Since its conception, this site has hosted several heated discussions on evolution and creationism. Unfortunately due to the fundamental differences in each camp, I feel that the creationists truly don’t understand Evolution nor do they appreciate the vast amount of human intellect and scrutiny that has been poured over it.
My goal with this article is not to humiliate creationists for their beliefs, but rather to educate them with respects to evolution. With countless evolutionary resources online, it is intimidating for the inexperienced to get started. This is where you guys come in. I want you to help build a solid reference on what evolution is and more importantly what evolution is not. There are many misconceptions about evolution that I think need clearing up.
Another aspect I’d like to tackle is some of the typical arguments that creationists use. One that comes to mind is the human eye. Creationists have long declared that the human eye is just too complex to have come about randomly. Well there are actually two problems with that statement. The first is that evolution can’t evolve complicated structures. The second problem is that creationists see evolution as random acts where things just magically happen.
I’d like everyone here to list the common misconceptions about evolution and the truths behind them.
If anyone else has thoughts on what should be covered here please share’em with us. My goal is to make this a permanent post that will serve as a resource for future debates.
I’ll start us off with this great resource for evolution. It’s heavy on videos, slides, and interactive exercises. Check out this short clip on the evolution of the eye and see how nature could be the greatest “designer” of all :)
Related posts:
- Evolution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evolution!
- Evolution — South Park Style
- Evolution Is A Religious Deception
- Evolution Vs Creationism – Simpsons Style
- Evolution Frightens Me
Whew!…Soaking it all in…I have some preliminary questions starting to form. I need to do some more looking into a few things. Does the theory of evolution discount or go against any other laws of science. I’m not a scientist by any means, but in what little I have learned, I definitely have some questions. First of all, from your scientific backgrounds, why is it still a theory? Why is it not the law of evolution?
bloody_peasant,
I certainly acknowledge the numerous times that science has been correct in decoding the past and predicting the future. I do however need evidence on this particular matter. I am not alright accepting it based on “science says so”. They have been wrong before.(I really say that with a matter-of-fact tone. The last thing I want to do is inspire an emotional debate. That’s the problem with this type of communication…inflection can be lost or misconstrued. So please continue to share with me on a just-the-facts basis.) You mentioned there are some predictions that the theory has failed to prove, and some that have withstood the test. Can you be more specific?
Hello AJ,
I’ll address one of your questions: “…why is it [evolution] still a theory?”
This question stems from a common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Conversationally, we understand theory to mean ‘a guess at a possible explanation’. In science, this is a hypothesis. A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that has been supported by observation, experimentation, and/or data.
Also, scientific theories have varying degrees of support, based on the proportion of observations, experiments, and data that support the theory. Here is a list of well supported theories:
The theory of gravity
Germ theory
Plate tectonic theory
The Big Bang theory
Cell theory
atomic theory
The theory or relativity
The theory of evolution
Newton’s theory of motion
Note that many of these commonly go by the term ‘law’ instead of ‘theory’. One example is the law of gravity. This often happens in physics when a theory is extremely well supported. Biology does not adopt this term, even though it means the same thing (the law of germs just doesn’t sound right). Despite the different terminology, gravity is still only a theory, just like evolution.
Hello Sidfaiwu,
Your input on theories vs. laws makes sense. Also, thank you for the info in #90. I am reading through the tutorial. It will take a bit of time, but I have already found it useful. Thanks.
Hi vk0,
I have downloaded the video and plan to watch it soon. Thank you.
Snurp,
Thanks for starting with the basics. That’s where I’m at with all of this. It’s greatly appreciated.
I hope to return with many probing questions!:)
AJ,
I’ll get back with you tomorrow on some specific predictions, failures and successes
I’ll add to the theory vs. law.
A law in scientific terms is an simple observation that appears to be universal (although not always, see Newton’s Laws of Motion for an example). The Law of Gravity for instance says two bodies pull at each other at some constant force directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the distance between them. It is usually distilled as a mathematical formula.
As you can see the law of gravity is pertty simple. It makes really only one prediction and it doesn’t explain anything about “how” gravity works.
The Theory of Gravity (Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to be more specific) explains the how. In addition it makes many predictions. It is way more powerful than the old law from a pure production of knowledge standpoint. It will NEVER become a law. Theories do not migrate to laws. A working successful theory is the ultimate product of science and its most powerful product.
Laws on the other hand are simple observations that are usually incorporated into a working theory (e.g. the Law of Gravity is an observation that is included as part of the Theory of Gravity).
As for your other question, does the Theory of Evolution go against any laws of science. I know of none. If it did then either 1) the Law isn’t always consistent or 2) the theory is wrong. For example Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does contrast Newton’s Laws of Motions under certain circumstances, but Einstein’s Theory’s predictions have been validated and Newton’s Laws were invaldiated under those conditions, thus the Law was wrong and the Theory was right.
check out my page myspace.com/hominidae
i have a blog about misconceptions
the theory of gravity talks about how 2 bodies of matter effect eachother.
So, in order to make that theory into law you need to:
first clear the entire universe of matter, then you add 2 hydrogen atoms with a distance of the least amount possible between them, you then monitor them for an infinite amount of time. you then move them to a distance of *2, and monitor them again for an infinite amount of time.
once you’re placed them in a infinite amount of distances of eachother and monitored them for an infinite amount of time each, you start with a helium (is that the next one) atom, and with all the other atoms and combinations thereof.
then you to the same with more than just 2 atoms, up to infinite, each with an infinite amount of volumes of each of the infite atom-amounts.
