Is God Out to Getcha?

I repeatedly run into objections to the notion that a loving God would create an eternal Hell, and that condemning someone in such a way would be punishing them disproportionate to their crimes.  I'd like to address this objection with two qualities inherent in God's nature - holiness and love.

How do I know what God's nature is?  Has He spoken to me from a burning bush?  No, but He has left word for us in the inspired scripture of the Bible.  I know, some folks dismiss it as written myth, just like any other man-made religion.  I only recommend that before you do that, you study the scripture for yourself, genuinely seeking the truth, rather than accepting someone else's criticism and comments on it.  Many folk appear to have rejected it based on the latter, while conversely, others have set out to thoroughly study the Bible for themselves in order to disprove it, only to experience total transformation through conversion to Christ.

I know that even believers in Christ are often not immune to the misconception that God is watching, like Big Brother, waiting for them to misstep so He can swat them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is true, that God is holy and just and, similar to a human judge in our courts, cannot remain so while leaving wrongdoing unpunished.  Make no mistake, there IS a judgment coming wherein He will do exactly that.  But here is the good news about the matter; God actually wants everyone to be saved.

2 Peter 3  9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2   3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

  So the blood of the cross then, is His gift to us to pay the "fine" that we had coming.  Some seem to be unable to make sense of this good news and the Bible even declares it to appear as foolishness to those who are perishing.

However, the inability of man to earn salvation and the grace God offers through His own suffering is unique to Christianity.  All other religions offer a legalistic system wherein one does good in the hopes of maybe achieving Heaven.  In Christ however, we may know that we are saved (1 John 5:13).  Jesus said to fear not man but God, Who can cast the soul into Hell, and that is indeed an excellent starting point for someone to turn toward God.  If we remain selfish and immature, of course fear shall remain, but with maturity, fear must give way to love.

1 John 4   15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.  God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Do you wish to be free from the fear of death, judgment and the wrath to come?  You can be, but not on your own and not without trust.  Does it take a blind, flying leap of faith?  No, but it does take a small, reasonable step of faith.  Take the step!

Does DNA Contain Information?

This one goes round about, typically on whether or not DNA really represents information and people often bring up "Shannon" information versus "Gitt" information.

Since we're focusing on whether or not it required intelligence to come to its current state, let's examine that aspect of information and see if it qualifies.  Interestingly, it appears muchas sources secular refer to the DNA code as information.  This source actually used the DNA example in its definition OF information:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Considering the example from computer code (which I assume we agree had an intelligent source), Bill Gates said, "Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created[1]."  Some consider it quote mining for a creationist to use his quote, since he did not mean it in a creationist context, but I'm considering here his comparison of DNA to computer code, which he is qualified to comment on.  We could also legitimately compare protein building by DNA to the CAD/CAM industry, where computer code is read by manufacturing machines which mold, cut and assemble items accordingly.  For serious info-science types, a full article by Gitt, in which he discusses Shannon's earlier information theory, as well as the information-bearing properties of DNA can be found here: http://wernergitt.com/down_eng/G_1533_Information_science_and_biology.pdf

But let's look at it from a language perspective.  Let's consider for this discussion that information is a series of symbols that convey meaningful ideas to a receiver (I believe this matches or is close to the definition proposed by commenter, ExPatMatt).  If I spell the word "B-A-T", I encode information as a sequence of symbols that can be read by the receiver through a conventional system of interpretation known as reading the English language.  Now if I further sequence multiple words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, I increase the information and compound the meaning conveyed.  We could even consider the context in which I placed the sentences to increase meaning to a "meta-information" level.  We've all heard of quote mining, where a quote is taken out of the context intended by the author.  Now compare this to shaking the Scrabble letter bag and picking them out randomly and placing them in a row on the table.  The same symbols are used, but have no meaning.  True, the word "B-A-T" could turn up randomly by coincidence, but would be of low quantity and quality, not to mention we would could easily tell which sequences were random and which were applied by their specified complexity.  If on the table next to the one with the random "B-A-T" sequence, we saw "T-H-E B-A-T B-I-T T-H-E R-A-T", we would know it was not coincidence, but a deliberate sequence.

On to a comparison with DNA.  The four nucleotide bases, A, T, G and C represent letters.  A sequence of three bases (a codon) carry the info for assembling an amino acid or a word in our example.  The sequence in which the amino acids chain together determine the identity and function of the protein being built, which in our example would be a sentence.  The way the proteins are assembled form cellular type and structure (muscle, bone, organ, etc.), or "paragraphs", and onward and upward we go, until we have the multiple volumes that constitute a human being (about 30,000 genes, each an average of about 12,500 base-pairs).  The entire genome of DNA information for an organism is contained in every one of trillions of cells.

