Defining Terms: Entropy, Heat Death, and the Cosmological Constant

October 15, 2011

Cleaning up a few loose ends with some terms that I used in my Cosmological argument post a few days ago.  Boring, I know, but there is a method to my madness.

Cosmological Constant – a constant term used for the rate of expansion of the universe.  It is based on several factors including the relativistic equations for gravity.

Entropy – Entropy has many different definitions depending on what science you are discussing from statistical mechanics, physical chemistry, or classical thermodynamics.  What I was referring to was associated with classical thermodynamics was  the relationship between heat and mechanical energy or work, and the conversion of one into the other.

Heat Death – after entropy has reached its maximum and zero energy is available,  according to the laws of thermodynamics the material universe is apparently winding down and approaching heat death.

A great example  of entropy and heat death is a cup of hot coffee.    After you load all the ingredients in the coffee maker and press the start button  You have the coffee that is kept hot by the heat element under the pot.  The coffee pot is made to keep the heat a constant by using energy from the plug.    If the coffee maker is unplugged or the coffee is poured into a cup entropy will have reached its maximum.  The coffee comes out of the pot hot, but if you leave the cup of coffee, it is no longer being keep at a constant temperature by energy used in the pot.  Without any usable energy the coffee if left alone with slowly lose heat and cool down to the same temperature of the room or environment that it is in.  The coffee has then reached heat death.


Defining Terms: Premise & Conclusion

October 14, 2011

I always try to go back and explain terms that I use to make sure you understand the blog posts.  Perhaps I should do them before I post blogs, but that would require some extra planning and thoughtfulness, that I don’t have.  In a recent post, The Cosmological Argument, I used the following terms:

Premise – A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.  In logic, it is one of the propositions in a deductive argument.

Conclusion – The result or outcome of an act or process.  In logic it is a reasoned deduction or inference.

These two terms will help you hone your debate and conversation skills with others.  While people may not outright label their debates and discussions with these words, they definitely use them.  Part of your job as a good apologist is to listen to what people are saying and be able to pick out their premises that lead to their conclusions.   Only after you know what their premise and conclusions are will you be able to examine their arguments for truth and coherence.  You may be able to show someone how their faulty conclusion is faulted based on one of their premises.

If you have two opposing conclusions that fit into the law of excluded middle.  (For example, Conclusion 1: God does not exist.  Conclusion 2: God does exist.) one conclusion naturally is wrong.  It is then the task of those in debate or conversation to retrace the premises in the arguments to decide whether the premises or the inferences are true or faulty.  Thus the discussions began.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions welcome.


Defining Terms: Begging the Question

October 8, 2011

Image DetailHave you ever heard someone make a statement or make a conclusion that you know is wrong, but you can’t figure out why it wrong?  There are a few reasons why this may be so, but most of the time it stems from a faulty question or statement that leads to a faulty conclusion.

Begging The Question – using the conclusion as one of the premises (or reasons) to reach the conclusion.  When you already claim the conclusion as fact.  This is also called circular reasoning or arguing in a circle.  For example, saying Tom is the most honest guy I know, why because Tom told me, and honest people don’t lie.

One of the most popular ways that Christians use Begging The Question is by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16.  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”    While we know from other evidence that we can trust the Bible, using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning.

For example saying that evolution is reason that life evolves  is also circular reasoning.  Science must be able to show some physical mechanism of why it does evolve in the first place.  Evolution just is… is not a valid reason or proof.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions welcome.


Real Faith: Biblical Not Blind

October 6, 2011

Over a week ago I posted a blog titled Why I believe.  I quickly listed out the reasons that I believe in God and hold the worldview that I do.  The very first item I listed was faith.  I realize that you may think that faith is not objective, but I hope that you will see at the end that it is based on an object.  According to the Bible, faith is a requirement to have a relationship with God and for an eternal life in Heaven.   I have already explained why faith is necessary, but now I want to go back and spend more time on what real faith is and also try to clear up what many people consider of faith as blind faith.

You may have asked, “Why faith?”  Look at the following scripture.  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” – Ephesians 2:8 [Emphasis added]  It is ‘through faith’ that we are saved ‘by God’s grace’.  The Bible is clear that God requires faith, that is His standard.

Chris Sherrod, a former student minister and friend of mine breaks down faith like this.

Faith has two elements.
1. The person doing the trusting
2. The object that the person is putting their trust in.