I probably forgot a few infite amount of experiments, but wouldn’t this be what it took to make a theory into law?
Oh, and all this information is very interesting, especially AJ’s response to it, keep it coming.
@vk0:
I think that would make a theory into a fact(don’t forget to test the infinite number of velocities, energy levels, charges, isotopes… who knows? some things might make a difference)
mind you this is all terminology here, and I think you essentially mean fact when you say law, but as stated in post 102 by sidfaiwu the word “law” in physics is used in a rather lose fashion, and I didn’t hear about any new theory being called a law.
Perhaps the term has it’s origin in newton’s time when the *law* of gravity was kind of a holy grail to scientists… but I have not heard the term used often to describe any new theories. Maybe gravity seemed so undefyable and the theory seemed to universal that they gave it that law…
Okay I think I should stop blabbling about semantics and terms when there are more important matters at hand to discuss.
This is all very enlightening. I think it is a subject worth having a clear and definitive answer for. It is one of the first things stated about evolution in the creation circles. The fact that it is referred to as a theory. Meaning there is still a bit of proof undiscovered. I think you have answered it pretty well. What I am getting is that because it is virtually impossible to have the perfect absolute controlled experiment to prove once and for all, then one must look at all the supporting evidence and tests thus far to draw a “conclusion”. But is there the one defining study that ultimately, undeniably, and definitively answers the question? Not, exactly. Is that correct? Please know that I am trying my best to convey these thoughts intelligently. I must admit I am slightly intimidated amidst such educated company. But, under the veil of anonymity…I press on. ;)
Brave on, AJ. The intellectual rewards are worth the risk of temporary embarrassment. Anyway, your intellectual quest seems honest, so you’ll probably find nothing but encouragement from almost all of us. Even if you are not convinced in the end, at least you will understand our point of view a lot better.
It sounds like you got the gist of what a theory is and why evolution is ‘just’ a theory. Evolution is the best working model we have to explain the diversity of life on this planet. That model is constantly being refined as more data comes in. It’s not a perfect model for the exact reason you mentioned: it is impossible to have a perfectly controlled experiment and test all the possibilities.
Can we *please* start talking about the “law of selection” and “law of inheritance” and “law of mutation” then?
And welcome, AJ. Having seen the way your questions have brought the discussions back to Gasmonso’s original purpose (and with appologies to Voltaire), I think that if you did not exist we would need to invent you ;-)
@AJ,
Theoretically you could do an experiment and find that any theory that we have is completely wrong, and thus eliminate if from existence.
What happens practically is a bit different, a theory as old as Evolution or Gravity already explains a lot of things that the new theory would somehow need to explain as well, so what we see is that the theory is usually extended and refined(sometimes in most unusual ways)
I’m still an undergraduate student so I’m not the best one here to give examples, but I think the wave/particle duality of light is a good example. Maxwell had made some pretty cute equations that explains all there was about electromagnetism(which includes light) but later on it was found that unlike maxwells equations suppose, light is not made out of waves; Light is _both_ waves _and_ particles at the same time. So right now we use maxwell’s equations to calculate a good deal of things that have to do with light, but we use quantum physics to explain some more sophisticated parts of it.
The point is, although Maxwell’s equations were proven to be “wrong” when talking about light, they are still used to explain light in a broad range of cases. In some cases it is not enough(for example the photo electric effect) and this is where we start using the extended version(which would be too complex to use in the cases where Maxwell’s equations are used)
So basically anything that would come to replace the Theory of evolution in case it is proven wrong/incomplete would have to explain a great many things Evolution does explain, and thus will most likely have some of the aspects of evolution in itself.
I hope I’m making some sense here…
Recovered Catholic says,
“Can we *please* start talking about the “law of selection†and “law of inheritance†and “law of mutation†then?”
We do, at least for inheritance, the Laws of Inheritance are typically discussed as two separate laws from Gregor Mendel, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment (or sometimes Mendel’s First and Second Laws to take a page from Newton).
Again like I discussed above these are simple observations. Each observation (made by Mendel at the time) makes only one basic prediction and does not explain anything about the “how.” The “how” is documented in the Theory of Genetics which makes tons of predictions.
The Law of Selection would be a mathematical Law though. If you take a random population and select for certain members you’ll eventually end up with a fixed population.
The Theory of Gravity will never become the Law of Gravity even if you were to follow vko’s instructions above. The Theory of Gravity (Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity) talks about how gravity works by theorizing it works not due to a force, but because of a curved space and time continuum.
Law of Gravity == Simple Observation that Appears Universal
Theory of Gravity == Explanation of HOW Gravity Works
A Theory will NEVER become a Law. They are two very different things.
Next AJ says
“Meaning there is still a bit of proof undiscovered.”
Science does not deal with “proof” or proving anything. Proving things is the realm of mathematics and formal logic. This is true even for so-called Laws. All bodies of knowledge in science are open to being overthrown if new evidence rears its head. Newton’s Laws are a perfect example. There are no ultimate definite answers in science because it is a working body of knowledge and it acknowledges that it is impossible to know everything.
Let’s look at Germ Theory for an example. It is a widely (although not universally) accepted theory stating that one of the causes of diseases within both animals and plants is the infection of various microbes (bacteria, virus, fungi, etc.) It makes many predictions that a lot of modern medicine is founded on. The fact that it works and its predictions have been shown to be true over and over is why it is so widely accepted.
But tomorrow, a scientists testing a prediction based on Germ Theory could invalidate the entire theory. Is it likely? No, to many successful predictions have been accumulated for this theory for that to be likely, but it is not impossible.