Though some want an exception in this case, in all of human experience, information has only arisen from an intelligent source.  This is why I agree that DNA is indeed God's signature on every cell.  The more we study DNA, the more we realize that the genes formerly considered "junk" are being found to have non-protein coding, regulatory function (shrinking levels of vestigial code should represent a problem for evolution, btw)  What's really amazing is that about 20% of DNA can also be read backwards for additional information!  Don't worry, it's totally free of Satanic messages.  I say with my science hero, Louis Pasteur, "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

[1] Gates, 1995, Education: the Best Investment, p.188

Will Evidence Really be Enough?

I hear this one quite frequently, so lets have a go at it.  The demand is for evidence, but rarely am I given what will constitute sufficient evidence.  Evidently,  just hearing of Jesus Christ and His redeeming work from another is sufficient for some; for others, reading it in the Bible; for others (like Lee Strobel), a careful look at the historicity and reliability of scripture; for others (like me) add on observations of nature and human behavior to solidify it; and for still others MAYBE a miracle would suffice.

I said maybe, because even eyewitnesses of miracles weren't always convinced (John 11:43-48, Matthew 9:32-34), and make no mistake, it wasn't because they doubted the legitimacy of the miracles themselves.  Unlike the TV charlatans we see today, Jesus healed people (as did His apostles later) known for decades by entire communities to be infirm.  No, the rejection in these cases were from a hardness of heart - an unwillingness to believe.  Why?  Is it because with acceptance comes accountability?  Perhaps a perceived loss of freedom?

I don't believe we are currently in a miraculous period, but God makes it clear that we don't need miracles to believe in Him and that creation is enough (Rom 1:18-23).  I also suspect that within each of us is something that resonates, however quietly, with the Truth of God when we hear it.  My vote is, we should heed it.  And if you are one who has run away from God or even resorted to fighting against Him, here's what happens when you genuinely and humbly return (click).  What's stoppin' ya?

Gamblin' Pascal

I don't typically use Pascal's Wager as an argument for several reasons.  First, I don't want to logically "twist the arms" of someone in an attempt to convert them, which probably won't succeed anyway if they are in a state of rebellion against their Maker.  Second, even if they accept the logic, I don't want them to accept God's salvation in Jesus Christ as "fire insurance, just in case" - the commitment has to be all or nothing.

Pascal's argument essentially states that it's safer to serve God as though He exists since there is everything to gain and nothing to lose.  With one exception, I don't at this time recall the substance of arguments against Pascal, however I am interested in hearing some, since his logic (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument) seems so sound.  I guess that makes sense.  He was a mathematician and competent with probability.

Fire away.

Intelligent Design (ID)

Bein' a YEC an' all, I don't entirely agree with the approach of the ID movement, but in its defense, I also have to disagree that it's unscientific.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project was astronomer Carl Sagan's baby and he was definitely atheist.  Can we see how the criteria SETI is using to identify intelligent signals from unintelligent ones are the same criteria used by ID on DNA information coding?  There is no disputing that DNA qualifies as information code (approximately 20-base digital), and nowhere in human experience has information formed spontaneously, without intelligent agency.

Francis Crick, of Nobel Prize fame for DNA molecule structure discovery, looked for a way that the nature of the nucleotide chemistry might naturally order the base-pair sequence, but no dice.  Just as the Scrabble letter tiles have no magnetic strips that form them into words when dumped on the table, DNA has no self-ordering mechanism internal to its nucleotide chemistry - it is simply-code building blocks with information imposed upon it.  God's signature on every cell.

Is this the one case where we want to invoke an exception to information theory, in order to avoid the larger implications?  Another alternative, suggested by Crick (and more recently by Dawkins) is panspermia (seeding of Earth with life by aliens), but you can predict the next question.  It only defers the problem.

ID however, is pursuing the science of establishing and using criteria for distinguishing intelligent design from random occurrence.  Looking at the two images in this post, we can easily discern which of the two was intelligently designed and which likely occurred randomly.  Why are we able to do so?  What qualificaiton criteria are we using?  Is it inductive reasoning from the large scope of human experience?  If it were common for wind and rain erosion to carve detailed human-face shapes in rock, would things be different?

Dino What?

One author wrote that even in liquid nitrogen, it wouldn't have lasted 65my.  He was referring to the dino soft tissue discovered in the femur of a T-Rex fossil by Dr. Mary Schweitzer on a dig in Montana.  They had to break the bone to helo-lift it and she analyzed a sample from inside it, by demineralizing it in the lab and surprise, there was still material left. Unfossilized material.  This type of discovery has occurred over a dozen times since.  Some pics:  http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=dino%20soft%20tissue&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1004&bih=612 .
This is one of my favorite creation science topics, but it fascinated me to see how entrenched is the secular, deep-time paradigm, to the point that a mysterious preservation mechanism was immediately sought, rather than making age calculations based on the known decay rates in that environment.  After her colleagues looked into the microscope and perceived blood cells, Schweitzer asked, "How can that be, when [the sample] is 65myo?"  Some Christians (like Schweitzer) accept theistic evolution, some reject it (like me, although I used to accept the possibility), but atheism needs it.  Dino soft tissue discovery has been confirmed (careful on the dates of your sources if you follow up) and is here to stay, so interpret it as you will, but my question:  Is this the providence of God, giving yet another chance for the light of Christ to shine on you?  Think deep.

