Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Clifford Goldstein

4. Attempts to Harmonize Evolution and the Bible

Clifford Goldstein


Clifford Goldstein

Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Ministries Quarterly



  • December 28, 2017
    4:00 PM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2017 AudioVerse.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.


Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

This message was presented at the G.U.Y.Z. twenty seventeen conference arise in Phoenix Arizona for other resources like this visit us online at W W W dot. Org. Everybody's one now this is the last talk today right. And then there's one more tomorrow OK I don't care how you do. I warn you I spit when I talk so you've been won you're in the splash zone there you're in the splash zone I usually get done my i Pad is so do I usually preach out of my i Pad when I get done it is so disgusting as it's. People who are well let's just pray again and we can get started. Father again I thank you for the opportunity to talk about these things and I just pray that will come away strengthened in our faith and she's this name Amen you know I got sidetracked a little earlier. For a change because of some much I wanna cover but I we talked about a pistol Mollett Gee. How do we know. That when we say we know something and I know my back a. The same way I know I know my back aches and I know two plus two equals five and I know that I was born in Albany New York. But I know these things differently and the pistol is the study. Of how we know what we know when we say we know something what do we mean by that and to me it's my favorite branch of philosophy because it gets down to everything I mean if you How can you know anything you know without you know at least understanding why you know it now how does this work there's different forms of a pistol maul A-G.. And one branch of a pistol G is called in Paris's and let me give you an example of how this works if I said to you. In the room next door. There are fifty people in the room next door. You could go over to the room and you could look through and you could count up the number of people in the room. And then you could say yes I know there are fifty people in the room you would be doing what you call in peeresses you would be using your senses to come to knowledge about something. Now a contrast with that with another form of knowledge if I said to you. If there are twenty people in the room. There are more people in the room than if there were just fifteen people and if I said that to you and you said OK I'm going to go in the room and look and check. That be a little weird wouldn't it. If I say to you there's if there are twenty people in the room there are more people than there are if there are fifteen people. You would have to go in the room to check you would you know you don't need to see anything logic and reason rationalism you wouldn't you know the answer to that without needing to go look in see logic and reason alone explains that to you where is in peeresses room you've got to go in and look and in many ways science is. A form of in paresis a piston Mollett. It's using our senses to try to understand trues about the real world. But you know there's a problem with that how many times have we if you that we realize how deceptive our senses could be Who here has never been the scene by their senses in philosophy some people believe that empiricism. Is absolutely the most unreliable. Way of ever knowing anything because how can you think of all the things that that deceive us the way they look the way they appear optical illusions you know and so forth and as I said I used to think to all the radio waves that are in the room right now we can't we can't see them so forth now let's go back to that room and now it cheap. If I said there are fifteen people in the room and you go in you look and you count up fifteen people. But how do you know though that maybe there wasn't a closet in the room and there were three people in the closet. OK had maybe there was somebody up in the rafters and you didn't see them or maybe you were in the antebellum South. When sleighs were considered three fifths of a person. OK So you see what I'm saying it's we use a pistol Mala gee we use our senses we use them all the time. But they can be exceedingly deceptive and as I said science is a form of empiricist a pistol Mollett. Which is one reason why people say. You know there are some who argue you could never prove a scientific theory you never hear that because you never know for sure. Whether other something will come along and usurp that and show that the theory they come up with a better explanation for it and they throw everything out but and again as I've said before and again this is the point. Just because the theory works just because it makes accurate predictions. And we can gave the example I gave you example my invisible Spiders from Mars. To show you that that's the fact that it works or you can make predictions is completely separate issue from whether it's true and you know you talk about the in Pyrrhic all stuff you say will don't people build. Vices. To take us beyond our senses Now that's a fascinating thought and it's true they do but you get into this they are here you can't even build your divide us. Unless you already know what you're looking for. And they'll argue that a lot of devices are built with the scientific theories presupposed in the device so they develop the device looking for such and such and they assume such and such is there and what do you know they find such and such doesn't mean it's wrong it doesn't mean it's false it just means that it's not necessarily as subjective as you might think you know I think of the fascinating example of the Large Hadron Collider. The greatest scientific the vise ever built they're looking for the Higgs both Zhan and it's gets the Higgs is or is supposed to it's a particle or a field that support I mean very complicated stuff I look at I go back to the Teaching Company I listen to a twenty four course lecture on it I probably