If you are looking for absolute certainty than you will have to look somewhere else other than science. However if you are looking for a tool that has proven itself over and over in discovering useful information and making testable predictions about the natural world then science is it.
PS Agnoy’s post is dead on and well stated.
bloody-peasant’s point on science versus logic can’t be stated enough. Modern science is based for the most part on inductive reasoning, which never reaches 100% certainty. To do so a theory it would have to be tested against all possible outcomes ever possible. Induction isn’t proof. If you want 100% proof you have to stick with deduction, which is basically logical proof and has to do largely with contradiction. So, for example, it is impossible for you to do X and not X at the same time, thanks to the Law of Excluded Middle (i.e. I cannot sit and not sit at the same time). If you wanted to show that inductively, you would have to have -all possible- examples of sitting and not sitting -ever- happen and see if you could get the two to happen at the same time. Also, I second Agony’s post.
Hello bloody_peasant,
“A Theory will NEVER become a Law. They are two very different things.”
The first half of this statement is correct, but their is not complete agreement over the second part. See this website for a counter description. From the article:
That being said, we should focus on what all scientists agree on about the use of the two terms, for AJ’s sake:
1. “A Theory will NEVER become a Law.” A theory is not a ‘law in transition’.
2. More importantly, the terms are not hierarchical. A law is not ‘better than’, or ‘above’ a theory.
@Snurp:
Proof by induction is well accepted in computer science and mathematics. For example see http://www.math.sc.edu/~sumner/numbertheory/induction/Induction.html
Also, when I studied Physics, we had to formally and mathematically prove a number of things. Einstein’s theories were largely the result of mathematical manipulations. My point is that sometimes science isn’t just observing and making up a model for those observations. That is the realm of purely empirical science, and it is largely considered a “lower grade” of science. More respect tends to be given to frameworks that can condense and articulate our knowledge to explain simultaneously a great number apparently disconnected empirical theories. Sometimes you can prove C given A and B and come up with a new theory. Sometimes given theories A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, theory I becomes almost necessary or self-evident so that the set of smaller theories fits with a greater principle.
Finally, what I’m driving at is that evolution is such a good fit with all the rest of what we know about biology, that if you reject evolution, you reject or at least cast doubt at the same time on so many other things (gene expression and regulation, genetic inheritance, bacteria that can choose to use sexual or asexual reproduction, plasmid exchanges between bacteria that carry antibiotic resistance genes, the mecanisms for DNA damage and repair, retroviruses, etc…) that your position appears preposterous to someone who is familiar with those other theories. The more someone knows about molecular biology, the more evolution makes sense. Now, is it reasonable to consider training every person in molecular biology so as to convince them of evolution?
Oh, I forgot to mention that most scientists do see a distinction between the two term. Many draw the line between the two precisely as bloody_peasant describes, others say laws are mathematical descriptions.
Now for predictions :D
Evolution literally makes millions of predictions because its a theory that applies to all living things. So it is useful to talk about the predictions it makes in broad categories and then look at specific examples of tests.
The first prediction I’ll cover is one at the heart of the theory.
If you apply a selective pressure on a population for certain inheritable traits then the nature of the population will change over a period of generations towards the selected traits.
Some definitions are critical:
Species: A group of organisms that are biologically capable of reproducing. This means they can successfully mate (their sexual organs can make proper contact), the male sperm can impregnate the female egg, and the genetics allows for proper viable fertilization.
Population: A group of organisms that are of the same species that not only can biologically reproduce, but are actually able to physically reproduce (not geographically isolated for instance). For instance two groups of fish in two different land locked lakes are two separate populations.
Inheritable Trait: A trait is any feature of an organism, from gross morphology (bone structure) all the way to minute biochemical traits. It is inheritable if it is wholly or partially influenced by the organisms genes. For instance a severed finger is a trait, but it is not an inheritable one. A lot of research goes into determining how much a trait is inheritable, especially for complex traits that have multiple genes and environmental effects affecting them (e.g. height or intelligence).
Selective Pressure: This means that certain members of that population with the desired inheritable traits are selected to have a better chance to live and reproduce. It is taken that not all members of the population will survive and reproduce. Some members will perish or due to other reasons fail to reproduce.
*****
Now the first example of this prediction, was both an observation that was key to Darwin forming his theory and is one that is utilized heavily and you can see its results every time you go to a nursery to pick out some new flowers or to buy some new vegetable seed varieties.
This is typically called “artificial selection” because it is people making the selection instead of natural causes within an organisms natural environment, but the principles are the same. A horticulturalist or breeder starts with a population of an organism and selects for certain desired traits, say a certain color, flavor, or level of hardiness, and lets those that display the desired traits the most to reproduce for the next generation. This selective process is repeated from generation to generation.
Even more striking is that as one might predict from the main prediction above, if one applied a different selective pressure to one population and another selective pressure to a different one then the two populations will diverge and become different from each other. For instance I might select for a large red fruit in population while selecting for a small hairy orange fruit in another. Over time the two populations will begin to look dramatically different.
Interestingly enough, people have been doing this type of selective breeding long before anyone conceived of the Theory of Evolution, for well over 10,000 years in fact. And they have created some amazing divergent organisms. Animal examples include all the different breeds of dog, cattle, and chicken. Plant examples include the very dramatic differences between broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts, all of which were derived from a single wild species that looked nothing like its domesticated cousins. Corn is another great example having been selected from a species of wild grass that looked nothing like the corn we eat today.
