Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Clifford Goldstein

Why Do I Believe in God?

Clifford Goldstein


Clifford Goldstein

Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Ministries Quarterly



  • December 30, 2010
    9:15 AM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

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

him him him him this message was present at the CYC two thousand ten no turning back on the air for other resources like this visit us online GUI see whether or without the title of my sermon my thought is it oh why oh why believe in God and I had it at Scott estranged topic you think or someone found it I got that racket over there has to stand on here is it's very distracting I can hear my through the wall I got that last time I is how I am a writer and I'm an editor as reaching for me is like pulling teeth but started in the title of my sermon is why do I believe in God and you think that would be the strange topic coming for someone who's been in avenues for thirty years and now it's here I'll be at GDC twenty eight years which will be literally half my life all up in their and yet at the same time maybe it's not so strange because maybe once in a while it's good to take a look at the foundation principles at the core of what you believe and why you believe it and make any adjustments along the way if you need to change and I suppose in one sense do I put this talk together as kind of a defense against spiritual or even intellectual complacency we don't want to take our police for granted we don't want to take our faith for granted and we don't want to take our relationship with God for granted as well we need to think through what we believe is going up and down on my we think through what we believe not for only our own good then maybe to fulfill the admonition we read in Peter but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asked you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear and that's what I want to do with this talk if nothing else it's just simply help give an answer for the hope that is in us now the title is and why do I believe in Jesus or while I believe in the second coming I want even get more basic than that those elements really are what you need faith for a lot of faithful foot for that agony like saying you need revelation for an online denying that you don't need faith to believe in God arguing that there are very powerful and logical reasons for faith in God in fact I would argue and argue even strenuously to try to do here that logic and reason is by far by far more on the side of those who believe in God than it is for those who don't I believe the logic and reason worked much stronger in our direction for belief in God and die and that's what I want to talk about are some of those basic reasons for this belief I want to start with the story I don't I don't happen to be a very big great CS Lewis fan anyone Lewis is good he's good and I do think Screwtape letters is absolutely one of the most for him that's not quote inspired as we understand inspiration that is all powerful powerful book if you ever read Screwtape letters you ought to read the scrutiny I get goosebumps sometimes when I just think of that book and how powerful that book is generally I'm not a big CS Lewis Fanny has some Iraqi stop I've never read any of outside of your Christianity and Screwtape letters little things here and there I've read but it is a good book called surprised by joy which tells his own conversion experience in a number in this book we talked about the fact that he was teaching at Oxford and I talked about they were probably I can't remember all the details but they are probably thinks sitting in the teachers lounge and this is what he was still in a Gnostic or an atheist and he talked about a friend of his death I don't have any slides or anything so it thank you I like to longer a little anyway he was talking to this guy and he called him a hard-boiled list of all the atheists I ever knew descendents of settings the top assist tops when it came to faith so obviously were dealing with a hard-nosed atheist amino you got a lot of them not England these days but anyway there sitting in the teachers lounge NFL assisted him something like this will get OCS old chap there really is a lot of powerful evidence for the historicity of the Gospels and in the guy just dropped the subject enemy than CS Lewis was floor was almost as if the guy sent him will you know CSO can I was sitting last night needing a flying saucer came down in my backyard and scooped up my dog Rover and took him away as the salt to drop the subject won't see Lewis was floored because CS Lewis the auditors to be importations of what Batman was saying I mean the Gospels were historically accurate that is what anything really been miracles occurred because the Gospels are filled with miracles particularly the resurrection of Jesus and if you have all these miracles if you have supernatural things occurring in his own atheistic materialistic worldview we know have to be wrong I mean if you have a worldview which says divine miracle supernatural miracles cannot occur and you think you'll occur in old and what happens to your worldview that says they can't occur and this is what he phases witnesses when he was faced with non- using this account not as an introduction to unapologetic on the Gospels but it is an account as an introduction to what Rick has represented from antiquity basically to over arching worldviews to grand overarching metaphysics if you want to not be the best word is I think one of them went the night tonight but first there's the materialistic atheistic worldview which goes back as far back to ancient Greece atheism and all the stuff you can start with Richard Dawkins in the new Atlantic column the new atheists you could find his way back in ancient Greece right up through