knew was less coming out as I went in. But the point is and I deal with this in the book they have billions of dollars worth of equipment built upon layers and layers of assumptions layers and layers all sorts of theories they've got petabytes that's the word they analyze petabytes of data. And in the end they got these massive computers and there was old timidly be a little bump on the screen through met these you know atoms they don't like to use the term atom smashers but the Atom Smasher and then they have these massive compay got six hundred thousand dollars worth of detectors and then they have thousands of computers complete all these high computing petabytes of data. And then eventually they get a little bump on the computer screen and that they say is they found the Higgs now the point is they didn't just say they smashed the proton and here's a tweezer and oh oh here's the here's exe right in front of me. They had layer and layer and layer of assumptions built upon assumptions built upon theories that over time will probably be overturned or superseded early Whatever Now I'm not saying Now I assume they know what they're doing. But let's not forget what they're doing OK layer upon layer upon layer to find the Higgs bows on and I just again I soon that they know what they're doing and they probably did but it's not as clear cut and simple as Dr you were going to ask a question. What's that. All K.. OK you have a large. Good I like that when people are I can anticipate now I don't want to spend too much time on this it's just a. I wanted to touch on that earlier that science is old to mentally always a. It's a pistol Mollett I mean it's a pistol malas Yes but it's and Pyrrhic on pistol. And for so many many thinkers philosophers if you take a series that is the least reliable form of knowledge OK now I want to touch on something else. Because. Again there isn't any aspect of the philosophy of science that isn't come under question you know I told you they don't even agree on what how to define science OK there's all sorts of debates on how to define science there are all sorts of debates on how do you determine if a theory is true what does it mean if the theory is true I mean there's no aspect of this that there isn't questions now and again this is not to dis science this is not to the how do you deny the success of science how you know you got you can't deny it now you can argue well science if you believe in global warming or the nuclear thing that's a separate issue that's the humans doing science in a bad way OK but it's not. Contra science itself but one of the big questions that people have and I found this as I said the stuff was fascinating to me. Is the whole question. Of So yes I said before. There are different theories and I didn't get into this much there are different concepts of what science does some people they're called the realists they believe science teaches you about the real world. There are others who say no no no science doesn't teach us about the real world at all it just teaches us about what happens but it doesn't we can't explain we can't know the reasons why it just makes predictions others say in fact I have a chapter in my book this blew my mind a quote from a famous philosopher of science. He said a theory could be good. But not true. That's just blew my mind will you vote we if you've been listening to the lectures you understand what I mean by that it could be good it makes predictions you make technology but it doesn't have to be true and again for some people but see here's where it's very this gets very important in the creation evolution thing when Richard Dawkins says that eight hundred million years ago. The whale ancestor when from beat a land animal to the water to become a way. He means literally that there was eight hundred million years ago there was a whale there was a whale ancestor on land who literally went in the water and involved and became a whale because see there are some who say all science is about making models they just make models about things whether you know everything is true or not you just does the model work so the point is there are some who say science is not about truth that's metaphysics you build a machine it works who cares what the science behind it is who cares what the theory is you want to make predictions it works. There are others who say no no science is seeking truth and in the creation of illusion debate we're dealing with truth OK we're talk about what did or did not happen now one of the questions that come up is. I was fascinated how complicated it is scientists to this day they cannot agree on what a scientific explanation is they can't even agree what an explanation is no we're not talking we're not talking about individual explanations we're talking about the whole question of what constitutes a scientific explanation and to this day it has never been resolved and again from our perspective here this is fascinating because I come back to this the great myth of our era and for those of you to keep hearing it but my from my favorite Teaching Company teachers would repeat points over and over and I was thankful the great myth is just because it's science it's got to be true and my whole point of this book is say that's not necessarily the case it might be. But it's not necessarily a case and with creation it with evolution it's I'd say it's definitely not true anyway there was a fact I'm reading a play now. But. Of reading a different one by him by the sixteenth century seventeenth century French dramatist name all the air. In this is called the doctor without the spite of himself and there's this hilarious scene where the student is taking a medical exam and the doctor they ask the student why does opium put people to sleep and the student reply was. Because of it's dormant to have power. And the professor replies doctor doctor learned he learned OK this was more yeah they're mocking I'm reading this other play of his right now and it is so funny he's four hundred years ago thrown out a lot of questions about the way medicine is practiced this was four hundred years