Here’s another small interesting side prediction related to corn. Modern corn that has been through several thousand years of artificial selection is susceptible to certain diseases. Well it may be that some of the wild cousin species of modern corn may have evolved resistance to these diseases on their own have the genes to fight these diseases. Such a species was discovered in Mexico (Zea diploperennis) and now it is being researched on how its genes can be used to make resistant corn.
Next would be finding examples of this type of selection in wild populations. This isn’t an easy subject, but if you are interested there is an online book that covers how it is done and some examples here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MYk1XbelDssC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&dq=examples+of+natural+selection&ots=x0p9IDOF1b&sig=Uq1xucYnD9XIbxOdIf33hv8fhKk#PPR7,M1
Hope that gives you a start
sidfaiwu point well taken, but I still take issue with the notion that the term law was tossed in favor of theory because we realized laws were not absolute. They are still very different things no matter how absolute either is.
Please see this site for a great read on the two and on “proofs”. Its a short read I have recommended many times.
From the site
“Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.”
Theories on the other hand do explain them. And there is the difference between the two.
Thanks, bloody_peasant,
That’s a great site (content-wise, the formatting leaves a lot to be desired). I am now convinced that you are right (after reading about laws vs theories on many sites now). They are different things, despite my original description. I appreciate the education.
sdifaiwu I find the site you linked to be somewhat misleading, for instance it says
“The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn’t really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.” (emphasis mine)
Here we see confusion between a theory (an explanation of how something works) and a hypothesis (a prediction made by a theory that can be tested). There is no blurry line between the two as they are two very different things.
The fact that the M-theory is largely untested is either because it makes few or no predictions or (as is the case) those predictions have yet to have been tested because they are very hard to test.
A great example is the recent Bose-Einstein Condensate. This was predicted by Bose in the 1920′s in his theoretical work on the nature of light and extended to matter by Einstein in his theories of relatvity. These theories described the “how” and make many predictions. But because of limitations on what we could technically do in the 1920′s no one could test these predictions, but they were still Theories in the proper sense.
Now thanks to super cooling and other new technologies we have been able to test one of the predictions of this special state of matter at near absolute temperature and find that the predictions do hold true in 1995. This led to additional hypothesis testing into quantum mechanical interference (aka teleportation of matter) and really really cool stuff :D
Here’s a good read of that theory and later hypothesis testing including new discoveries that the old theory don’t account for (an example of a failed prediction that will eventually lead to the theory being modified or overthrown by a superior theory).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate
sdifaiwu sorry didn’t mean to beat a dead horse, I guess we cross posted. However the read on the Bose-Einstein Condensate is still worth it as it is really really cool :D
LOL agreed on the format of that site, a web design wizard apparently they are not :D
Quite a bit of new info today. I think I have a grasp on the subject. I’ve impressed myself with my new understanding of such issues as theory vs. laws.:) I am seeing that eventhough it is a small and calculated step of belief to trust in certain scientific theories, ultimately there is still a bit of a trust issue. There seems to be a chain of things (theories) that must be true. Building blocks, if you will, and the stack seems so tall that it can become mind boggling to break it down and examine each to approve validity. It probably just seems logical and natural to accept such things if you have studied them at depth for a length of time. When you are new to science, it can feel like shaky ground. Does that make sense? Thank you all for your explanations. You’ve been very patient and understanding. The next question that comes to mind has to do with another topic I don’t fully understand. It is also a card that creationist pull out when discussing evolution. The theory of thermodynamics. I won’t even try to explain my understanding of how the topic applies. I do know they (creationist) mention something about entropy and something about how all things left to their own will move toward chaos which would somehow contradict certain areas of evolution. That’s the bits and pieces. Can anyone fit them together and explain. Thanks.
Aah, thermodynamics. That is a tall order for me, I was not most attentive on thermodynamics lectures.
But of entropy I have some knowledge. It is one of those terms which is misunderstood either intentionally or because one just do not understand it properly. If you replace entropy with dispersal then it is easier to understand.
Thermodynamical entropy is not chaos and disorder but dispersal of energy as it seeks to find equilibrium.
Simplification for example would be hot water aka “energy” which is poured to a cold container. The container would not remain cold for long as the energy “heat” of the water would spread to it. The water would lose heat or energy in the process the heat disperses also into the container.
Equilibrium in a such situation would be when the water and container are of same temperature, the original energy has dispersed to the system.
Hopefully someone has clearer explanation as I fear that is tad unclear.
Hello AJ,
The second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law that states in a closed system entropy tends to increase. The emphasized portion is the part of the law that creationists either ignore or do not completely understand.
A you can think of a ‘system’ as any defined space. A system can be the space inside your living room or the space taken up by the earth and its atmosphere. A closed system has no energy flowing into or out of it. Since energy is constantly flowing into the earth from the sun, the earth is not a closed system. For that reason, entropy can, and does decrease on this planet. This decrease in entropy is what makes evolution possible.
A good analogy is to think of flowing water. In a closed system, no water flows into the area and no water flows out of it. Think of a fish bowl. The water is perfectly still. There is no complexity in the water, just utter uniformity. The water has maximized its entropy. Now consider an open system, part of stream, for instance. Because of the flow, water patters emerge in the form of eddies, or whirlpools. These eddies have complex, spiral patterns, and lower entropy. No such complexity is possible in the closed, still water system. The only way eddies can form is in open systems with water flowing through them.
Life on is like those eddies. Evolution is like the forming of whirlpools in the flow of the sun’s energy. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it might help.
