Can we prove God's existence by the fact or features of the universe? To tackle this issue we will discuss:

1. The difference between proofs and signs
2. The meaning of the cosmological argument, and its various forms
3. The meaning of the argument from design (also known as the teleological argument)
4. The resurrection of the argument from design in the last 50 years
5. The curious case of Anthony Flew

Do they, what kind of follow up

on some of the themes we've talked

2

about in the last few weeks?

3

we've talked about the relationship

between God and the universe.

4

we've talked about the eternity of

God that he is outside the universe of

5

the includes time, things like that.

6

So today I was thinking.

7

Why don't we talk about.

8

What the universe tells us about God.

9

Yeah.

10

So what the universe can say about

Goodwill, what we can learn about God

11

from observing the universe around us.

12

That maybe what we can't know

about God through that way.

13

Yeah, that sounds great.

14

So we're kind of in the

realm of natural theology.

15

In a sense.

16

Okay.

17

Yeah.

18

Yeah, we should probably

define that, right?

19

Yeah.

20

Good.

21

Good call.

22

No, you go ahead.

23

Natural theology.

24

What we can understand about God from the

natural world is that a yeah, that's not

25

bad or trying to build a theology for.

26

Okay.

27

What we can know in the natural war

world, So we're talking not about,

28

divine revelation or scripture.

29

We're talking about when I, walk

outside through the park, what does my.

30

stroll through the park.

31

Tell me maybe about the nature of God.

32

In our notes, I put down

a quote from Thomas Paine.

33

And he's a big advocate of

this explains it pretty well.

34

You want to go ahead and read that?

35

Yeah, let me read it.

36

. This is from Thomas Paine.

37

He's writing in 1776.

38

He says the word of God.

39

Is the creation.

40

We be hold.

41

And this word of God, reveal it to man.

42

All that is necessary for

man to know of his creator.

43

Do we want to contemplate his power?

44

We see it in the

immensity of his creation.

45

Do we want to contemplate his wisdom?

46

We see it in the unchangeable

order, by which the

47

incomprehensible whole is governed.

48

. Do we want to contemplate his

munificence We see it in the abundance

49

with which he fills the earth.

50

Do we want to contemplate his mercy?

51

We see it in his not withholding that

abundance, even from the unthankful.

52

Do we want to contemplate his

will so far as it respects, man.

53

The goodness he shows to all is a

lesson for our conduct to each other.

54

In fine.

55

Do we want to know what God is?

56

Search, not the book called the scripture.

57

Which any human hand might make.

58

Or any imposter invent?

59

But the scripture called the creation.

60

All right.

61

that's one way of thinking about

what the universe reveals about.

62

God.

63

I think the more standard

Christian way though, is to look

64

at the creation of the world.

65

Or to look at the world itself and

to see proofs of God's existence.

66

So we're going to tackle kind of

all of that in this little episode.

67

Yeah, that sounds great.

68

Cool.

69

Yeah.

70

so first things first.

71

Are there any scriptures that

would talk about the universe

72

pointing to the knowledge of God?

73

Yeah, there are, let me take one

from the old Testament and one from

74

the new or one from the Hebrew Bible

and one from the Christian Bible.

75

First is Psalm 19.

76

The heavens reveal the glory of God

and the skies proclaim his handiwork.

77

that's an interesting concept in

this, of course, isn't the only place.

78

That the heavens or the skies proclaim.

79

The glory of God.

80

The Hebrew word is Kubota for glory.

81

And has the idea of.

82

Heaviness.

83

Well, renown majesty.

84

And all these says are

seen by what God has made.

85

So that kind of goes back to Thomas Paine,

who says you want to contemplate as power.

86

See it in the immensity of his creation?

87

Yes.

88

so David's, agreeing with that.

89

You can look to the

skies that makes sense.

90

My goodness, seeing

all the stars at night.

91

Sure.

92

Yeah, we may not agree with all the Thomas

Payne has to say about the rest of that.

93

Sure, sure.

94

We can agree with part of that.

95

The second passage is

Romans one 18 through 20.

96

Do you want to read that?

97

Yeah, it says for God's wrath

is revealed from heaven.

98

Against all godlessness

and unrighteous ness.

99

Or people.

100

Who by their unrighteousness

suppress the truth.

101

Since what, can be known about

God is evident among them.

102

Because God has shown it to them.

103

For his invisible attributes.