today where it was mostly loudly proclaimed by what they call the new atheists no God no creator works early chance creationism with some ancient Greek philosopher four hundred years three hundred years before Christ call the atoms atoms in the forty and it's all we are atoms in the boy okay you got that one view the atheistic secular world overview which is somewhat dominant in many of the Academy 's today in secular America and then you've got the second overarching view in a belief in some type of supernatural being or beings in all firms or esters at her loss the default players to use a ball was not an atheist he was useful once every watch has to happen watch maker Theo got in on anything from Czar Astbury isn't that all tears to use some up through Calvinistic predestination and on and on and on and everything in between as well no world this is important to listen to the date of the other having the atheistic worldview was truly otherworldly was false if the other world it was true than the atheistic worldview was softening there is no synthesis here either there was a daughter there was a god or supernatural being or beings are not a munitions no middle ground there and my talk is my title on subtly suggests is I think the latter obviously belief in God so why do I believe in God let's get a little more fundamental why oh why believe in anything really why is there anything at all to believe then why is there even a subjective consciousness like myself to believe in anything or to get as basic as you can I like there was a philosopher in the sixteen hundreds his name was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and he was a contemporary and new men he and Newton got a big fight over who first invented calculus can you imagine being on a boat at infinity calculus is admitting it any Bradley Leibniz asked the question but I think gets to the bottom line of everything and here's about a basic drawing of a question as I think you can ass like this ask the question why is there something instead of nothing okay if you try to try to get a lower than that are broader than that I don't know why I like the custom in all the bottom line why is there something instead of nothing because apparently there is something and now there is something here and I think you know the answer must be found in one of those two overarching worldviews that we just talked about one version or another of him out into the universe existed through natural or supernatural origins if the latter it came through the latter something supernatural through God Creator God or gods or whatever then the universe was made by the Europeans greater than or prior to producers of basic law only something greater than something could make pay only something greater than whatever you think about that only something greater that make itself if the universe was made by something pretty awesome pretty powerful greater than the universe created data otherwise if you don't accept that you if you don't accept that creation have to occur naturally out of itself which leads to the question how did you first get there in order to create itself out of itself you see what unscientific wasn't created by something that something had already been there and yet where it that something come from if that wasn't created by something out of itself outfitted created itself to begin with if it created itself it would have happened there in order to delay the new year you get to see if it's a little a lot secured debts of the all little strange happened something create itself something happened prior to now the only apparent out this the only way to get out of this other than a God is the argument for an attack kernel universe that the universe always existed this is the belief that was held by Aristotle and it was felt by many people even into the twentieth century the idea that the idea that the universe was always there always exists never had a beginning and I think that you can get away from the idea that eating any kind of creator if it existed for paternity now this runs into some problems and I just want to briefly touch on one you want to Google it and get into it deeper I I think there's something to this argument I like it it's an old medieval Moslem argument for the existence of God it's called Caitlin cosmological argument take a LAM and undiscovered touch on it briefly but I try to wrap my mind around it and if you want to find a really good modern Christian thinker his name is William Lane Craig and afraid his brilliant mind brilliant Christian apologist and he is sort of wrong with this he's taken this old medieval argument and has kind of flesh it out a little more but the gist of this argument is is simply that an infinitely old universe would be an possible because it would imply that a number of moments would have to have been passed in order to reach this moment or any mode but how can you please call the problem transversely in the how can you cross over an infinite number of any thing in the universe is infinitely old and an infinite amount of time must have been transfers in order to get to the present moment where we are now how do you cover in infinite amount of time you know if an infinite universe existed in the universe existed infinitely in the past with an infinite number of moments must've been traversed in order to get to where we are now but we can't count even in our haste to infinity it was tentative on it even our heads how could in reality an infinite number of moments have been passed as I said I don't want to belabor it think about it there's something to that argument that I idolized whether it's in our how valid it is or not I don't know whether it was valid or not it was had all been mooted by the Big Bang theory and I don't want to get along thing out to say I don't have a problem with the Big Bang it doesn't affect my Christianity I have no