Hi Jagannath,
Thanks for the explanation-I think I’ve got it.
Hello sidfaiwu,
Thank you for your examples. You have a gift for explaining complicated concepts in a way that’s easy to grasp.
OK, that’s good. The resource I was drawing from stated an opposing view, but after looking at the facts and several definitions, and of course your very clear explanations, I am convinced the earth is an open system. So, that closes that question. The next question dives into explaining where the earth began. Is it true that evolution supports the Big Bang as the origin of everything?
Okay, I need help again. After reviewing my resource I realize that they have said that the universe is a closed system. But, tell me if I’m wrong, the earth is an open system within a closed system then? And if the sun which is in the universe is pouring energy into the earth’s system then that is how things (evolution) is able to take place in a closed universe. And if the universe is closed, does that mean that over time it will reach a state of equilibrium? And if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then what sparked the initial evolution of the existing matter into what it is today? And where did that existing matter originate? This is exciting. I am really stoked (and yes I said stoked) about the doors of knowledge being flung open. I couldn’t wait to get a free moment to research the laws of thermodynamics. Am I an official geek now or what? ;)
I Think I mentioned above that evolution and the Big Bang are two separate fields. The Big Bang is only one of several theories that tries to explain how the universe began. The Big Bang is, I believe, the most widely accepted among scientists.
As far as I know the two aren’t scientifically linked, and I could see evolution without the Big Bang. You could say that God created the universe and allowed things to happen from there (the Diving Clockmaker idea I mentioned above).
It is important to keep in mind that evolution doesn’t explain absolute origins. It tries to explain change from A to B, but it may not be sure where A came from. Might be God, might be a Big Bang, might be that it just is and always has been, etc. Nevertheless, once we had living things that started competing for resources, then the evolutionary process began.
However, I’m don’t know nearly as much when it comes to these kinds of theories, and so I leave the rest to those more knowledgeable than I.
@AJ
According to what I know there is absolutely no link between the Big Bang and Evolution(other than both being the most accepted model to explain certain things)
And about open and closed systems, yes to the best of our knowledge the universe itself is a closed system, and it will reach a state of thermal death(when all energy is spread uniformly across it) at some time. Until now this is the fate of the universe as we could predict it(at least according to the best of my knowledge).
But this does not mean that you can’t see packages of energy at different places during the process of dying. Let’s get back to the water example. I have a cup of water at room temprature, I throw a rock into it which is VERY hot(imagine it as our sun being thrown into our solar system) You will see nice patterns of vampor/water and even some hissing. Those patterns have greater complexity than either uniform water or the rock, yet they do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
About the beginning of the universe. We really don’t know yet what caused it, string theory has a nice explanation for it, but string theory isn’t even a theory yet as no one could come up with an experiment to falsify it. So the prevailing answer is we don’t know, but not knowing doesn’t mean we need to throw an almighty being into the mix(which would raise more questions than it answers)
Oh and matter can be converted into energy or energy into matter. so it’s the total amount of energy&matter that is constant. Perhaps there was lots of dormant energy in this universe before it(for some reason) exploded the way it did? We don’t know, perhaps we never will, but we’re doing our best to.
Hello AJ,
Thanks for the compliment. It can be a bit of a curse, though, because I tend to over explain things and accidentally insult peoples’ intelligence. It drives my wife crazy.
Your questions have become much more difficult to answer. Keep up the great work! The easiest to answer has already been addressed, but is worth repeating: The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are not related. There are some philosophers who connect the two, but science does not. I especially like Snurp’s explanation on this in comment #127.
Also, as Agony alludes to in #128, matter can be created and destroyed, since we now know that mater can be converted into energy (this is how nuclear power and bombs work). In fact we know exactly how much energy, E, can be created by converting mass m. It is proportional and the constant of proportionality is the speed of light, c, squared.
E = mc^2 (how’s that for geeky)
Here are the two most difficult questions you asked:
“what sparked the initial evolution of the existing matter into what it is today? And where did that existing matter originate?”
This gets to a question I have about the early universe and thermodynamics. I had a very strange moment in my last year as a graduate student. I was in an advanced thermodynamics course and thus had entropy on my mind quite often. One day, we had a guest speaker visit our math department to describe how he used mathematical analysis to discover the existence of a previously unnoticed galaxy that is being absorbed by a larger galaxy that it ran into.
The introduction of his presentation had a neat little animated demonstration on how galaxies first formed after the Big Bang. The universe was represented as a black cube (a closed system!) and the matter in the universe was represented as white pixels. After the Big Bang, matter was spread randomly and almost evenly across the entire black area. The animation showed time passing and the effect of gravity cause the white dots to spontaneously converge into many distinct galaxies.
I realized that what I was witnessing was a closed system in which entropy appears to have spontaneously decreased on a universal scale! This is a huge violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics! How is this possible? It seems that gravity is an entropy reducing force in nature. I’ve never had this apparent contradiction adequately explained to me. Does any one here have any knowledge of this?
So the answer to your first question, “what sparked the initial evolution of the existing mater into what it is today?†is, at least partially, gravity. Though ‘evolution’ in this sense has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, since mater doesn’t have decent with modification.
Hi Sidfaiwu,
“I realized that what I was witnessing was a closed system in which entropy appears to have spontaneously decreased on a universal scale!”