104

That is his eternal power and

divine nature have been clearly seen

105

since the creation of the world.

106

Being understood.

107

Through what he has made.

108

All right.

109

So these two verses together.

110

The claim that we can't have

some sort of knowledge about

111

God through what God has made.

112

The creation that we see.

113

John Calvin talked about the

two books of God, the book of

114

scripture and the book of nature.

115

Same idea.

116

Hmm.

117

And so Paul, he claims that

God's invisible attributes

118

are L least his power.

119

And nature are somehow seen or inferred

from the universe that we see around us.

120

But we want to go a little bit deeper.

121

We want to ask about the nature of this

knowledge and in particular, can we prove

122

God's existence or anything about God?

123

From the fact of the universe.

124

It sounds like the main

word there is prove.

125

Yeah, and I'd love to delve into the

discussion between proofs and signs when

126

it comes to arguments for God's existence.

127

So what do you make of that difference

between like a proof and a sign?

128

Yeah, I think that's very

important difference.

129

And approve as I'm using it here.

130

Simply means.

131

Uh, logical arguments so compelling

that it forces you to agree with it.

132

So.

133

an argument that if you hear it and

understand it, You have to agree with it

134

unless you're just acting on bad faith.

135

it's like what you would hear kind

of in a debate or like a logical

136

syllogism or that kind of thing.

137

Right.

138

Okay.

139

So that's not a sign.

140

So how are you?

141

understanding sign then?

142

Uh, sign as I'm defining it any way

is simply a pointer it's not approved.

143

It's not designed to compel.

144

Intellectual agreement is designed

to make you look and think.

145

About what is pointing at

or what is talking about?

146

And maybe a very basic example

of this would be a road sign.

147

And informational sign on the road.

148

So you're driving down the interstate.

149

You need gas.

150

And you see a sign that

says gas next exit.

151

No.

152

Does that get proved that

there's gas at the next exit?

153

That's true, I guess not, no.

154

Why not.

155

I mean, they, they

could have shut down or.

156

Um, yeah.

157

You know, pumps out of service or right.

158

So, yeah, the sign could be outdated.

159

Do you speak aspects from there?

160

There was it now?

161

the science mistaken, maybe

the people who put the sign up.

162

we're supposed to put up the next exit.

163

Yes.

164

True.

165

It's conceivable not likely.

166

Or again, not conceivable,

but it's certainly possible.

167

The sign is a lie, so, and put

it up as a prank or a joke.

168

Again, that's not probable,

but it's logically conceivable.

169

Yeah.

170

Therefore the site doesn't prove were gas.

171

Is there.

172

Rather it's simply a pointer

to help guide you there.

173

It's, it's working in a different

way than a logical proof.

174

And that's what I think.

175

Can help us understand what the scriptures

mean when it talks about creation,

176

showing the nature of God to some degree.

177

Yeah, so.

178

It sounds like in a sign there's.

179

Not really so much in the

example you gave, but.

180

There is, area for interpretation.

181

Yes.

182

So, so Thomas Paine is saying that

you can, understand something about

183

God from going and looking at his

creation, but somebody else could

184

go look at the same creation.

185

And come to a different interpretation.

186

Yeah.

187

And they sure.

188

How, how would they, yeah.

189

Yeah.

190

The various various interpretations.

191

Yeah.

192

Okay.

193

So with that background,

I'm going to talk about.

194

Two groups of arguments

that have often been used.

195

To prove God's existence.

196

The cosmological type of arguments.

197

And The teleological or

the arguments from design.

198

Okay.

199

Which one you want to take first?

200

Let's take cosmological arguments here.

201

Sweet.

202

Can you maybe give us a cosmological

argument, maybe in the form of a syllogism

203

first, and then we can kind of unpack it.

204

Yes, but there are many

different cosmological arguments.

205

Okay.

206

So they're going to have

some, things in common.

207

And what they will have in common.

208

What makes them a cosmological argument?

209

Is that they're going to

be arguing from the fact.

210

Of the cosmos existing or the fact

that some aspect of the cosmos exists.

211

Cosmos just being here.

212

The word for the whole

shebang, the whole universe.

213

Reality as we experience it as it were.

214

Okay.

215

so let me give you an example

of these and then we can.

216

And then we can, uh, put

in a soldiers if we want.

217

So these go back a long way.

218

Like how far are we talking?

219

Well, before play to even Plato

develop them, but oh, wow.

220

Really?