problem reconciling if you asked me if I can believe in the Big Bang it's probably go to be turned as begun to turn out wrong just know the way science is and always these theories that are involved then eventually they throw them out I don't have a problem with the Big Bang and the FBI don't have a problem believing that I can reconcilable with probably never turn out wrong but for the moment the main believe now is the big-name change that the universe once not have a beginning team and to existence that the universe once was in here and then came into existence and you know I don't again there's an awful lot of mathematical science an awful lot of physics in Big Bang cosmogony okay I know I give it that gets rid of God I've never been able to understand that will look at that a little more but that this idea that the universe had a beginning once convinced the world 's most notorious atheist Anthony flew there must be a God notes funny about Anthony flew and mentioned him last year when I spoke here I remember a number years ago I was reading at the patient between theists and atheists over the existence of God and I remember reading Anthony flew our family for the atheist position and this guy was cool I mean this guy was really really good I mean he was clearly I was fairly impressed with his arguments I think Monica some I don't think those things work one way or another either way I come to God arguments in tell my last talk is my conversion story which you'll see I think they got totally through experience there was nothing intellectual about my coming to know the Lord the intellectual stuff came afterwards but anyway flew was thrilling it continues to keep an eye out for him and reading one now whenever I could because I like good thinking will anyway so freaking most of his life just set the universe as a whole group of fact okay it was just for him his own words up roots that she didn't trust why they didn't need an explanation he didn't want to get behind the universe in all or to seek an explanation he just excepted as the ultimate starting point you didn't go behind it now if you think about it it's not all pain and event bugging you as much as it's bugging me now sorry I don't know I don't know what the problem is with that office seems like when I come over here enough to stand over there anyway so who just accept that the universe is approved back in if you think about it it's really kind of silly because as if one were in what universe does seem awfully complicated and false state of affairs not to have some explanation for Iraq to have something behind the universe just do without him I mean it's not all rational to me that is your starting point but Falluja said he won't simply be taken the universe and its fundamental features as the bolt on the back I really think it's kind of a copout as I said there's an awful lot health therapist and not have some kind of explanation for it however after the Big Bang cosmogony came out and apparently there's more and more evidence supporting it though recently I've been reading things which are calling the whole thing and the question which again is a set of times you don't want twenty five years from now that whole thing get on might just be moot anyway but according to Whitley teaches the universe that once been exist had a beginning how to start this cause flew to abandon his previous position and die if the universe had no beginning that he said something must have started and he also found out one of the arguments they used to try to get out of this recently he saw Stephen Hawking 's new book I was thinking something out that Stephen Hawking 's new book the grand design and they argue that all Hawking argues nothing created the universe K that nothing created the universe let me read you a quote this is from author Bill Bryson he wrote a book called the short history of nearly everything because this is the thinking now it seems impossible that you could get something from nothing but the fact that there once was nothing but now there is a universe is evident proof you say okay this is what they're arguing now only the same the universe was created out of nothing if you read Hawking 's new book the grand designs are trying to argue that nothing created the universe but it was certain great ontological because nothing doesn't need an explanation to say not anything else that you hear the divine would need an explanation but if you say that nothing created the universe that's where they're going hunting hauntings Mister Stephen Hawking 's new book the grand design basically argues that nothing created the universe taken a single quantum for actuation or whatever and I went even beat but to sit there and say nothing crazy universe your moving beyond science they're moving into metaphysics you're moving into philosophy and speculation it out I mean flew just can't accept that the conviction that I mean when any and no wonder when nothing that which by definition does not exist his positives instead of God is the creative force behind the cosmos one has to wonder what the logic of those looking for something anything you did nothing as opposed to God as the source of our existence God the foundation of all existence is replaced by nothing the notation of all existence and that is what is positive as what has created the whole universe your makes me think of Tennyson 's line where it was even though it was angry Christian believers I think this kind of thinking she pointed in another direction believing where we cannot prove it of trying to argue that nothing created the universe alternately if you don't want something well I guess you don't want something you got I have nothing else with their arguing for and I can somehow aren't being that nothing created the universe it's not all about logical and then there's the whole point of the argument from design but we see in the world