ago but he's bringing up this question. And this is the question of causation of explanation what does it mean to say that X. causes Y. in a scientific explanation we explain this happens we explain this because of this though I think in a little while I show you I don't think i'm question very much whether science explains anything. It describes things let's take the most what's the most famous scientific formula everybody knows. He equals MC squared that explains Apple Salut really nothing. Doesn't tell you anything why it happens it just says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared OK it's describing some things. But it doesn't explain it doesn't explain it's just describing it why does energy equal mass times the speed of light squared and c there's a world of difference. Between describing something and explaining it and in philosophy of science some people argue that in the end. You reach a point where you really don't explain anything and I want to look at that for a minute because it's fascinating what do we say when we if you're looking at science is doing more than just making predictions because again some just make predictions that's all that matters that we say why it's going to happen why it happens let's all that matters to us and some say no no no we want to get to the why we want to know what causes it what is the explanation and this could be amazingly problematic in anything. There were a member there was this. Fame member the famous bank robber John Dillon Ger they put John they caught villager. And I guess eventually they shot him but at one point they asked him why do you rob banks. To remember anybody know what diligence answer was. That's where the money is because you're a banker you would know that his guy's a banker he would know that why do you rob banks because that's where the money is you know that is a perfectly logical rational explanation that you know so in one sense does that answer the question. Are you satisfied with that you know our take another one when I'm reading another book right now to. A book about Hitler you know how many books I've read on Hitler. But this is this was written by a German who she says Well never mind a market if you know that but if you know the story a Hitler Hitler failed twice he applied to art school. In Vienna and twice he failed he never got and so instead he went into politics and the rest a sister E.. So could you argue. Can you say that the cause of World War two. Was Hitler being rejected from art school. I mean. I tend to think if he became an artist the world would have been radically different so there's something there's something about this you know book a book had been written dealing with the question of causation and how it works in signs and again causation explanation and it's just fascinating that there is no consensus on this let's go back to our Moliere story. So why does opium. Cause sleepiness because of its dormant POWERS Well you know that's not. Totally wrong. It's not it's not the same thing opium and dormant of powers are not synonymous it does a little bit of quote explaining I mean you could have said something like this Well when you take opium the Great Goddess snoozer of South Albania puts you to sleep OK now that might be a pre-scientific answer. And it's certainly not very helpful us today but who's going to be happy with dormant of powers OK but let's look at it a little more scientifically. And I had a biologist help me with this so bear with me suppose we say that there are poly nuclear arrow Maram Matic hydrocarbons in the opium and they get into the central nervous system and that puts you to sleep OK but. Why do the poly nuclear arrow Mattick hydrocarbons put you to sleep. But you could say that because they attach to opioid receptors in the brain OK and that helps you sleep OK but why well then perhaps you get right into the detail chemistry of how the molecules work and that explains why you sleep or maybe from the molecules you get right down to the atoms and they themselves and what they do helps put you to sleep but why do the atoms on the opioid receptors put you to sleep and at some point you stop your explanation stops and the best thing you could say is well it's because of their torment of powers OK You know it's on one level it's easy to explain causation O.P.M. cause you to sleep because of it's dormant of powers but then you how far down how far down the line. Do you go how far down the line do you go to get right down to the quarks and the left Toms how far down do you go till you have a full explanation and do you want to explain everything in the world. At the level of nuclear at the nuclear level you can explain why you like the why I like Mozart. At the nuclear level you can explain a lot of I mean I have a section in my book where I talk about how. Some of these dating things. They get really into some of the. Scientific stuff like some of the you know the scientific stuff because well if everything is all timidly. You know material everything's all timidly materialistic go back and look at your D.N.A. Look at your genes look at the chemicals and maybe that way you can find somebody that you're going to be mated with it's not totally unreasonable but the point is at what point how far down the line do you go OK dormant of powers is not a very satisfactory answer but it seems to me there's only a quantitative difference between that and the different levels that we looked at this is something that's very powerful. And I found numerous quotes and I touch on this in the book. The famous American Austrian philosopher ludic one with can Stein that can stand. Once said and I got some great quotes from other philosophers of science no matter what you do no matter what you believe eventually your justification for it stops says you reach a point where you say here's this far as my explanation could go and then it ends in fact in another time. With consent science said there's no difference between faith there's no difference between religion and chemistry. He said they both are essentially groundless. But I wouldn't phrase it