221

It was Aristotle who developed these,

to the most sophisticated degree,

222

at least in the ancient world.

223

So you're talking to you three,

four or 500 years before Christ.

224

These were already.

225

Floating around the Greek

universe as it were.

226

So that maybe influenced Paul's thinking.

227

Do you think in writing

that in Romans one?

228

I don't know.

229

I wouldn't say that because again,

Paul, I think was more influenced

230

by the old Testament thought.

231

Okay.

232

Which word is saw was kind of prevalent.

233

Sure, sure.

234

He did know some Greek writing, at least.

235

So maybe.

236

Who knows, but it certainly

influence Thomas Aquinas.

237

Who developed the five arguments

for God's existence of the PRI

238

proofs for God's existence.

239

Any, he modeled them almost

exactly on Aristotle.

240

So he gives a little bit of a Christian.

241

Interpretation or twist to them.

242

But there's a direct line from.

243

Aristotle to.

244

Islamic theologians to, Thomas

Aquinas, developing these

245

arguments for God's existence.

246

Okay.

247

And Thomas Aquinas is coming

248

Paul.

249

Yes.

250

At least, and then a lot more after.

251

Plato and Aristotle.

252

But you remember Thomas Aquinas's goal

was really to synthesize Christian

253

theology with Aristotelian philosophy.

254

So it kind of makes sense then that

he's going to develop this idea.

255

Okay.

256

That makes sense.

257

So back to the point that

cosmological arguments.

258

I'm not going to give all of these.

259

I just want to get one, two examples.

260

So a cosmological argument.

261

It says that God's existence is

inferred from one of the following.

262

And these are going to overlap causation.

263

Explanation change motion.

264

Contingency dependency.

265

I find a tude.

266

Here's one that Aristotle would use then.

267

Okay.

268

motion and change exist.

269

So that'd be your first premise.

270

Okay.

271

I can grant that.

272

Okay.

273

Premise to everything that

moves is moved by something.

274

Else beyond itself.

275

Okay.

276

therefore you had the first

conclusion there is there for.

277

either in infinite chain of movement

or there is an unmoved mover.

278

Oh, okay.

279

Yeah, this, this sounds a little familiar.

280

Sure.

281

Yeah.

282

but then he would argue in independent

chain of movement is impossible.

283

Therefore there is an unmoved mover.

284

Ah, okay.

285

So that, would be an example.

286

Have a.

287

Cosmological argument as

developed by Aristotle.

288

Now Aquinas arguments.

289

The first four of these

would all be cosmological.

290

The last one would be more.

291

Teleological or an argument from

design will come to that in a minute.

292

Okay.

293

And the first three of these,

he argues from motion from

294

causation, from contingency.

295

And then the fourth is from gradations

of bean and that one's a little bit more.

296

Abstract the idea being there that.

297

They're sort of purlative

levels of everything.

298

So you have a wise person and

then a wiser person, and then

299

the wisest person possible.

300

That would be God, you have, you

know, some things are bright,

301

some things are brighter.

302

So that argument is fourth.

303

One.

304

From gradation implies, there has to be

some absolute standard that everything

305

else kind of is a gradation from.

306

Okay.

307

So, I guess you would call that

a cosmological argument, but the

308

other three are more classically.

309

called that.

310

So he has one for motion.

311

he drew from Aristotle's observation

that each thing in the universe

312

moves or is moved by something else.

313

And so he, picked up on this.

314

And he basically recapitulated

his argument that there has to

315

be a moved mover as it were.

316

the second.

317

Is the argument from causation.

318

So he builds upon Aristotle's notion

of inefficient cause the entity

319

or event responsible for a change.

320

In a particular thing.

321

So.

322

There's a series of causes for everything.

323

But every efficient cause must

itself have an efficient cause.

324

because there cannot be an

infinite chain of efficient causes.

325

So you can't have an

infinite chain of causes.

326

There had to be one to start.

327

Imagine.

328

All actions that we experienced

or everything that we see occur.

329

Everything that happens.

330

Is like dominoes tipping over each other.

331

So got a string of dominoes and

sometimes one of that string wool.

332

Diverge off into two different

chains as it were, but, but

333

those first two chains are.

334

Are hit by one domino, the original chain.

335

Anyway.

336

So you've got all these causes

coming about by previous

337

causes, but he's arguing.

338

If someone outside the domino chain.

339

Then knock the first one over then

the whole chain when it started.