and the teleological argument some people have argued that he said that way back in the seventeen hundreds the English philosopher David Hume and destroy the key a lot teleological argument the argument from the design of ever read his book I've read his book called dialogues concerning natural religion and I got some that I had a scratch my head this is considered the greatest polemic against the argument from design I want a region where Hume was forced to go what ultimately he was forced to concede remember this was a book written in the seventeen hundreds okay this was you know that excuse the expression the Pleistocene age when it came when it comes to our understanding of the complexity of nature but here's what what was considered the greatest argument the greatest classical book are the greatest book written against argument from design here's what Hume was forced to concede you have a dialogue going on between some people talking when taking one view and one taking the other you and that is yet witnessed he didn't talk about the amazing things that he saw in design for the fantastic things in nature and then he had to specific quote matter may contain analysis funky this old English but listen to what he's saying now there are many contain the source for spring of order originally within itself that several elements from the terminal unknown cause may fall into the most exquisite arrangement you see when you saying here the scene Xavier rated again I let me read it again okay matter may contain the source or spring of water originally with in itself that the several elements from an internal unknown clause may fall into the most exquisite arrangement so what he simply is doing is pushing hard with the same the something in matter itself there something inherent in matter itself which causes it to fall into the most exquisite arrangement okay but all that does is push the argument back as I would humbly ask where did matter get this information and ability to organize itself into this most exquisite arrangement and again I mean this here's a guy writing in the seventeen hundreds here's long before an electron microscope long before enough people know anything about us sell Walmart people know anything about mitochondria DNA on and on I even back then where it's infinitely mean always infinitely more complex he was forced to resort to this article something in matter itself causes it to do that and yet I've often said I think is easier to imagine something inherent in paper and ink itself alive having it somehow form Tolstoy 's war and peace incident something inherent in matter just in and of itself hello it a little magic carbon and water in proteins organizing themselves into a single cell much less the processes that led Albert Einstein 's brain of course science is purportedly given us the answer to how carbon water and proteins led to that brain and out of courses random mutation and natural selection but I really want to get into a whole debate here now about neo- Darwinism and so want but I think in regard to the questions of God 's existence science is becoming to a sword and in my humble opinion the sharpest H cutting against atheistic evolution think about this for a minute while while the science about how or even if random mutation and natural selection could have created the complexity of life is that they are being is contentious debate okay how it could have his contentions we debated what is debated but nobody argues against is the incredible complexity itself I mean no argues against that okay whether arguing about how it got there but nobody argues against the complexity and there's a certain irony here there's a certain irony here that I don't want you to miss the more complexity science findings in light and delicious it just never seems to end particularly and go in biology the complexity things go deeper and deeper and they find more and more it's just it you get on some of these websites may show animations up the DNA and RNA and and and and it just goes on and on and on I mean the more complexity science lines in life the less likely the main sign claims for origins become you see the point there is some more complexity of finding their own less likely the whole idea of it happening by chance you don't becomes in fact the one quote slew by the way I mentioned this before flu wrote a book called there is a God how the world 's most notorious atheist changed his mind and it includes talks about how these these things caused them to go first the Big Bang leaving the universe had one always existed and had a beginning that was one thing and then the other thing is the complexity in life you quoted and Noble prize-winning physiologist in the book who sent the following we choose to believe the impossible that life arose spontaneously by chance they and so is against Falluja started to see this complexity and he just rejected that now some are not ready to conceive the impossible impossible so they possibly the improbable instead and they say okay life is too complicated to have formed by chance in our universe okay I need more and more they are being forced to admit that given the estimated age of our universe so some cosmologists think on a solution for this they've come up with the answer they have argued that ours is one universe there is actually many there are many many many other universes out there maybe even in a number of universes out there which means that the chances of one universe are being what they call while filling her friendly life suddenly greatly increases can you see the point they look around they say know what they think they know enough about the universe I think they honestly know enough about it now to know the author of life warming by chance an armed one universal possible so what are they due date and just postulate a whole bunch of other universes and in the number of universes