that way but in the sense they both you come to a point where your explanations your justification stop they're not after the grounds they don't. Hit a bottom line they don't hit at some point it stops you reach a point where you have no more now in. I think the said before I have a very rational reasons for my Christian faith very logical very rational reasons and fact somebody asked me a while back to ever doubt. And I said well if I doubt I stop and I realize how irrational. My doubt is OK the things I've experienced the things I know or believe I know I've read wait I've so screwed my brain up with philosophy you have no idea to the degree you can really mess yourself up with that you know Fortune I keep it anchored in scripture but I forgot where I was say it so I have very rational reasons in fact if I were to doubt to me is so irrational considering the things that I know in the things that I've experienced but at the same time I reach a point where my reason it stops and I can't go any further so what do I have to do what's the word called Faith OK it's certainly not a blind faith but I reach a point in fact to this is fascinating if you study any logic you realize there's a point where my logic and reason. Has shown me the limits of logic and reason I preached a sermon on this one time years ago and it was I think it was a little muddled but the point was my reason alone shows me the limits of logic and reason and the point is you reach a point where you're just to fit cation stops and the same thing happens in science as well they have the admit they come to a surface like my friend my friend into carbon dating. I said Irv how far down I want you to take me down as far as you can. And get me this something absolutely certain absolutely a movable I don't want it on the top I want to their own a few years. And again we're talking physics here we're not talking stamp collecting you know there's a joke the physicists say all true sciences physics everything else a stamp collecting OK you know who I know that's me yeah but the point is and I said Irv when does it stop and here he is he said he said science doesn't work that way what do you know the point is eventually you reach a case where you have to take a leap of faith see it with us and it's almost as if God God knows OK you got these fall in beings they're sinners. There's only so far their fallen mines could go I'm going to give them all the rational evidence I can OK that they could handle I mean you know to this day. To me Daniel two. I don't know how anybody could read Daniel two and come away not see how we've been given the most logic to me God gave us the history of the world something as firm as broad as a movable and as unchangeable as the history of the world you know that is about as rational. Appeal to human rationality is anything I could think of so you have I keep forgetting where I'm going I keep deviating I'm getting tired and here but the point is but at that I still had a point though I have these reasons but then eventually it's called faith OK I take a point where my reasoning stops and then I have to go beyond that and it's the same thing in science their point their reasoning stops and then they have to reach out no they won't use the word faith. They hate that word but that still you're assuming things you cannot prove you're assuming things that I asked the chemistry chemists here anybody with chemistry I gave a talk a similar talk like this in Germany. And I asked a chemist about this and he said to you guys really know what he says no we go to a certain level. We understand what's going on to a certain degree and then you get past that level he says we don't have a clue as to they know what happens you know and they can have their speculations and their ideas but they don't know they go on faith regarding what they think. Happens but yes but again but science supposedly is different you know I mean science we use Marathe we use formulas OK Can't that be very precise but again we go back to equals MC squared. Most famous formula. It describes but it explains nothing what does it explain energy equals mass times the speed of life squared Do you understand why it does that you're not it just the picks it it just describes it that's all you know we talked about how on earlier you were here we talked about Newton's gravity. Knew now had I said he had this famous line I think no hypotheses. He had absolutely no idea why objects attracted each other in space through empty space and as I said I think I quoted you he said The idea is so absurd. I don't know why anybody would believe it and Newton was talking about his own theory well Albert Einstein comes along. And he explains what happens he said we now know NASS matter billions. Space and time OK Explain for us space and time the best example I seen you have a mattress. And you drop a bullying ball or a big heavy cinder block in the middle of the mattress the mattress Canada. Digs in under the weight of the cinder block it take a marble and you hold the marble and you let the marble go what happens the marble will fall toward. The cinder block that's a very crude and I read something the other day saying that's the wrong way to explain it but that's the way I've always been explaining but anyway the point is mass bend space and time OK of course that explains it mess in space and time how intuitive How can anybody not of seen it why do you need an Einstein in the twentieth century the teacher that but why does mass bend space and time they have all sorts of of formulas but maybe a hundred years from now but see right now they have no idea why mass been space and you could say going Stein's field equations but then why on on and on and on so the question is how far down do you have to go do you have to go before you have a real solid explanation sooner or later their justification even for your scientific explanations comes to a stop and then you have to reach out on an on faith say well we don't know all we know is that it works but I found a kind of fascinating this whole idea that you in the end even. In the end even with science