340

Hmm.

341

So that's his example of an uncaused

cause so in a logic or philosophy

342

class People could go back and forth

debating these individual premises.

343

And they have, yeah.

344

Yeah.

345

And then the third one

is very similar to that.

346

It's about the argument that

we're all contingent being

347

snowed as it has to be here.

348

If everyone was contingent, then there

would be a time where nothing was here,

349

which seems impossible because then you'd

have something coming out of nothing

350

which goes against our rationality.

351

So he argues that because

there are contingent beings.

352

There has to be a necessary beam.

353

So the unmoved mover, the uncaused

cause or the necessary being the

354

ultimate standard of every gradation.

355

Is God.

356

So he was just, approaching God

from some of these different.

357

dimensions that we all

experience on a daily basis.

358

Right.

359

So that's kind of why it's a.

360

proof from.

361

the natural world.

362

Yes.

363

Right, because obviously

Aristotle, wasn't a believer.

364

Yeah.

365

So, so these religious sense,

I mean, he believed in God.

366

In this sense, but he wasn't an

adherent of a religious tradition.

367

these all feel.

368

Pretty heady.

369

Abstract.

370

Abstract.

371

Yeah.

372

Yeah.

373

Uh, do you, personally

find these pretty helpful.

374

Well, I think I'll come

back to that question.

375

Okay.

376

Okay.

377

Because I do want to talk about.

378

My take on this, I find them.

379

Helpful for some situations and sometimes.

380

Okay.

381

But to develop an answer, I

want to stay there for the end.

382

Okay.

383

That's great.

384

Those are all cosmological

arguments because they're.

385

Arguing from the existence of the

cosmos or something about the cosmos.

386

To God, there is another kind of,

there are a lot of different kinds of

387

arguments, but there's one other argument.

388

For God, based upon the universe,

that's a little bit different.

389

it's called the argument from design.

390

It's also called the teleological

argument because the Greek word high loss.

391

It means goal or end.

392

So the idea is kind of combined,

it's designed to meet a certain

393

end or goal in this case, human

life and human flourishing.

394

So the universe is designed

to support human life.

395

In such a way that God's plans can

be fulfilled as the idea, the end.

396

So that's why it's sometimes

called teleological argument.

397

And argument about things have

been designed towards a goal or an

398

end or purpose, and sometimes just

called the argument from design.

399

the cosmological argument starts from the

premise of what is, and then this one.

400

Starts from the premise of.

401

Kind of the characteristics

of what is kind of okay.

402

Okay.

403

So, let me give you some example.

404

The most basic and perhaps the

most well-known was presented

405

by William Paley in 1805 or so.

406

And he imagined this scenario where

you're walking down a beach and

407

you had never seen a watch before.

408

But you find a watch on the beach.

409

And you go home and you're

able to pry it open.

410

And you notice all the minute.

411

Uh, Springs and gears.

412

And you notice that they all work

together with this incredible complexity.

413

To produce something very simple though.

414

The moving of the hands on the front.

415

And you notice that

the front of the watch.

416

Is the only part in case ding glass.

417

That's the only part transparent.

418

So that you can see those two

hands move across the face.

419

And he would say your natural

inclination to say, That this is

420

something that is designed for purpose.

421

There is a goal and that's to

let the hands would go around.

422

The watch.

423

At a Regular sequence so

that you could tell the time.

424

Now.

425

That's easy.

426

To conceptualize.

427

That's why I start there.

428

But.

429

David Hume.

430

British philosopher.

431

Really late into this argument a lot.

432

And he had a lot of very persuasive

responses to it, showing it had

433

a lot of fallacy attached to it.

434

and I'm not going to necessarily

go into all of those, but.

435

Basically, he argued that.

436

maybe the world looks more like

an organism, like a vegetable

437

rather than a watch, you know?

438

And even if this did prove.

439

That it was designed.

440

It doesn't have to be one designer

that could be all kinds of designers,

441

you know, each doing a different part.

442

So it doesn't prove the

Christian God at all.

443

It would only approve maybe a

multitude of designers of some sort.

444

Anyway, he had a lot of very

persuasive responses to this.

445

And for many decades, it was the, like the

argument from design was basically dead.

446

But it's had a resurrection

in the last 50 years.

447

And this is very live argument now.

448

Primarily, there are

two areas in which this.

449

argument has had a resurrection.

450

And one of those is biological and the

second is cosmological or astrophysical.