Using the “trust fall” example Sherrod explains; “Imagine you are standing on the end of a table and about to fall backwards into the arms of six strong adults waiting below you.  As the ‘faller’ you portray the first element of correct faith – the person doing the trusting.  Obviously for this exercise to work must have enough confidence in the people below you to take some action and actually fall backwards.  But correct faith involves one other element – there must be a trustworthy object that you are placing your faith in waiting there to catch you!  In other words your ‘subjective’ (or personal) faith must be placed in something that is objective. (i.e. outside of you) and trustworthy.”

Sherrod continues, “To understand the importance of the second element, imagine that we alter one feature of our exercise: the group standing below you is now six toddlers!  Would you consider this an important detail that has changed?  Obviously so! Your faith, no matter how genuine or strong, would matter little now because the object of your faith is no longer trustworthy.”

The sincerity of the person doing the trusting really have nothing to do with it.  If I believed that I could jump off my roof while holding an umbrella and float slowly to the ground, the only thing that matters is the object, the umbrella, that I am placing my faith in.  The same can be said of other worldviews.  If Mormonism and Islam are objectively false, it really doesn’t matter how sincere the person’s faith is, it is still objectively false.  Later after establishing the evidence for God I will begin to look at other theistic worldviews and the objects that they place their trust in and compare them to those of the Christian worldview.

There is a misunderstanding by many about the type of  faith that Christians have in God.  Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion seems to see it as a blind faith.   It is a not blind faith.    Blind faith meaning that for no reason or any evidence at all a Christian believes in God.  Similar to me thinking I can fly because it would be really cool and I like superman.  Biblical faith is based on the objective evidence that we do have.  What objective things can we look at?  The universe, human life, conscious thought, The Bible, Historical Jesus.  We will get into these one at a time and look at specific facts, and see where they lead.  The argument boils down to what is acceptable evidence and what is not according to who’s looking at it.

Every single person uses faith that is based on evidence or reason, even if they are not religious in their worldview.   The scientific atheists want to try to separate religious faith from that of scientific faith saying it is a different type of faith, but it is one and the same.  Here are a few examples.  You trust an airplane to fly you safely across the country without crashing, even though you don’t understand all the laws/rules of aviation.  You have faith because you have seen planes fly and more often than not make it safely to their destination.  You trust a pharmacist to put the right kind of medicine in a pill bottle and you take it without question, even though you don’t know everything about medicine and biology.  You have faith because they have proven themselves reliable in the past.  Even in the field of science.  Physicists have never been able to weigh a sub-atomic particle, like a neutrino, it is to small, yet based on all the fundamental laws of physics, mathematics, their reasoning, and deductive skills scientists do believe that a neutrino does have mass.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands – Psalm 19:1

As always, questions, comments, and discussions welcome.


Defining Terms: Law of Non-Contradiction

October 5, 2011

Law of Non-Contradiction
2 statements are made that contradict each other.  One must be true and the other must be false.  For example: “There is only one God.” and “There are multiple Gods.”  These statements contradict one another and therefore one must be false.

Ravi Zacharias often uses this example:
A husband and wife are going for a walk down the street for a walk together. They meet another couple on their walk and stop to talk to each other.  One of the other people make a statement “”I hear that both of you are pregnant.”   Immediately  together the wife says “yes” and husband says “no.”  The other couple is confused and waiting for an explanation.  Perhaps she is pregnant, and he doesn’t know yet, or perhaps there is a problem in the marriage.  Whatever the reason a woman cannot be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.

This law will keep a person honest when it comes to several things in apologetics.  It will also help someone who is hesitant to make a judgment about a position to decide where they stand on it.  For example in future posts we will discuss evidence that the universe had a beginning.  According to the law of non-contradiction  the universe either had a beginning or it did not.  Atheists have motives for not wanting the universe to have a beginning, because ever effect has a cause.  Christians gladly point to God as the first cause.  Even the Big Bang Singularity points to a beginning, even though it is not accepted by many Christians.    That’s why physicists like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose are continuing to work on other alternative theories about the origin of the universe.


Conversational Apologetics

October 3, 2011

When you strike up conversations with people, especially for the first time it is important for you to find out where they are and what they believe.  For example, Do they believe in God?  Do they have another world view? (Islam, Buddhism, etc..)  Do they believe the Bible is true?  There are many questions you can ask them.  Each question will help you determine where you need to start in your discussions with them.

Avoid putting people in a box.  Just because some says they are Mormon or they are a Muslim doesn’t mean they will fit into the general beliefs of their religion or worldview.  You will find that people have varying beliefs or individual beliefs rather than fitting into every standard you know.   Just as someone else might assume you believe something like speaking in tongues, or predestination because you are a Christian.   Asking questions will help you determine what they believe and why?