This is exactly my question. Earlier when I mentioned, “Are than any other laws that the evolution theory contradicts?” This is what I was stumbling with, but I really wasn’t sure at the time if it was technically sound. After learning a bit more, it is a formidable question tnat I’ve yet to find an answer to. Again, tell me if I’m wrong, a closed system is closed unless there is some type of energy flowing in. Is gravity considered a type of energy. I definitely need to understand gravity better. Where does it originate. I guess my question is: “How was gravity present way back when, and is it a type of energy?”
Hello AJ,
Well, evolution doesn’t contradict any other theories, but gravity appears to. I am skeptical as to whether it really does.
A system is closed is no energy is entering and no energy is exiting the system. Think of a bathtub of still water. Pull the plug and water flows out. In such a situation, a whirlpool can form, even though no energy is entering the system. This is possible because energy is leaving the system, making it an open system.
As science currently understand gravity, it is not energy. Gravity is caused by bends and kinks in space-time. Matter literally bends space-time. To better explain this, I’m going to use another analogy. Think of the universe as a thin rubber sheet. Now place a bowling ball on the sheet. The sheet then bends under the weight of the bowling ball. Now place a marble close to the bowling ball. Since the sheet is bent, the marble will roll towards it. It is attracted to the bowling ball because of the bend in the sheet.
Again, the analogy isn’t perfect, but I think it will help. The main difference between the sheet and the universe is that the sheet is two-dimensional, and the universe is three-dimensional.
The rest of your questions address ultimate origins of things. Where did the matter-energy come from in the first place? Where did all the physical laws, such as gravity, come from? The truth is, science does not have a good theory and probably never will. The Big Bang theory says that everything expanded from a singularity. Well, where did the singularity come from? Why did the singularity expand (what physical law caused it)?
Theology has similar problems. If the ultimate cause is God, where did God come from? Why does God have the traits He/She/It posses? I also think that theology will never definitively answer these ultimate origin type questions.
I read somewhere that you are a theist. That basically means a distant ‘god’ that set things in motion, but gives nothing and requires nothing, right? So, did you come to a place in science where the thought of intelligent design seemed the most likely. I’m just asking because an evolutionary theist intrigues me.
I believe he’s a deist, which is not intelligent design. I think i means he believes that some ‘god’ got things started, but didn’t necessarily even know we would be created, and still probably doesn’t. It is not a scientific concept whatsoever, more of a philosophical one. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending deism.
I don’t see the point in it myself. It always seemed like it lacked the security blanket end of religion, but held on to some of the logical missteps. I think Sid’s tried to answer why he’s a deist before, but I seem to remember not getting a definitive answer. I could be wrong, but I still am interested in why he’s a deist. Perhaps a deist could shed some light?
Hello AJ,
Your Father is correct, I am a type of deist. Unlike myself though, most deists do accept a type of intelligent design (ID). The type of ID deists accept is different from that of creationists. Deists largely believe that the laws of nature where designed, including evolution. They believe that God created the universe knowing that rational creatures would eventually evolve. This is the old evolution-is-a-tool-God-used-to-create-us idea. After creation, God became ‘hands off’, so to speak, and never intervened in the universe.
What I have in common with deists (and most atheists, for that matter) is that they value rationality above all other human traits. My flavor of deism is weaker than most. I reject ID because I see evidence of spontaneous complexity in the universe. Also, I am almost complete agnostic about the nature of God. See my conversation with NoReligionIsPease starting at comment #69 on this post for a good description of my deism. In short, I admit our extreme ignorance, especially when it comes to ultimate cause ideas. If you or Your Father still have questions about my beliefs, please ask after reading those comments.
Don’t get me wrong Sid, I have the utmost respect for you, and agree with pretty much everything you post here, but I still don’t get why you’re a deist.
Weak or not, being a deist means that you BELIEVE the universe was created by an intelligence. You hold a belief with absolutely no evidence. While most of your stances are rational… I just don’t see it in this one. Why is it that you believe the universe was created by an intelligence? Why rule out the possibility of a purely natural creation of the universe, when we have no evidence either way?
While on the topic of creation of the universe and entropy:
Not that i have anything to say that hasn’t already been said alot better than i ever could. I do fell i should mention “the last question” sci-fi short story by isaac asimov.
Although i’m sure most have already read it, AJ may not have, and everyone else can easily read it again.
http://ciscoslackers.com/question.htm
Hello Your Father,
Your respect is both appreciated and reciprocated.
First allow me to clear up a couple of misunderstandings about my deism. I do not claim to know if God is intelligent. Also, I know it’s a fine point, but I think ‘created’ is the wrong word. I prefer the term ’caused’. Also, I am not 100% sure that God caused the universe in the temporal sense. I think that the universe is the natural result of the existence of God. God ’causes’ the universe in the same way that atoms ’cause’ molecules. It’s simply that molecules could not exist without atoms.
You are right, though, that I have no evidence for my belief in God. My belief is philosophically based. Reason dictates that there must exist a self-necessary (or self-caused) thing in the universe upon which all others ultimately rely for their existence. I call this God.
Lastly, I do not rule out the possibility of an entirely natural explanation for the universe. If space-time ends up being the self-necessary thing, then so be it. In that case I am a pan-deist. But contrary to what most atheists think, I see no reason to believe that the ultimate cause is simple. They have given me reason, though, to admit that the ultimate cause may be simple. What I admit is that I am ignorant about the nature of this self-necessary thing.
I hope that helps you understand my deism.
Okay I’m not gonna take part in the Deist VS Atheist thing here because they look like two faces of the same coin to me: as long as reason stands above all else, all is good.
Getting back to thermodynamics, I think gravity is only causing a temporal decrease in entropy, a force that works during the _process_ of increasing entropy.