451

so thinking here of the large

scale structure of the universe

452

that we can see outside of us.

453

So biologically.

454

The reasons had a resurrection.

455

Is because we still haven't solved

the Uh, of how life could arise.

456

Naturally.

457

From non-living things.

458

everything else we see around us.

459

Life comes from preexisting life.

460

Yeah, we haven't figured out a way.

461

That that doesn't happen yet.

462

So that's one thing.

463

That's a design idea.

464

And the second as we began

to study how cells work.

465

And the integral parts

of the microbiology.

466

You get the question?

467

All right.

468

Well, how would the first cell arise?

469

Since all the parts of the cell.

470

Need to be there already

and function together.

471

For the cell to work.

472

There are people who have

developed this William bay.

473

I think I'm saying that name, right?

474

He wrote a book called Darwin's black box.

475

that works through this.

476

There's still discussion about this.

477

Or then again, under biological, how can

incredibly complex structures like DNA.

478

Appear.

479

Somehow.

480

Uh, evolve without any plan or purpose.

481

So there are a lot of people who are

the more they're looking at these

482

things, we're saying, you know what.

483

There does seem to be designed

on a microbiological level.

484

so the argument is.

485

Things like watches.

486

you just assume that it's so

complicated that somebody built it.

487

Yes.

488

And then when you look at.

489

The world you also see.

490

Okay.

491

It's so complicated.

492

Is that it makes sense that

there's intelligent mind behind it.

493

Yes.

494

And you're saying that.

495

The way that Biology has progressed.

496

We see there's increasing complexity,

which Makes an intelligent mind behind it.

497

More persuasive.

498

Yes.

499

Okay.

500

And I will delve into that a lot.

501

Number one, because I don't have

a great training in biology.

502

Uh, but number two, just

because of the time constraints.

503

so I want to go on to astronomical

or cosmological aspects of this.

504

And here, what we see in

the last 50 to 80 years.

505

Is that we understand that

the universe seems to have a

506

fine tuning that we did not.

507

No, or understand or perceive before.

508

So what does fine tuning mean?

509

Well, imagine you go into this.

510

room.

511

And you've got a.

512

Universe creating machine.

513

All right.

514

And you've got all these

dials and controls.

515

That you have to set the constraints of

this universal, what they're going to be.

516

And you can, you can play anything.

517

For example, one of those knobs

that you're going to control

518

is the rate of expansion.

519

Uh, the rate of expansion of the universe.

520

So the universe is

expanding right now, right?

521

We talked about that previous episode.

522

Another, it would be the force of gravity.

523

there's, there's going

to be dozens of these.

524

So you've got dozens of these knobs.

525

You have pretty much infinite

control over each one about where

526

you're going to set the dial.

527

Now, what they're finding is.

528

All the dials are set.

529

To create a universe.

530

That is able to sustain life.

531

In particular life of mammals.

532

And intelligent beings like humans.

533

And it's amazing how if the

dial was off just a little bit.

534

For example, the

expansion of the universe.

535

At the university.

536

We're to expand even a little bit faster.

537

It would dissipate.

538

The heat and energy of the universe

would dissipate too quickly.

539

We won't be able to form stable galaxies.

540

If it expanded a little bit slower.

541

However.

542

we would have a big crunch.

543

The gravitational forces would

have overcome the rate of expansion

544

and all the matter of the universe

would have crunched back audit.

545

So.

546

So you want to know how fine

tune you have to have this.

547

Yeah, that was going to be my question.

548

You said a little bit

faster, a little bit slower.

549

All right.

550

It has to be fine tuned.

551

To one part in 10 to the 60th power.

552

10 with 60 zeros.

553

That's the same as finding $1 bill.

554

Out of a pile of a trillion trillion,

trillion, trillion, trillion dollars.

555

That's crazy.

556

So you're saying that everything

just had to happen so perfectly.

557

In order for life to be sustained.

558

Yes.

559

So the argument is that.

560

Random chance.

561

Isn't really a viable.

562

Right.

563

It looks like it's designed.

564

Okay.

565

And so you said the gravitational

constraint had to be perfect.

566

I just, I did a quick search.

567

Electromagnetic force

is extremely fine tuned.

568

So that there's strong nuclear

force in the weak nuclear force.

569

That if they were any different

life itself, wouldn't be conducive.

570

Electromagnetic force all these, these

are the knobs that you're talking about.