you build you build things OK You build things to a certain point and then your explanations stops forward and you know there's another problem with science it's called The problem of induction anybody know what we're talking about here well let me give you an example and this is all science works on this. And this actually comes back again to what I would to the end the problem of how you all to mentally prove a theory we've all heard the statement all copper conducts electricity. OK you believe that who here believes all copper conducts electricity it will either. I have good reasons to believe I say I believe. But how do I know for sure or. How do we know have we ever tested all copper Have we ever you know how would you know you know all copper conducts it sounds logical it sounds reasonable sound scientific. And every piece of copper that I've ever seen though somebody told me you said it that when you get near absolute zero. Copper stops conduct the electricity OK but how could we ever study every piece of copper in the universe in order to know if that statement is true. How justified are we how justified are we in taking the limited number of pieces of copper. That we've ever seen. And make a brash universal statement about all copper. You're really not old commit lead justified in doing it it's reasonable OK and so on but you don't know absolutely for sure and see this too is one of the fascinating things and I think any on a scientist will tell you to we don't know these things in science for sure. They might have good reasons you could build technology on it and again this comes back to say well I don't have to know it for sure Does it work does it feel I'll get me an ode to the moon and back that's fine but again that becomes important in the creation and the evolution debate because we are assured. Dogmatic Lee. And that of evolution and if you dare question it. You're destroyed your careers are destroyed in academia the moment you start questioning it or what about questions of law like regularity some argue that we have a valid scientific explanation when something works with the law like regular arity OK X. always does Y. and every time we've have experienced it X. did Y. and it works law like and every time we've ever seen it but how do you know that in the future it might do Z. instead of Y. or if in ages past it didn't do Q. it did Q. instead of Y. and a particularly this last one in ages past is exceedingly important in this whole question because if you were here earlier I said Science works on the idea of the continuity of nature. Things do what they do now they always did and that's how they retro DIC back to the past. But when you come to the world as it was originally created a world without death a world without rain OK a world where people live forever the laws of what we used today aren't going to work back then and that's one of the reasons why I believe they got it so completely wrong or it's as if you heard that lecture why science gets origin so wrong OK but the fact is just because X. always does Y. now is no proof that it it will do it in the future now we again we still have to work with that you know at the same time you know I can't prove that all copper conducts electricity but I'm certainly going to build my house with copper wire I'm going to want copper wires through it and again this comes back again to the earlier question that just because something works and functions does it necessarily make it correct how much more time do we have now I wall oh yes this is something I want to do to this is important. As I said I realize this is a little bit I'm getting a little stick around because I get so much stuff one of my favorite writers was atheist Chris you're for Hitchens. Just like to read HITCHENS I love to listen to him I wish he hadn't got off on all this atheist stuff he wrote this horrific book called God Is Not Great where religion spoils everything and it was just it was asinine you know he couldn't use that was not a very good book at all and I was sorry to see him go that route because I always liked him but he had a quote he says religion has run out of justification it's every new advance with the microscope and the telescope makes religion more and more irrelevant. And I would have left to have asked him. Just what do we find what have we seen in a microscope what have we seen in a telescope. That makes religion irrelevant I would argue the opposite but let me give you I think a good example of what I think of the fallacy in this thinking. We all know the story in Noah. And they are you know by the way you'll find an incredible number of Christians who don't believe in the universal flood. Because the science says it never happened and well the science says it therefore and of course the Christians are going to be the first ones well science says it fine. What was the sign that Noah gave that promised the world he'll never destroy it by a flood again the rainbow you know I say to some of my Christian friends or if you don't believe in a huge universal flood. Every rainbow makes God a liar. Because there's been a lot of local floods OK So God puts the rainbow in the sky. And people now just laugh at that. You gotta be kidding me. Because science has explained to us quote explains the I'm getting caught in my own trap. Because I'm not one I believe science describes more than explains but science is described an awful lot about the rainbow. We know that when you got the water droplets a beam of light comes in it reflects off a one side or a frat I don't remember how all that is but you can read some pretty complicated mathematical explanations of the rainbow it can get quite complicated the math because you know you're dealing with a light in the bending of light and they say look now we know it's got nothing to do come on that was it that was pre scientific superstition by a bunch of late Bronze Age camel herders. They don't know anything about light they don't know anything about the refractory and reflect the properties of light. So to sit there and say that the left the rainbow is a sign of God's coveted