Apologetics: The Type of God

Before they went to bed, I said, stay away. Stay

more than six feet away from us. We don't want

it. So Ariana's got music practice every day

except for one this week and every day next week.

And then she has the musical Friday, Saturday,

and Sunday next week. So if she gets sick between

now and then, she's going to be heartbroken.

And if they get a whole bunch of people sick

in that thing, they're going to be in trouble

because they've got a bunch of kids. All right,

let's pray. Father in heaven, we do thank you

that you have made our body, our world, this

universe. with extreme complexity beyond what

mankind has been able to figure out. And to that

end, then, we have doctors all over the place

and hospitals all over the place and scientists

all over the place working to heal the human

body the best they know how. Many of them know

you personally and are doing it out of the goodness

of their heart, service, and because they love

to take care of people. Others don't know you

and need to. And then, Lord, we could list the

people. I've heard that Hannah's sick. Holly's

been sick for several days since Saturday, I

believe. Natalie. It was the urgent care just

now. We've got Kyler and Carson have both been

sick. Caitlin's been sick. I don't know who else

I'm missing, but we continue to pray for Mike

and Jamie, what's going on there, and for Rachel,

even though she's had a good report recently.

She's got a long way to go to be fully out of

the woods, and we just ask that you take care

of her. We'll pray for Carrie, what's going on

with him. We'll pray for Chris McCrory, dealing

with bone -on -bone in his knee and needing a

knee replacement. Father, we just pray that you

would take care of our hurt. We bring our burdens

to you, that you can carry them and make of them

what you will. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Okay, so we've been talking about for the last

several weeks, we've been talking about how to

basically prove via argument that God is real,

that he exists. What happened? Oh, no. You know

what? It's two -sided and you only have one side.

So not only did I mess up the hole punches, but

then I messed up and made it only one -sided.

And you have the back side, not even the front

side. Sheesh. So let me go get it. I'll be right

back. Okay. Brother Tim is sick, and Miss Chris

is sick, and I forgot to mention them, so pray

for them too. All right. So, as I started to

say, we have been... working through like proofs

for God. How do we know that God exists? And

if somebody is struggling with a concern, how

do we help them understand not only, you know,

that God exists, but what kind of a God he has

to be, right? And so in that, then if you look

at the very top of your page there, it says exists,

right? And then these are the character traits

of God that we proved. We'll recap the proof.

So don't worry about the fact if you can't prove

them right now, we'll recap that before we're

done. But these are the things that we proved

with the logical arguments that we did two weeks

ago and four weeks ago. All right. So the first

one is that he exists. Does anybody know what

the N is? Okay. It is that he is necessary. Okay.

Necessary. N -E -C -E double S -A -R -Y. Necessary.

Okay. Then he is powerful. And transcendent.

So transcendent means he exists outside creation.

We'll talk more about that later. So if you had

a fish tank and your fish were in the fish tank,

to them you are transcendent. You exist outside

the fish tank. And then non -contingent. Non

-contingent. Which means that... It's a being

that's not based on anything. It doesn't require

anything to exist, like a certain situation or

faith. They used to talk about the old Greek

gods and stuff, and they'd say if nobody believed

in them, they would cease to exist. Well, our

God has to be non -contingent. He doesn't need

anything to exist. And then intelligent, personal.

We know what those things mean. Personal means

he relates on a personal level. Intelligent,

obviously, we know what that means. Moral. which

means he has a set of standards. These are all

on the top there. Got it? Okay, and then say

again. Yeah, exists, necessary, powerful, transcendent,

non -contingent. These are all across the top

of that page. Intelligent, personal, moral, and

then E is engaged. Okay, which means he's still

doing something. There's a pretty famous president

of the United States. Well, I don't think it

was a president. It was a founding father of

the United States who believed that God, he was

a deist and believed that God exists but doesn't

affect humanity. He's just distant. Okay, and

we know that that's not able to be true based

on the proofs that we did. Okay, and then the

last one is unique. Okay, so these are the character

traits. So now, remember that everything that

we did so far does not prove that our God exists

or that a God like we believe in exists. God

like the Bible teaches exists necessarily, but

it proves that that God must have these characteristics.