in order and sent by chance life occurred in one of them coming who needs God when an infinite number of universes of which they really don't have any proof is pure speculation again while going to the area of philosophy and metaphysics not size needs more God one God when an infinite number of universes will suffice and even if I excepted even if one accepted what they call the multi- verse but there's an infinite number of universes well it only pushes the argument back as the Humes argument an infinite number of universes simply make the question of their origin infinitely more pressing than does the existence of one that I can't give you infinite number of universes day where they come from anemia and hope where they come from and even one universal loan car the man some con explanation unless you want to say nothing created argue nothing training an infinite number of universes as well I mean I get that most backs in many ways that's the most logical way they can go because nothing doesn't need an explanation nothing in a worth origin and course and an eternal God doesn't need an explanation either about that always existed or nothing that seems to be the options anyway the story is here and it's strange that there are going to either the universe and about your life as we know what arose from nothing the negation of all existence or it arose from an the number of universe these are the two directions they're going in this country on each other going completely opposite one arguing nothing another and all postulating an infinite number of universes I don't know when when a supernatural creator in a more reasonable explanation certainly more reasonable than nothing I guess an infinite number of universes but again and if the number of universes doesn't get rid of the question of where did they come from it only makes it infinitely more complicated than one universe now the world 's most famous atheist probably Oxford 's wallet is Richard Dawkins but shall have none of it I don't ever read the God delusion I read all these new atheists most of their books and Dawkins is by far the most fun to read and he really is funny I is you get to know the book the ultimate argument of this book is it out if you get right through his book result of the attack comes very very weak in the end however funny it is and it is quite an amusing read the rest of my driver Christopher Hitchens who I happen to be a big fan his walking of God is not great and it wasn't very good he comes to be a very good article sounds funny he's dying of mom soffit Geo cancer I'm not even fallenness and a lot of people are wondering if he's going to get old suddenly had a conversion experience result latest Windows-based death you realize if there is in a God we're really at the crease and how that sits on the topic while you want to get it out on DVD but you can now do we want to pull what the God delusion his main argument comes down to one 's main argument thumb comes down to one point who created God designer God says not be used for explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything but have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right they see these missing the point completely but God and eternal God by definition doesn't have a creator he is the creator of caused universe and all that's in contrast does need a creator consultant line by naturalism Dawkins can't understand the qualitative difference between the maker in the May girl who created you're saying the song needs a designer but it's complicated more how much more complicated would be the designer himself got in there or something out he goes on and on and who created God but again he's missing the point he's missing the point besides in the end what is more likely to have been uncaused anyway the universe or an infinite God I mean if that's what you're boiling down to hear what ultimately would been uncaused singularity universe are an infinite God I'm answer seems pretty easy to be good unless more is other arguments in one of them is often called moral argument for the existence of God and in all a lot of these arguments for God 's existence they tend to work better after you believe then before and I can see that you know in a minute is a lot of times in the end these don't get you to become a believer they can help you step-by-step but ultimately you need to really have an experience with God ultimately I think of this quote was written by a guy in the eleventh century Church father credo and telling him I believe in order that I may understand and I love that quote is that caught my experience nine centuries later I became a believer first all this stuff in the end when the ultimately got me to believe now that I become a believer I can see the logic and reason of it but my touch are not alone but when I get into my conversion story but in the other argument is simply the whole question of morale he would state something hypothetical let's take something hypothetical let's say but say the Nazis won the war day and let's say under their propaganda they convinced the whole world that the Nazi policy takes to murder anybody with one if you had one Jewish grandparent you are considered Jewish and Nazi ideology and they would murder you one Jewish grandparent that's all it took was so funny just as an aside there were these the Germans had recently allowed anybody from Russia and each you coming over from Russia after the collapse of the communism they would allow anybody Jewish to come over to give them automatic citizenship and all they would let them become citizens if they were Jewish but then what happened was a lot of people don't want to get out of Russia would rather I mean I would much rather live in Germany and Russia and they set all these people come that really weren't Jews and as of the rabbis in Germany were going to the church is a look at it check beast people