571

Right?

572

Right.

573

So there's a, one in 10 to

the 60th power chance at all.

574

These.

575

No, just one.

576

Just one of those maps.

577

Oh, just one of those,

just the expansion though.

578

Oh, that's just the expansion of, yeah.

579

So if the expansion was off by

the tiniest degree, One part in.

580

And tend to the 16th power.

581

then.

582

Life itself couldn't exist.

583

Right?

584

Well, Right.

585

Again, none of these things

were known a hundred years ago.

586

these are all coming about

in the last 50 to 80 years.

587

so some of Hume's responses, mate.

588

I still be, I mean, This doesn't

necessarily mean that there's just

589

one fine tuner could be a host of fine

tutors, but it shows that there is.

590

There's actually some weightiness today.

591

They're fine tuning there.

592

So much so that people go to

great lengths to escape the

593

conclusions that the universe.

594

looks like it's designed no matter

if it's one designer or many,

595

they don't want that conclusion.

596

So they'll postulate theories like multi

versus if you have an infinite number

597

of universes, then one of them would

end up with just these constraints.

598

Of course, we have no proof of an infinite

number of universe and the whole concept.

599

is not the result of science, but

rather avoiding the implications

600

of the science that we have.

601

But that's where you have to go.

602

Yeah.

603

I mean, that's still go.

604

It still leaves science

and goes to philosophy.

605

Sure.

606

It's still, I mean, you still

have to deal with the question

607

of infinity in a natural form.

608

I mean, you.

609

We just talked about that.

610

Like, You can't just presume that

there's an infinite number of universes.

611

No.

612

Well, there's a lot of reasons for that,

but even then You've got to suppose then

613

that there's some fours, entity person who

is creating all these infinite universes.

614

And it's apart from our universe,

it's not something that you could

615

understand or to study with science.

616

It's not a scientific question anymore.

617

. Now the upshot of that is.

618

That a lot of people are looking at this.

619

And seen, you know, what.

620

That design argument.

621

It's not that bad.

622

It certainly seems to show in

a common sense, interpretation

623

of the facts of reality.

624

The science has shown us

in the last 15, 80 years.

625

It looks like things are designed.

626

Fred Hoyle was a Cambridge.

627

cosmologist astronomer.

628

And he put it this way.

629

A common sense.

630

Interpretation of the evidence

suggests that his super intellect has

631

monkeyed with physics and chemistry.

632

As well as biology.

633

To make life possible.

634

historian and science

for Burnham has written.

635

The God hypothesis.

636

Is now a more persuasive and

respectable hypothesis than at

637

any time in the last 100 years.

638

Well, let me give you one example of this.

639

Of how it's changed.

640

Someone's mind.

641

There was.

642

The curious case of Anthony flu,

have you heard of Anthony flu?

643

I have not.

644

Okay.

645

In his last book.

646

The subtitle describes him as the

world's most notorious atheist.

647

Okay.

648

I'm sorry, Anthony.

649

I haven't.

650

Sorry, I haven't heard of, you

know, I've got a couple of his

651

books where I used to have one now.

652

Um, It's like a pedia philosophy.

653

You had a couple more measure.

654

What happened to him?

655

Anyway.

656

He is.

657

In my mind, it's not arguable.

658

He is.

659

The most influential.

660

Atheist philosopher of the past 200 years.

661

No, that's a big claim.

662

But you have to remember.

663

He began writing in the 1950s.

664

He wrote a small essay called

theology and false vacation.

665

Which is the most read philosophical

work of the late 20th century,

666

the last half of the 20th century.

667

And then he wrote over 40 books.

668

He was a philosopher.

669

And he was especially interested.

670

In the question of religion.

671

And also he was very much interested in

trained in critical thinking and logic.

672

So he wrote over 40 books.

673

Let me just read a few of the titles.

674

Uh, do essays and philosophical theology.

675

Logic and language.

676

That was a big one.

677

God, in philosophy.

678

Logic and language evolutionary ethics.

679

body-mind and death

thinking about thinking.

680

Thinking straight through

presumption of atheism.

681

Dictionary philosophy.

682

Darwinian evolution.

683

God, a critical inquiry.

684

agency necessity.

685

Did Jesus really rise from the dead and

had a debate with Gary Habermas and he

686

argued the negative side of flu did.

687

The logic of mortality.

688

Got a critical inquiry.

689

Uh, an updated version.