So if these characteristics then line up with

the God of the Bible, then the God of the Bible

can be that God. And that's where we're going

next. Before we get there, we're going to look

at three ways that people see things, if you

will, three belief systems and why they don't

work. So the first one is atheism. Anybody know

what atheists believe, just generically speaking?

Right. They do not believe that God exists. They

believe God does not exist. And then the weakest

form of atheist says, well, at least if he exists

or something like him exists, then we can't know

anything about him, right? Which is really getting

to be strong agnosticism, which we'll talk about

in a second. So atheism and agnosticism are like

stepbrothers. Atheism says there is no God. I

know there is no God, okay? So there's a couple

of logical fallacies in that. The first one is

it requires a complete and exhaustive knowledge

of all creation. So in order for them to know

that there is no God, they would essentially

have to be God. That make sense? In order to

know that there cannot possibly be a God anywhere

in the universe, then they would have to know

everything that is in the universe everywhere

in the universe. And that doesn't even make any

sense, okay? And then the second part is it does

not meet our requirements as discerned. Obviously,

it says that God does not exist. So therefore,

he's not necessary, powerful, transcendent, non

-contingent, intelligent, personal, moral. engaged,

and not unique. So he's none of those things.

So atheism does not work. Remember, we had proofs

that got us those characteristics on the top

up there. So we're going to look at them again

before we're done, but right now we know those

are the characteristics of God. So we know that

atheism does not work because we have proofs

that say that God is personal, for example. So

if God is personal and he clearly exists and

he's personal, then atheism is not correct. That

make sense? Okay. The next one is called agnosticism

and is the stepbrother of atheism. Agnosticism

is actually not a statement about God at all.

It's not a belief about God at all. Basically,

agnosticism just says, I don't know if I can

believe that there is a God. If there's God out

there somewhere, I don't know what we can know

about him. I don't think we can know anything

about him. And so really all it does is tell

you what that person thinks. It doesn't tell

you anything about God at all. So it's not a

belief system that actually stands against God's

existence because it says, well, I don't know

if he exists or not. Or it's necessity. So, well,

if he's necessary, he probably does exist, but

I don't know if he exists and like that. So agnosticism

is not a belief system that speaks about God

at all. It speaks about the person's beliefs.

Can you get that door? Somebody's got it. Okay.

The other one was unlocked. That one was unlocked.

Anyway, welcome. All right. So also notice then,

because they don't know whether or not there

is a God, they're denying personal. So if God

is personal, then they would know that he exists.

And so on. So agnosticism does not line up with

the qualifiers that we have determined by our

proofs. And then the last one we'll look at today,

we're going to do some more in two weeks, but

this last one for today is called pantheism.

So pantheism is that everything that exists is

God. I actually had this the one time I was witnessing

with a person over on Main Street and they tried

to tell me that God was everything and in everything

and every stick was God and every tree was God

and every star was God. And you can kind of understand

how a lost person or a blind person spiritually

might fall on that because all creation testifies

about God. And so if you take the testimony and

you say, oh, the testimony tells me that the

tree is God. The testimony tells me that the

Son is God rather than the testimony tells me

about God. So that's how people get into that.

Anyway, so they say everything that exists is

God. God is impersonal. When we die, we are absorbed

into the impersonal whole. And this is kind of

like Star Wars, right? There's the force, light

side, dark side. You die, you're absorbed back

into the force, right? That's a pantheistic religion

or thinking about God. So this doesn't work.

Because it fails to account for the features

of God expressed in the cosmological design and

moral arguments that we looked at. This belief

system does not allow for engagement since that's

a trait of persons, not the impersonal. So in

other words, you can't engage with God because

everything is God. God doesn't engage with us

because everything is God. In other words, we're

part of God. So if I'm part of God, then there's

no engaging. I don't engage with God. I might

engage with other parts of God, right? So it

doesn't work. It doesn't fit the things that

we proved. And nothing can be transcendent if

everything is part of God. So how could there

be a God that's transcendent outside, existing

outside all of creation, if everything that is

creation is actually God? And we've already proved

that God is transcendent, okay? All right, so

now we're going to remember. the qualifications.