out check out make sure they're really cute and determined set him off we are never again go to try to determine who is or who is not achieve to help but anyway let's assume that they won the war and say they took over the whole world I suppose they were able to convince every man woman and child supposedly this whole world that anybody with one quarter Jewish blood needed to be killed would that be wrong I may see how he comes from one or two places either it's something that we create white take walks a few machine chats are abstract Expressionism or it comes from about its transcendent it's common imposed upon opening around the data warehouse either we created ourselves the way we create are her there I happen to be a fan of shock upon chief who use and love Japanese but it's a human creation to either a comes transcendent or comes from cost now if every human being working events that anybody with one quarter Jewish blood needed to man woman and child infant whatever needed to be exterminated how can it possibly be wrong I mean if if if if morality is purely human and everybody believe that how can it possibly be wrong now if you're not comfortable with that which I assume most people aren't that the that many people said well that means that morale he must've come from something higher and greater than just humanity and for many people the only thing that makes sense is God of the ultimately how do a moral elements to break matter down warrants warrants which a single protons and neutrons Clarkson ultimately all reality at this point now as quarks and electrons held together by some of these forces out of these amoral forces in and of themselves ultimately no matter complicated ultimately create moral beings much less conscious beings are conscious means with him around anyhow ultimately and many people just seems to be that it would have to come from somewhere up on it just doesn't seem conceivable that these things in and of themselves and for many people this is a powerful argument for the existence of God and then you touch on another theme to a while back my wife knows I love to read and she knows the kind of books I read it so she's always going these used bookstore and she brings home these books she brought me home a book called confessions of a philosopher his name was Brian McKee and it was his own intellectual autobiography and it he talked about his own life and he talked about the fact that he by any standards he had a claim on either the member of Parliament he was a music critic he was successful straight don't TV was on TV radio city quality and accelerating love affair zero whatever and on and on and he said by any standards of his life was going great and then he said he was it is meant I wish I only don't think quote him here about it somewhere in my iPad by bonus time to go through it but in this book he describes to affect my latest my next review if you happen to read my review column I talk about this I called him extensively he said he was in his mid- thirties and it suddenly hit him that he was going to die and he suddenly realized because she said I said I was very fortunate to grow up in a home that they had no religion so he was pulling no religion at all and then he talked about the fact that he realized he was going to die and then he wrote some of the most you click when stuff I ever read about in the end the utter uselessness of his life that no matter what he did he said no matter what I accomplish whether acting Prime Minister whether I'm married whether I was success I wasn't actually read one hundred and he said it will ultimately meant nothing he said the quote I was at the school here there was no meaning in any of it no point in any of it and that in the end everything was nothing pretty realized one day he was going to die anybody who knew him was going to die and science it says eventually the University of Oregon I don't span to the point where a white guys out everything there on combat all universes can clinch in on itself the size of a fist and on and on and on and they had there been no memory of handle memory of anything he ever did and on and on and on would be and he ultimately realize the utter meaninglessness of it all and the plumbing the book was his intellectual biography and he comes at the end of the book and he tried to art and through general philosophy in August and he came to the end of the booking he says I am no closer now to an answer than I was before about lies me because of because of what death was going to do and don't base of your time I spoke in front of a group of college students at a secular college in the United in the end I think you know you better hope there is a God because not you or your you got nothing to use another phrase not use it here but I get away with a GUI see what I should thought the price is what I really say that but whatever but the point was in the end it'll is always ultimately meaningless if there is ultimately nobody will look around if you purpose my fingers have a purpose might year has a purpose the air has a purpose a song all these things with all this purpose you see purpose you should design you see this everywhere in all culmination you add it all up into ultimate purposelessness it just doesn't make sense I love this line from the public on and all I think he catches it so well he says nothing can save a status possible we who must die command in their seats fascinating talking I think I get a letter to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so powerful I plan one day I want to write a book when a guest on all the evidence for the resurrection because they don't dislike the whole all the stuff that's been pulled together it's powerful it's powerful to historical evidence that you have for that anyway he says we must die demand miracle and numerical demands a TV which leads back to Lewis 's dilemma that I first