that he's never going to destroy the world with a flood we know what a rainbow is it's light hits it and you could give all the mathematical formulas you want. How. Does that make sense to you. How would you answer that let me ask you a question how would you answer that charge you got to be kidding me you believe that's a sign of God's covenant God you know a rainbow we now know what happened science's proved to us science it was. I think it was Keats who had a line in a poem science will on we the rainbow think even Dawkins wrote a book on weaving the rainbow. What is wrong with that argument if someone came up to you and said that's a buncha nonsense. Well no you can't prove you could show what you could see what the light is doing me no you can create a rainbow when it is in a in a laboratory Exactly. God she is scripture said. God said I will take Angel's favors and Serafin feather I'll take the blue do feathers of a Sarah from in the green feathers of a cherubim and are we Angel feathers together. And make your bow in this guy. We have a problem OK. But all it says is I will put the bow in the sky so God created our world in such a way that when light hits water droplets at a certain angle it creates this beautiful. Bow is in the sky and if anything I'd say that what time does what time does I stopped at what time does go to five I got eight more minutes left. Or right I can you see the point here can you see the point some would say Oh see I heard a physicist one time say. Is name was Peter Adkins. And Afghans he was a new atheist long before Dawkins or any of them and I'm trying to find it I heard a minute too but I want to find it again he said something utterly fascinating to. He said science is going to keep peeling back reality he's a Brit millimeter I still never make that. Metric stuff just drives me to drink I can't stand it millimeter to millimeter So it's going to peel back until it shows absolutely no need for God at all. And I would have loved. To have sat down and talked to him. And have and asked him. What do you think you're going to what do you imagine when you peel it back. Are you going to find. That's going to show you that there's no need for God at all and you know it's going to tell me because I quote him in my book here he says. Science will never be totally successful. This is unbelievable till it could prove. The existence of the universe from absolutely nothing. You know not something small not a quantum fluctuation but from absolutely nothing you know this is deviating a little from my point in August we run out of time I want to pick up tomorrow want to pick up two things I want to pick up I want to spend a little time showing the idiocy of theistic evolution people how they try to meld it and then just look at all this I don't think it's coincidental that all this goes on in context the last day of events. But if you. They will argue now that the universe arose from nothing. And you know I believe that's the most logical rational argument that they could come up with. OK I believe they're forced to do that. Because if you do there are only two things because the let's say you know scientists are always looking for their fame going to bust too hard to figure out how to use the pen. The five minutes the. Scientists are looking for what they call a theory of everything ever heard that the Fairy of everything they're looking for V I guess they're looking for we said justification stops. They want to get the for this down and the most prized in basic thing the explanation for everything the most fundamental theory. And say they come up with the they think they find it X. plus Y. equals E OK I'm just throwing out some silly stuff but you know they want everything in a formula this they say is the most foundational formula this could explain everything from the existence of time to the you know the existence of hummingbirds you could all get it down with this. There's a slight problem though. Why X.. Instead a Q Why why instead a T Y P instead of L all see no matter what they come up with that's going to need an explanation and if that's explained by something then X. plus Y. equals e is not the most foundational something is more foundational to it and say you go we find we get something smaller cute plus two times to equals Q L That's the most fun you've got infinite regress there are only two things that I could think of. Only two things I could think of are you that don't need an explanation an eternal existing god who was always the. Who was before prior to all explanation will you know the foundation of all that exists. Eternal existing god now because science. The way they practice science will not accept that. You are practicing scientist might be a believer but in terms of his science no no you can't do that that's what they would argue. Well what's the only other thing. That doesn't need an explanation. The only not faith now faith you know it's not think so you don't need anything to explain why did it go you did nothing there was the famous question why is there something instead of nothing. Well if there isn't you know nothing doesn't need an explanation so you've got eternal existing god. Who creates everything or you've got nothing and if you a priori rule out the eternal existing god the most logical thing you've got is nothing and I have a book on my i Pad. Called the Universe from Nothing there's been a spate of books coming out now. On trying to show that the universe a rose from nothing but folks in Will and on this. We can't mock that. Because it's science it's and I think it's science and therefore how dare any mere mortal question it OK Well thank you you've been pretty good audience and we'll pick it up we'll pick up tomorrow thank you for. This message was recorded at the Q I C twenty seventeen conference arrives in Phoenix Arizona. G. Y.C. supporting Ministry of the Seventh Day Adventist Church seeks to inspire young people to be bible based Christ centered and so many Christians to download were purchased other resources like a. Yes Visit us online at W.W.W. dot G.Y. see Web dot org.


Embed Code

Short URL