Here are some questions that you can ask people to help you figure out what they believe and this will help you know where to start with them in your discussions.

1. Do you believe in a God?
2. Do you believe in one God (monotheism) or many gods (polytheism)?
3. On a scale 1-7 seven, 1 being total atheist and 7 being a total theist, where do you stand?
4. Are you a Deist or Theist?
5. How do you believe the world came to be?
6. Do you believe in evolution?
7. Do you think the Universe had a beginning?
8. Do you believe that humanity has Free Will or is Determined?
9. Do you believe in Absolute truth?
10. Do you believe that truth is relative?
11. Where does Evil come from?
12. Do you believe in Satan?
13. Define Evil.
14. Where do morals come from?
15. Do you believe in an Objective Moral?
16. What is Sin?
17. Do you believe that the Bible is inspired from God?
18. Do you believe the Bible contains errors?
19. Do you believe in miracles?
20. Do you believe in Jesus?
21. What do you believe about Jesus?
22. Do you believe that Jesus is God?
23. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?
24. What is Faith?

You can also ask them to define terms that they or you might use in your discussion.  For example: Mormons and Christians both us the word Trinity but define it by different meanings.  Christians view the Trinity as the 3 (Father, Son, Spirit) in 1 triune God who has three unique personalities but is 1 God.  Mormons view the 3 Gods (Father, Son, Spirit) referred in the Bible  who are not the 1 and same God.

Don’t forget 1 Peter 3:15:
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,”

As you have conversations with people don’t forget one of the most important things, to talk with them with “gentleness and respect”  You are not out there to coerce anyone into believing in your Christian worldview, you can be bold and persuasive, but don’t ever try to force someone into a relationship with Christ.  It has to be their choice.  You are also not out there to “slam” anyone or make them look stupid with your knowledge of apologetics.    In the next post I will explain a method for presenting the Gospel and simple strategy for helping other people understand your Christian worldview.


Defining Terms: ad populum

October 2, 2011

A few days ago I used a term in a post that I didn’t explain, you may or may not have known what it meant.   Referring to a debate that  I watched between 2 men I said the following.   “One person had a set of thoughts in which they presented in turn and the second man, took a position of doubt, and really questioned everything that was said by the other person and other ad populum topics.”

to the people

ad populum – ad populum is Latin for ‘to the people‘, the phrase ad populum is used to describe a technique in debate where you make an appeal ‘to the people’ or the popular vote.    You might consider it to what is known in general to the majority of the population or think of it as common knowledge.

The danger with ad populum is that even though it is commonly known, believed or accepted, it doesn’t mean that it is right or truthful.  Phrases like “everybody knows…”,  “most educated people…”, or “all religious people know…” are examples of ad populum.  Often times the facts and evidence are  left out, and perhaps done on purpose to avoid having to deal with the reality of the real evidence.

Examples:
Everyone knows that the Bible is full of contradictions.
All scientists believe that Evolution is not longer a theory but now accepted it as fact.

So how do you handle someone who chooses to use an ad populum technique with you in a discussion or debate.  Simply call it for what it is.  You may want to ask for the facts behind the claim.  For example in our examples above, you can simply ask the person “What contradictions?”  Ask them to give you something to defend against or an opportunity to explain a “so-called” contradiction.   Or to ask what the facts are behind the theory of evolution.

Lastly you can remind them that just because something is accepted by the popular consensus, doesn’t mean that it is correct.  For example: If a majority of the class got an answer wrong on a test, it doesn’t mean that it would become right.  If ad populum always meant it was the truth, then the issues of Nazi Germany would have meant that it was okay for the Nazis to do what they did to the Jews because a majority of Germany agreed with it.  Slavery was an accepted way of life for many countries in our recent past, but that doesn’t mean that it was right either.


Defining Terms: Theism

October 1, 2011

A few more definitions to add to your knowledge of data base in studying apologetics.  We will look at Theism and the rest of his Family that are connected together.  Hopefully the illustration will help you understand it as well.

Theism – The belief that there is a God and that He is knowable and involved in the world.  It comes from the root word ‘theo‘ meaning ‘God’.  For example, theology is the study of God.

theismMonotheism – The belief that there is only one God in the universe.  It comes from the prefix ‘mono’ meaning ‘one’.  Judaism, Islam, Christianity are examples of Monotheistic worldviews.

