reasonableness of Christianity, starting with it’s most basic claims and building upon each post with more and more specific and detailed claims that Christianity makes about world around us. My current schedule (as I’m making it up in head as I write this) will look something like this:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?
2. If such a God did exist, could He communicate with us?
3. Is belief in miracles reasonable?
4. Is the Bible trustworthy?
5. Is the resurrection reasonable?
6. Does the Biblical worldview comport with reality?
7. How does Christianity fare against the other leading worldviews of today?

Anyone who has done much reading in the area of theistic Philosophy will recognize these questions and will probably be familiar with most of the answers. However, I hope that my presentation might be somewhat unique in that I am attempting to put these questions together in such a way as to build a progressive case for the validity and the truthfulness of Christianity as opposed to it’s competitors today and other myths.

I have my work cut out for me.

Am I Putting God in a Box?

Am I Putting God in a Box?

Over the last several posts I have tried to answer several of the most common questions people ask about my view of God’s will and Christian decision. In this last post on this topic (for a while anyway) I want to tackle one final question that is almost always asked about my view on this subject: “Aren’t you putting God in a box?”

This question goes well beyond the boundaries of this series, as it is commonly asked of anyone who questions a “new movement of the Spirit,” such as the Toronto Blessing; which many Christians, myself included, had grave doubts about. In this way, it is often not so much used as a question but a device to shut down inquiries and doubts regarding a given “spiritual” event.

I find this question somewhat illegitimate, although many who ask it are undoubtedly sincere, for one reason: It can be used to justify anything. A number of years ago, Greg Koukl (who, you may figured out by my frequent citations of him, is one of the most influential Christian teachers in my life) responded to this question this way:

What if I told you that you should come with me to a church that has a brand new work of the Spirit? You say, what is it? I say, when the Spirit moves us, we stand in a circle and urinate into a big tub. We pee in a pot. We call it "whizzing in the Spirit." You say, Koukl, that's bizarre. I say, there are no verses against it. Find a verse against it. In fact, I've got a proof text: "From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." There it is! Works for me! After all, you can't put God in a box, can you? God can do whatever He wants, can't He? So who are you to judge Him?

This is, of course, a humorous example, but it gets at the heart of the problem with the question (or statement), “Aren’t you putting God in a box?”

Whenever we teach about God and what it means to follow Him, we must be exceedingly careful to only teach what is Biblical. Is it possible that God could speak to you through your inner feelings and intuitions? Yes it is. Is it possible that God, if He so chose, could speak to you from a garden gnome under your bed? Yes it is, God certainly could do that if He wanted to. Am I, or you, or anyone else, allowed to teach that God does things in this way? No. The reason is simple: The Bible itself does not teach that God works in these ways. As teachers (all of us are in some capacity or another), the only things we can teach about God and His ways with any authority, or any surety, are the things taught to us first in the Bible.

Series Conclusion (for now, anyway):

Am I saying that I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit interacts with us on a sometimes unconscious level to influence or to assist in bringing to mind some wisdom that we didn’t know we possessed? Not at all, I do believe that God interacts with Christians in such a way. However, the danger begins when we start claiming that our “inward nudges” are instructions from God. Such claims give divine authority to our passing whims and thus shut down the possibility of wise counsel from other Christians who might advocate a different course of action. After all, if God really told you to do X, who are they to say not to?

Whether you have read all my posts on this subject, or only this one, the thing that I want everyone to understand is this: Our inner impressions, the thoughts and “nudges” that we feel from time may be from God, our own mind, or even from the Devil, but we don’t to agonize over the source of their origin as so many Christians do. What I understand to be the Biblical response, is to evaluate every potential course of action in light of God’s moral will and of wisdom. If we follow this Biblical prescription, we will never be far wrong. We will weed out the suggestions of the Devil and our own bad ideas, and (for the most part) follow through on our good ideas and the things of God.

It may be that there are things, many things perhaps, that we attempt that don’t meet with perfect success. That is the nature of life. The thing that counts for the most in the end is not whether our efforts meet with brilliant success at every turn but whether we consistently sought to honor and glorify God with our life through wise and Godly decisions and actions. It is in this way that we will find ourselves in the center of God’s will for our life.