690

Does God exist?

691

A believer in an atheist debate?

692

And again, he was an atheist

on that particular one.

693

Uh, atheistic humanism, philosophical

essays, and then does God exist in which

694

he has a debate with William Lane, Craig?

695

And again, he are using atheist

position that God does not exist.

696

William Lane, Craig.

697

That one, it was in 2003.

698

In 2004, he began talking about.

699

These arguments.

700

And revisiting them in light of what

science has shown in the last 50 years.

701

And there were inklings rumors

that he was changing his mind.

702

And then in 2007, he published.

703

There is a God, how the world's most

notorious atheist changed his mind.

704

Now.

705

what he said basically was this.

706

I now believe the universe

was brought into existence

707

by an infinite intelligence.

708

I believe that this universe is

intricate laws manifests, what the

709

scientists have called the mind of God.

710

I believe that life and reproduction

originate in a divine source.

711

And when questioned about

this, he said, basically, I'm

712

just following the evidence.

713

So we talked about the cosmological

issues that we mentioned, you

714

know, the fine tuning argument.

715

I talked about how nature

obeys the laws like this.

716

Talk about the dimension of life.

717

Intelligently organized and

purpose driven beings, which arose.

718

From matter.

719

How that could happen if there

wasn't a divine intelligence.

720

Hm.

721

And then the third is the

very existence of nature.

722

So he says, I've been thinking

about all these things.

723

I've examining them So I bring Anthony

flew up because he is an expert.

724

On the questions of atheism.

725

Believe in God.

726

And logic.

727

He's an expert at analyzing arguments.

728

He has a background.

729

That I don't think anyone else

has as much in terms of being

730

an expert in all these areas.

731

And if he changed his mind, it tells you.

732

That these type of arguments.

733

Can really have some weight with

people who are willing, like he

734

said, to follow the evidence.

735

Yeah, that's, pretty crazy

that had written so much.

736

that's a long list.

737

I know you didn't even exhaust

all of his publications.

738

Oh, there's like 40.

739

And about half of them deal with

the issues of logic, critical

740

thinking or religious belief.

741

So he, changed his mind

on the existence of God.

742

. he didn't necessarily have a.

743

Profound religious experience that

led him to Christianity or something?

744

No, in fact, he did

not become a Christian.

745

So these arguments don't necessarily

point somebody in the direction of a

746

specific religion, as much as just.

747

The foundational truth to

many religions, which is yep.

748

That there is a God.

749

Yeah, or gods and that's one

of the limitations, but it's

750

also, again, reminding us of

what these arguments are about.

751

Okay.

752

Yeah.,

753

.

And that's a neat case study there.

754

. So as we begin to wrap up, I'd

love to hear kind of your, take.

755

We've been talking about a

couple of different arguments

756

and that kind of thing.

757

So what's kind of your general take on

what we've been talking about so far.

758

Yeah, sure.

759

Well, my analysis is, or my thought is.

760

I think a very good case can be made.

761

That it is more rational to believe in a

creator God, then to believe in that the

762

universe has no origin outside of itself.

763

I believe it's more rational to

believe in theism the naturalism.

764

But I see three problems with relying

on proves of God for your faith.

765

First there's always back

and forth in these issues.

766

There are rebuttals.

767

There are counter rebuttals

and counter counter rebuttals.

768

So that's going to make

it a shaky foundation.

769

If that's what you base your faith on.

770

A second.

771

Kind of related to that, most

folks are not really trained to

772

adequately analyze these arguments.

773

And rebuttals and counter rebuttals.

774

'cause you really you'd have

to have training in logic,

775

both formal and informal.

776

Critical thinking.

777

Philosophy and theology.

778

And then for some of these you'd

want training in science as

779

well, or at least a little bit.

780

And how many folks have that

kind of training and background?

781

And then third, even if it could

lead you to intellectual certainty.

782

That is not faith.

783

Faith requires personal decision,

not intellectual certainty.

784

So I think it's better

to view these things.

785

Not as proves, but as a sign.

786

As I could be mistaken.

787

But at the same time, they're very

valuable when we remember that

788

they're pointing beyond themselves.

789

, so then as signs, what do they do?

790

Well first I think they point.

791

And that's what Paul has

in mind in Romans one.

792

Most folks are not going to read up on

the cosmological argument and come to

793

a deeper belief in God because of that.

794

But they might many do by staring

in wonder at the starry skies.