Taking the model that the whole universe will be pulled together again by gravity into a singularity this would make sense, since entropy would be at its maximum again…
Okay I don’t know if what i’ve written up here contradicts any of the more recent findings(does the universe actually expand indefinitely?) but it just came to me when I read your post and thought I’d write it down.
So are we done with evolution here and talking about how our universe formed?
/me puts his biology books back on the shelf and takes out the astrophysics books
Sid,
I think ultimately, this will break down to semantics and the definition and nature of belief etc… I think your concept of belief is so liberal that its just another word for atheism (as I see it).
I don’t know if you are one, but I know people who don’t like the stigma of the word “atheist” so they call themselves other things (usually agnostic), but when it comes right down to it, we’re in the same boat. They don’t believe in any gods (THE definition of atheism).
Hi Everyone:
Think. Think about the possibilities of thinking HOW both evolution and creationism flows together. Now the real learning begins…
Now before coming down the throats of anyone, think about this carefully. For example, if one has not studied BOTH evolutionism and creationism (the Bible verses), then there is not the full understanding of HOW we, animals and things (i.e., nature, chemicals, etc.) came into existence. If you know you exist, therefore, you know you must have come from somewhere. Nothing comes from nothing.
Fun inquiry and debate!
Ker
Ker, take a look at post #51 for a theory about how life did come into existence most probably. But please note that in the natural sciences there are two theories about this matter: The theory of abiogenesis, describing how life started, and the theory of evolution, describing how lifeforms changed over time once they existed. They are largely independed of each other. You may want to refer to posts #57 and #60. None of the theories claims to know it all, so if you think you can add to them, feel free to do so (use scientific methods).
Scinetific methods doesn’t work all the time, so how you expalind super natural things, like ghosts, like black magic?
@mohamed
dude, are you for real? ghosts and black magic? that is just crazy talk. drugs, psychosis, cheap tricks… so many ways to explain such “phenomena”…
Paranormal phenomena often have a physical explanation. Seveal studies (1, 2, 3 , and others) suggest that the feeling of ghosts may be an acoustic phenomina.
Black magic can probably be explained in the same way as normal magic. Some are frauds – search youtube and google video for James Randi who does a good job exposing them. Also look out for the scary work of Darren Brown; who is a magician whose tricks could easily be described as “black magic” if he didn’t tell you how it was done (usually using psychology).
Coincidences are just that – humans are bad at estimating the odds on events happening.
There are many things science can’t explain, but dark arts and ghosts aren’t among them.
It would be interested to know what kind of a supernatural things and magic is not explained by science? I mean throwing out the ‘scary’ words is one thing but examples with sources would be nice.
I just read this article on The Skeptic Society’s website and felt I just had to share:
I love it! This quote illustrates that the ‘Old Earth’ creationists are spiritually more sophisticated than the ID crowd. They literally have more faith than creation ‘scientists’!
EXPANSSION,QUANTUN,THEORIES,ARE EXPOSED AS FOOLISH AND IRRATIONAL. BE THE JUDGE
We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expanssion of the universe, and the quantun or microorganisim. To understand it with reason,thee first subject we are confronted with is God.Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, “The fool has said in his heart,/There is no God.” This sentence may also be translated as “The fool does not want God in his heart.” The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: “They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds.”Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, “For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.”THREE KINDS OF PEOPLEWhether you claim to be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.PROSECUTIONIs there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather.Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say “no.” I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.QUALIFICATIONSMany people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.NO ATHEIST IS MORALOnce at a gathering at the University of Nanking, I remarked that no atheist is moral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. The next day, while I was speaking, they came and shuffled their feet in an attempt to distract me and the audience. The next day when they came again, they made funny gestures and faces at me and carried on continuously throughout the speaking. On the fourth day the vice-president of the university, Dr. Williams, came and said to me, “We had better change the place of meeting. These students are infuriated by your assertion on the first day that atheists are not moral. Today they are not going to use their feet and lips only; they are going to use their fists. I heard that they will be waiting at the entrance of the hallway and will jump on you when you step in.” I went along with the arrangement and conducted the meeting at another place. On the way to the meeting I walked alongside many students and listened to their conversations. Although many did not agree with me and felt uneasy about my preaching, they wanted to come back. One among them remarked, “Mr. Nee said that people who have no God have no sense of moral responsibility. This is perfectly right. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his feet and jest while others are delivering a speech? Yesterday they caused such a disturbance in the meeting, and today they are going to come to fight. This is surely not what an honorable person would do. There is no doubt that those who do not believe in God do not have moral decency. Let us go to the meeting regardless of what they plan to do.”Once a young man told a preacher, “When I was young, I seriously believed in God. But now that I am in college. I can no longer believe in Him.” The fifty-year-old preacher patted the young man’s shoulder and said, “My son, you do not believe in God anymore! Let me ask you a question: Since you have been converted to be an atheist, have you advanced morally? Has atheism helped you become better? Has it made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?” That young man felt ashamed. He admitted that he had gone downhill morally since his denial of God. The preacher pressed on: “I am afraid that you are not really saying that you believe there is no God, you are just hoping that there is no God.”DO NOT JUDGE ACCORDING TO HOPEMany people are not really convinced that there is no God; they merely hope so. They would rather that there were no God in the universe. For them it would be much more convenient in respect to many things.I myself was one of those people. When I was a student I claimed that there was no God. Although I was extremely strong in my claim, something within me seemed to be protesting and saying, “There is a God.” I knew deep in my heart that God exists. But my lips refused to admit this so that I could have an excuse for sinning. By declaring the nonexistence of God, going to sinful places was justifiable. If there were no God, I would become bold to sin. When you believe in God, you dare not do certain things. When you do away with God, you feel free to commit the worst sins without any fear whatsoever. If you sincerely hope to raise your moral standard by asserting the nonexistence of God, then your arguments are still plausible. However, the only reason men claim that there is no God is for an excuse for lawlessness, immorality, license, and indecency. For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, “Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?” If your hope is merely for an escape from justice, you have lost your ground already.IS MAN THE GREATEST?One day a young man came to me and said, “I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything.” We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, “You are really great!” Then I walked to the other side of the room and looked at him from another angle. “That is right,” I said deliberately; “You are great! In Kiangsu province there are thirty million who are like you. There are at least four hundred million of your kind in China. The world contains only two billion who are the same as you are. Do you realize that during the last few days there has been a flood in the south? The dykes along the river are in jeopardy. The whole population in Hsing Hwa with more than two hundred thousand people have been recruited and rushed to the dykes in a panic. They are carrying earth with them to reinforce the banks. The repair work is still going on.”Suppose that the world is recruited to hollow out the sun. A hole is drilled through the surface, and everyone has to remove a load from the inside. Assuming that no one will be burned to ashes, do you think that they can do the job? Even if all the people themselves were inside, they would not fill up the sun. That is not all. If you put several hundred planets the size of Earth inside and started shaking it, you would still find that the sun would be very empty inside. How many suns are there in the universe? Do you realize that the number of solar systems is in the hundreds of millions?”HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?I then said to the young man, “And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.”CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDSOF TIME AND SPACE?Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, “I saw God today!” He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, “You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God.” He asked for an explanation. I said, “Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole, or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself.”This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.”THE EVIDENCESome will immediately step back and say, “I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not.” Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.THE UNIVERSEFirst, look at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONSThe universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them.What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified Being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one.Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe were created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.CHANCE EVENTSWhat are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATIONNow let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother’s womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year’s calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.MICROORGANISMSLet us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.IS IT OCCUPIED?Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, “Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves.” We walked out and waited for the owner to return.By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart,/There is no God.” Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.CHANCE OR DESIGNThe universe has to be created by Someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECTOne witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man’s heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world.As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as “man.” At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.THERE IS GOD IN THE HEARTDo we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving –God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear.By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: “You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it.” I said, “Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.”THE WORDS AND THE HEARTA young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, “Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already.” He said, “What do you mean?” I went on to explain: “Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side.” He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, “You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?”Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning yourself will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God.
posted by SOWER @ 6:42 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Saturday, August 4, 2007
CONSIDER THIS SCIENTIFICALLY AND OBJECTIVLY
I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God’s existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.
In the past few thousand years man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man’s inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.
But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God’s attitude? Do you think He would say, “I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about Me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!” Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.
A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man’s life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God’s life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, “Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?” Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict’s desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.
There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelational religion? Revelational religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man’s thoughts are often useless fancies. God’s revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasonings to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.
We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?
If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locate the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.
Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.
We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.
After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, “Thus saith the Lord,” at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speakings of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the most noble persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, “Why are you so strong against the Bible?” He answered, “If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me.” This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone, and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.
Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.
What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God’s book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God’s revelation to man.
This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.
If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God’s hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.
There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: “Christianity is buried here.” They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fibre of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God’s word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.
This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.
Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half are for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.
If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it.
posted by SOWER @ 9:02 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC?A LIAR? PLEASE YOUR VERIDICT.,
God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God’s intention is to reveal Himself to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
Let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, “All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds.”
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to myself, “This is my chance.” I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, “Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends…” But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, “This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart’s intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together.”
We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.
This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven, my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God’s holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God’s righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God’s purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be yourself. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.
How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, “I and the Father are one.” We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, “I and the Father are one,” it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? “The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning Me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, are making Yourself God” (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus’ words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?
Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven” (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, “No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai.” If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony.” He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what is the purpose behind these words. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like “heaven,” “above all,” “out of heaven,” etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, “But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working.” He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, “Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?
John 6:46 says, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father.” Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? “I am One who testifies concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies concerning Me.” The question in verse 19 is most interesting: “They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: “And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” The preposition “from” in this verse is ek in Greek. It means “out of.” That is how it should be translated. He said, “You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world.” This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-ti. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: “Are You greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are You making Yourself?” How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, “Your father Abraham exulted that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: “The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Now please pay your attention to Jesus’ answer in verse 58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.” Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-ti was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him either a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.
We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know…” Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: “…that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father.” Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: “Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him.” It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God.
One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, “Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.” Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, “Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?” Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God!
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question.
Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did.
Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie?
Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, “If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!”
Please read John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Verse 14 says, “And
My ADD will not allow me to read all that crap, but it seems you’re relying an awful lot on the christian bible as a source of fact and knowledge. Thats a horrible mistake, the bible is in no way factual, it was written by a collection of anonymous men 2000 years ago, most of the statements made in it have been proven completely false, and lets not forgot that it teaches intolerance towards others. Does it really make sense to live your life based on a book like that?
Nice cut & paste, I got bored after few lines but I think maybe the gist was this
Meaning, there is none. Refuting a theory cannot be done without first understanding the theory and this quote shows that the writer lacks even basic knowledge.
Wow, lucky us. The room of your post ran out.
One thing I must give you. Your powers of copy-paste are indeed mighty, but unfortunatly, I have better things to do then read that wall of text.