talked about is his atheist friends said powerful evidence exists for the historicity of the gospel particularly particularly the resurrection of Jesus and as I said there's powerful powerful evidence for the resurrection of Jesus affect the audio was read the arguments that people bring up to try to get around for it around it they make about as much sense as some of these arguments that our universe was created out of nothing but you know in the end you know you've got that then I'm slipping no say in the biblical stuff I think last time I was here I talked about Daniel to the powerful evidence Daniel to not only for the existence of God or gods who were knowledge and being up to so powerfully been trying for two thousand years the denuded of its power and you and I think the more powerful now than it was back then and got a lot of evidence in the Scripture itself pointing for leaf in God prophecy now is any of this foolproof nothing is ever foolproof in all I don't worry about that I probably read way too much philosophy to get you dogmatic about being able to absolutely prove anything but now as a matter but I have a sermon I gave called math problem I thought about how the twentieth century it used to be people thought he wanted absolute certainty you go to mathematics I mean two plus two equals four and the number down to base ten number system it doesn't matter what you eat for breakfast doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican development of money you got absolute certainty and methyl by the time you got halfway through the twentieth century that had been completely kicked out completely kicked out twenty one eleven fifths famous philosophers of twentieth century Bertrand Russell as basically said I tried for twenty years but mathematics ontological foundation and I can't do it I think now is the twenty first century I think they pretty much given up even trying to put map ontological foundations of ultimately massive something that you have to ultimately take on faith how much more limited be the existence of God is something to think about to deviating from my notes here but I tend to do that a lot find that some kid yesterday he's getting a PhD in heart from Harvard or Rove neurophysiology out I left the Harvard study PhD in one speculative math but I I I get to her younger physiology it was found I could deviate but anyway if you and somebody in science about twice they recently where they can answer something and ultimately in whatever you believe you get to a point where justification stops we have to basically taken on face a any executed in mathematics that was my point with all that even in mathematics and if you say something is science I got it taken on faith it's considered a failure case is writing a taken up by pass on what science is all about but ultimately it anything you believe secular whatever he got a take and pay this at some point you reach what we develop taken on faith and yet in all these other things is considered one of cup of failure but isn't it interesting that in the Bible and Bible would be cheap free is kind of put in you know the word a priori it's put in beforehand it's just accept this if God knew beforehand has fallen human being there's got to be limited to whatever we could know and ultimately even something like math to certain degrees could be taken on faith how much more something like the existence of God so God puts faith the built-in in the religion itself it becomes final and basic to it so instead of being considered by editing eight as a failure it's fundamental to the whole bumpy system I think that's an important point because opening the end matter what we believe ultimately be taken on faith but I just read a book the other day actually my uncle had written and not in the end some races we ever really know anything and ultimately in the whole point is ultimately we got three things on faith the good news for us as Mrs. Christian just is not a blind faith is not talking faith as I said I believe the arguments for the existence of God far outweigh arguments against me that they were forced to resort to nothing created the universe or in infinite number of universes in outlier nothing traded life for an infinite number of universes in and even the infinite number of universes doesn't get rid of the need for an explanation for the number of universes so really you come down to two options to come down I think the two options I think the two most logical options nothing because nothing doesn't need it if you maybe somebody could argue maybe nothing does why is there nothing said why is there something instead of nothing you can argue why is there why would there be nothing instead of something but I can ask it but the bottom line is they say either nothing created the either nothing created the universe that doesn't need an explanation or an infinite paternal job created life infinite internal government so I don't know which one seems more logical to you I mean am I being unfair in my being overtly prejudicial thinking that a creator God is more logical than nothing I don't think so I think it makes more sense to them and while I believe in God first as I said God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe the argument that nothing created well there's embarrassed people a lot smarter than I am they cannot track it going down that track but I think logically they had no other choice if they wanted to get away from God second a creator God intelligent designer just seems to me the most logical explanation for the design if after clicking on all you need on opening Francis crick crick and Watson DNA enable the guys at practical why would I have had a chance to me was almost like being in Mecca I was in Cambridge University in England a couple years ago I just saw thesis that was Isaac Newton 's office here for a Goodwood Lichtenstein used to work in