795

Or walking in a lovely veil

between new two mountains.

796

Or even just be in an observing

the natural world around them.

797

And then second.

798

They give reasons to believe,

even if they don't give proof.

799

I don't think most people

can believe in Christ.

800

Without believing that there is a God.

801

So if they're totally convinced

that there could be a God.

802

There's really not any

room for faith then.

803

As a guest input, it, we're not

asked to believe without reason.

804

But the very limits are reason.

805

Make faith.

806

Necessary.

807

So I like how ELL Maskell interprets

Thomas Aquinas's five proofs.

808

He writes, quote.

809

These are not five different arguments,

but five different ways of exhibiting

810

the radically self-sufficient

character of finite beans.

811

And so leading us to

see them as dependent.

812

Finite beings.

813

On a transcendent self

deficient creative cause.

814

So, let me, let me read that again.

815

These are not five different

arguments, but five different ways.

816

Of exhibiting the radically and

self-sufficient character of finite beans.

817

And so leading finite beings like us.

818

To see ourselves as

dependent on a transcendent

819

self-sufficient creative cause.

820

So in other words, they like aside

point us in the direction of faith.

821

By showing the alternatives

to faith app problems.

822

and that's why, in my opinion, faith

is choosing to believe based on

823

good, but not compelling reasons.

824

And I think.

825

The science can be part of that.

826

so mad skills in interpretation is that.

827

The sort of provide a philosophical

undergirding to faith to show

828

that it's it's reasonable.

829

At least We can have some grounding

on that, even though that's

830

not what our entire faith is.

831

Even if that's not what our

entire faith consists of.

832

Right.

833

Exactly.

834

And then the last thing I

think that the science can do.

835

Is posterior typically.

836

So they have to come after belief.

837

But I think they allow us to understand.

838

God's glory and personhood more fully.

839

So once we have made that faith

decision, then these things

840

can help us to understand.

841

That this universe does

indeed show the glory of God.

842

It reveals something about his

eternal nature and divine power.

843

Just like we can recognize

a van go from a Rembrandt.

844

And we can see the beauty and

imagination and vision of vanco a little

845

bit, at least from what he paints.

846

We can also agree with sir Thomas Brown.

847

The nature is the art of God.

848

I really like with tablets, a campus says.

849

If they heart were right than every

creature would be a mirror of life.

850

And a book of holy doctrine.

851

There is no creature

is so small and object.

852

But it reflects the goodness of God.

853

And John Smith.

854

There's a two-fold meaning in every

creature, a literal and a mystical.

855

And the one is, but the

ground of the other.

856

So, what I'm trying to get across is that.

857

After we've made that faith

decision and believe that nature.

858

Is the handiwork of God.

859

Then we can understand God and

the beauty of what he's doing.

860

Because we're seeing things,

not just as objects of our

861

perception or scientific study.

862

But as somehow a representation of

some aspect of God or God's wisdom.

863

And that changes how you view.

864

Nature.

865

Even Albert Einstein, and I'm not

sure what context he made this quote,

866

but this is a great quote from him.

867

He writes the intuitive mind is

a sacred gift and the rational

868

mind is a faithful servant.

869

We have created a society that honors

the servant and has forgotten the gift.

870

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and

the rational mind is a faithful servant.

871

We have created a society

that honors the servant.

872

And has forgotten the gift.

873

With that in mind.

874

I think we can come back.

875

With the limitation and say,

no, we need the scriptures.

876

But having the scriptures

and having this trust in God.

877

In this way, then we can agree with

Thomas Payne when he writes these words.

878

The word of God is the creation.

879

We behold.

880

Do we want to contemplate his power?

881

We see it in the

immensity of his creation.

882

Do we want to contemplate his wisdom?

883

We see it in the unchangeable

order, by which the in

884

comprehensible whole is governed.

885

Do we want to contemplate his munificence.

886

We see it in the abundance

with which he fills the earth.

887

Do we want to contemplate his mercy?

888

We see it in his not

withholding that abundance.

889

Even from the unthankful.

890

Do we want to contemplate his

will so far as it respects, man.

891

The goodness he shows to all is a

lesson for our conduct to each other.

892

And I agree.

893

In that light.

894

The university and

teaches a lot about God.

895

Yeah, what a beautiful way to end.

896

All right, that's it for now?

897

Well, thanks so much.

898

Yeah.

899

Thanks.

900

Bye.