Polytheism – The belief that there are many gods in existence in the universe.  It comes from the prefix ‘poly’ meaning ‘many’. Hinduism and the Greeks God’s of Mythology are examples of polytheistic worldviews.

Pantheism –  The belief that God is the universe and all that comprises it: laws, motion, matter, energy, consciousness, life, etc.  It denies that God is a person and is self-aware.  The prefix ‘pan‘  means ‘all‘ or ‘of everything‘.   Buddhism is a pantheistic worldview.

Panentheism –  The belief that God is in the universe.  It differs with pantheism which states that God is the universe and all that it comprises.

Atheism – The lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god.  The position held by a person or persons that ‘lack belief’ in god(s) and/or deny that god(s) exist.  The prefix ‘a‘ meaning ‘not’ or ‘against’  literally translates ‘not God‘ when put in front of the root word Theo.  For example amoral would mean the opposite of moral.  Naturalistic or a Darwinian evolution worldview would be atheistic.

Agnosticism – The belief that the existence of God is not knowable. The word is derived from the negative ‘a‘ combined with the Greek word ‘gnosis,’ which means knowledge.  Hence, agnosticism is the belief that God cannot be known.  Someone who might call themselves a Skeptic would most likely have an agnostic worldview.

It is important that we understand the role of the law of non-contradiction when discuss the different positions of theism.  For example, you cannot hold both a theistic view and an atheistic position at the same time.  Either God exists or he doesn’t.  Similarly you cannot hold both a monotheistic and a polytheistic position at the same time either.  There is either one God or multiple gods.

There are a few more other words we could discuss, but we will save them for later in another post.  What position do you take, and why?  As always questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.


Defining Terms: Worldview

September 29, 2011

If you are just starting to learn about apologetics it is good to be familiar with several of the basic terms that are used in discussions, debates, and by many of those in the creation and evolution realm.  I will start out very basic with some of these words and gradually get deeper and more complex with the terms.  If I use a word in a recent blog I will include it in the Defining Terms blogs that  I create.

Worldview – The dictionary describes it as a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it.  Everyone has a worldview whether or not they think a little or a lot about it.  I believe that a solid worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer basic questions about our past, present and future as well as give coherent meaning to all of the issues that we may face in our lifetime.   The human mind has a curious need to organize things and understand and make them coherent.

I have recently heard of a University of Florida student who was attending a lecture by apologist, Ravi Zacharias, and the student stood up and defiantly made the statement that “Life doesn’t have to be coherent” and demanded that Ravi Zacharias give an answer to why it should.  Dr. Zacharias responded that he would like to help the student, but before He answered that question, he had one question for the student.  Dr. Zacharias asked him, “Would you like my answer to your question to be coherent?”  The student stood quietly there for a moment and then just sat down.

What goes into making our worldview?  Everything.  Everything we experience from the time we are born until this very present moment that you are reading this blog accumulates to the sum of our world view.  Our Nurture, Our Nature,  Our Experience, Our Relationships with People (bosses, parents, peers, etc.), Our beliefs, Our Actions, the list could go on and on.  In my Christian worldview, God and the Bible,  have a big part of every single persons worldview on earth, whether they acknowledge God or not.  Someone who holds an atheist position would of course disagree.

A worldview does not have to be religious by nature.  By religious, I use the definition of a strict devotion to a supernatural being, higher power, God or gods.   Worldviews can be based solely on scientific laws and knowledge and whatever a person views as coherent and true.  For example someone who calls themselves a Darwinian evolutionist has a worldview that holds an atheistic or agnostic values.  Another worldview that I just learned about today are Raliens.  They believe that human life was seeded on this planet by extraterrestrials.

I am constantly self-examining my own worldview with the knowledge that I receive almost daily.  I want to make sure that I am as intellectually honest with myself about what I believe as I can be.  In other words, I like to keep an open mind.  Over the course of my journey in life I have found that my Christian worldview has for the most part stayed the same and I still feel that it is one that is the most coherent of all the worldviews I have examined.  The Christian worldview is durable, it can withstand the constant scrutiny from outside and internal sources.  Through out the months and weeks to come I will be examining the different aspects of my own worldview and also comparing them to other popular or mainstream worldviews.  I will do my best to offer the evidence, you can decide what you want to from the facts.

As always questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.  In the near future I will post a follow-up with this blog about the challenge by Richard Dawkins, that people basically take the worldview that they grew up with.  Indoctrination, as he calls it,  by those who raise their children into religion, he even goes to the lengths to call it child abuse.  Most likely for the reaction.