Objective Morality

This topic has some interesting implications.  I meet some atheists who do accept objective morality, subscribing to, "Be good for goodness' sake."  What I've observed of human behavior leads me to believe this is impossible without God.  The heart of man is desperately wicked and selfish.

As to the objectivity of morality, I agree.  Much like logical arguments (i.e. All Spaniards are European and John, being a Spaniard, is therefore also European.  Or 2 + 2 = 4), which are axiomatic and conclusive, if morality is objective, we can say with just as much certainty it is wrong to steal.  But when we ask how long have these conclusions been true, it becomes apparent that the answer is always or from the beginning.  In fact, since logic and morality are attributes of God, they have been true from eternity (separate from time).

As for moral motives, some posit that it's less noble to do good from a fear of punishment or promise of reward.  Those actually sound like pretty good reasons to me, but I'll extend it further, in that those motives are a good starting point for moral development.  They must with maturity however, give way to love. 1 John 4 says "17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."  So doing good for it's own sake seems an intellectual exercise in futility.  Let us instead, do good for love's sake - and God is love.

No True Scotsman/Christian Equivocation

Long before Antony Flew's conversion to nonspecific theism, as an atheist philosopher, he authored the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which describes an illogical attempt to retain a position, even when faced with a universal, counterexample, by establishing the subcategory of "true".  Click on the preceding link for explanation and example.  I've had this argument leveled at my exclusion of Hitler from Christendom, since true Christians exhibit certain behaviors, prescribed by Christ and avoid others He forbids. 

Here's the difference:  A Scotsman is universally identified, not by his behavior, but by his place of origin/residence.  If guilty of heinous crimes, he is simply a diabolical Scotsman, so Flew's example is sound.  A true Christian however, is identified (by Jesus Christ) as one who knows and abides in Christ and bears fruit accordingly (Matt 7:15-23).  This criteria was established by the Lord before group membership started and is therefore not a subcategory but the category, and cannot be equivocated with No True Scotsman.  Yes, there are those who claim (like Hitler) to be disciples of Jesus Christ, but clearly according to Jesus, they are not.

So the world was given the right and means by God Himself to distinguish true Christians from false ones.  I hope you will take this into consideration and not use the "church hypocrite" reason for rejecting Jesus and the salvation He offers.  Of course the church has plenty of hypocrites (1 Pet 4:15-18) - don't follow them; follow the Prince of Peace - the One and Only, and fear death no more!

Angry (A)theists

Anger.  Although not always, it seems atheists are often angry.  But then, some have pointed out to me there are angry Christians as well, so I'm trying to identify any common factors.  Is it insecurity?  I mean, it seems to fit both groups. Is the atheist angry because he cannot have the certainty he craves regarding God's nonexistence?  Are some Christians angry, because while they believe God exists, they have not learned to TRUST Christ as their savior?

There must be an explanation, since it seems that a true atheist wouldn't care what the Christian believes, and the concern a true Christian should have for the lost should not manifest itself as anger.

Infinite Regression of Origins

Some in the unbelieving community appear to latch on to certain concepts without considering their ultimate implications.  Ray Comfort is fond of saying that an atheist believes that nothing created everything, with which I mostly agree, since most atheistic reasoning on origins leads there, and that which does not is faulty from the start.

For example, if one subscribes to a materialist process of evolution of all living things, the next logical question is how life got started at all.  Many atheists seem to prefer to keep evolution and abiogenesis (life from nonlife) separate, and while the two concepts may be considered individually for scientific purposes, philosophically, they are quite inextricable.  Not only that, but the sequence continues infinitely with the repeating question, "And before that?"  Thus, the problem of infinite regression.

How can we resolve the problem?  One could postulate that the universe has simply always been, without beginning and without end.  The flaw with this proposal is time.  Time cannot extend infinitely into the past (perhaps familiar to those acquainted with the Kalam Cosmological Argument), or we could never have arrived at this moment.  This is how medieval philosophers knew 1000 years prior to the big bang theory that the universe had a beginning.  Since the material universe consists of space-time, only a being or condition independent of this continuum could logically have no beginning or end, which of course is a description of God of the Bible - the Alpha and Omega; beginning and end.  One could argue, as Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University contends (in agreement with Comfort's statement about the atheist view), that the universe literally sprang out of nothing, but how is this less miraculous?  Are we then not simply worshiping the creation, rather than the Creator?

God has given sufficient reason to believe, and believing to have life in His name.