it on the lab where they first discovered the Adam NLRB display of East executive intellectual history incredible and they walked by there was a bar and was a sign outside the bar initiatives and Ms. Barbara crick and Watson finally first came up with the DNA helix the double helix DNA the bottom-line trick one of the most influential famous scientists of the twentieth century adamantly speaks hard-nosed atheist but he realized the impossibility of life forming by two cents is ha ha it couldn't have happened so correct that's whatever it's a hilarious article you read this was written by secular secular writer obviously he was creek believe what they call a panspermia theory it was the idea that life began in another part of the universe and was brought to the earth and Chris believes that space aliens came to the earth and see that life on earth and that's how life began energetic and was so funny Christmas this article and was happy with Atlantic monthly you could tell the frustration of the author he says so the twentieth century 's greatest scientist believes that aliens inspirations and creative life on earth and yet but even if you separate that find one which said that but what's the problem with that where the aliens come from official against again to me it seems so much simpler a creator God you got cosmological argument the teleological argument and then you get the argument against her morale with she's awfully hard to see how moral how we can be moral beings and again every human being belief something sadly said murder anybody with one quarter Jewish blood is moral is right but everybody believes it's right how could it be wrong and you got a problem with that seems like the only logical explanation is something transcending and that there is no God alternately our lives are meaningless and while that's certainly a logical possibility in the sense that nothing logically demands that our lives have meaning there just seems to be too much purpose to which meaning all around us everywhere purpose for us as humans ultimately and in purposelessness again Brian McKee confessions of a philosopher if you could find that book you read it I hate to say this stuff basically okay but you read this God most eloquent description I've ever read of what this does to get new life of all meaningful purpose without a God you can read in Brian McKees Brian McGee 's writings and then you got the Bible and the prophecies in the Bible that so many ways seem to be could only be explained through an omniscient God anyway these are some of the reasons why I believe in God and I contend that belief in God is the most logical and rational explanation for the reality we find ourselves is an absolutely foolproof again I am sorry there's nothing foolproof is not nothing is foolproof I just got again I think that a lot of philosophy and it can not careful totally screwed to bring up the something thinks re: has but in the hand in hand there's a certain amount of contingency and everything we believe and I liked this text course but without faith it is impossible to please him for he that comes to God must believe that he is and that he is a reporter of them that delicately seek him he comes to God must believe that he is in fact just trying to show here we have good reason logical reasons for indeed believing that he is back I believe the reasons and the logic for belief in God works so much better were on much solid logical grounds then for belief that know God exists okay well I got one minute last ten fifteen the supposed stop I had a pretty quick anybody got a quick question on anything at all if I tell my conversion it's the last talk my next talk Ivan 's children are manipulative okay got all these good arguments I think it argues for the existence of God but they run into one the problem that none of romance nominal mass effect they make it more difficult and that is the question of evil fate you could take all these arguments and I think they work but they don't answer the question of evil and for many people that's the biggest problem and that's what my next talk I installed is going to attempt to deal with is the question but that's fine okay I just send I met the other day were Somerset I'd rather believe there wasn't a God then believe that you know there was a God who has allowed what we experience here to happen anyway let's pray this is time is up Lord we come to you and realizing that we do need to live by faith again I thank you that faith isn't blind I thank you for all the reasons that we had all the illegal war there always can be questions are always there to be things we don't fully understand but I'm thankful for all the evidence that you have given us some I pray that each of us will take the reasons we have for me and he will cultivate and we will nurture faith and we both think and talk faith in me will just live who most importantly live out our faith because truly by living it experience you'd be again I thank you for all the reasons that we have for believing help us with our doubts there natural we all have them we all struggle with them at times but doubts can be the thing which pushes us to dig deeper and further into seeking with all our hearts and you promisingly shall seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart in the name of Jesus this message was thank you I see this important initiative the seventeen hundreds his shoelaces used to inspire young people the environment I have a base price and very kind to download or purchase other resources like this you've been blessed making lazy and donate now this is him him him see what don't we also rejoice in mail box three seven eight six Harbor Michigan four eight one oh six this recording is licensed under creative Commons this means you can share please attribute misreporting and everything is keeping my resale and on the range and is


Embed Code

Short URL