So is there anybody here that feels like they

understand the proofs for God? Because when I

looked at it, even I didn't think so. I'm like,

I don't think I can prove all 10 of those things.

Can you? Anybody can do it? Can anybody prove

by any of the arguments that we used that God

exists? Okay, give me one. Tell me how you would

tell. Say somebody needed to know that God exists.

How would you explain to them that you know that

God exists? Okay, good. So that's the design

argument that you're using there. And that argues

for a lot of things actually. It argues for his

existence. It argues that he's powerful and intelligent.

I guess you could say non -contingent. That's

weak, but maybe. So it gets those other ones

for sure. Exactly. So now we're going to go over

them real quick and see which of these traits

they argue for. And on the back, we have some

case studies of people that have the question,

and then we'll see if we can answer them. So

the first one is the cosmological argument. This

was the first one we went through before, too.

It says that God exists. So observed reality,

that means what we can see is contingent. That

means it's based on something. else so everything

that you can see requires something else right

something must not be contingent or then it would

require a cause to right so whatever it was if

you say Joe Bob created the first million humans

well who created Joe Bob well aliens from Mars

created the Joe Bob well who created the aliens

and so on so you go back as far as you always

have there always to be something that is non

-contingent to be the first cause okay And so

that end there is necessary. So you can fill

in the blank, necessary. Okay. So that being

must exist by its own nature, not related to

time, matter, or conditions. Because time, matter,

and conditions are all part of what? What are

time, matter, and conditions all part of? Say

it again. I can't hear you. Nice and loud. You're

not sure? Okay, so you're saying those are contingent

things and God is non -contingent. That's true.

Okay, so time, matter, and conditions are all

part of creation. They're what God made, right?

So what do we call time? Time is actually the

way the planets work, the Solomon revolves, right?

It's the passing of events. So none of those

events would be passing if God did not create

creation, right? The planets would not be revolving

if God did not create creation. The clocks would

not tick if God did not create creation. So all

of those things, time, matter, and conditions,

are all contingent on the creation of creation.

So something has to exist by its own nature without

those things. And that person is non -contingent,

okay? And you can fill that blank in, non -contingent.

This says that God is powerful because causing

literally everything requires immense causal

power. If you're going to create everything,

we know that God spoke everything into existence.

That is a lot of power. What we consider to be

power. Our kid paints a picture at age eight.

We look at it and it kind of looks like... what

it's supposed to be. And we're like, wow, that's

power. That's cool. You're really doing a good

job there. You're starting to look like what

you made it to look like, right? We recognize

that. You build a car from all the component

parts. You have causal power. You put it all

together. You made it work, right? Well, so God

has power. Space and time begin with the universe.

And so the original cause must exist outside

the universe and therefore is transcendent. So

the cosmological argument, that first argument

proves God's necessary nature, his non -contingent

nature, his power, and his transcendent. That's

four of those top ten traits up there proved

by that one argument. And so again, to take them

back to atheism, atheism denies his existence,

therefore his power, his non -contingent nature,

and his necessity. So that's wrong. Because we

have proofs. We know that those things are true.

The cosmological argument proves those things.

Then the design argument. This is the one that

RJ used. The universe exhibits fine -tuning.

It goes even further than just the complexity

and biology of the human body. It also, single

-cell organisms that have many parts that work

in very intricate ways, even though they're only

a single cell. So they can't possibly have evolved

up from other cells because they're not composed

of other cells. They're just a single -cell organism.

There's no evolution possible. And yet they're

extremely intricate. The rules, they say there's

300 rules that are required for life to exist

on the earth. And if they vary just a little

bit in either direction, all life would be wiped

out. So that is amazing intelligence. It implies...

complexity and rational selection and craftsmanship.

And so that's intelligence. Then it says designing

and sustaining a universe requires enormous capabilities.

So that's power, which we have. So now we have

the cosmological argument makes power and the

design argument also power. Fine tuning implies

choice. Physical laws are not logically necessary.

The blank there is necessary. So in other words,

is gravity necessary? or necessary as a constant?

No, it didn't have to be that way. Now, it needs

to be that way for life to exist, but many planets

it's not, right? Meteorites don't have that.

Stars have way too much of it, things like that.

In order for it to be the way it is, something

had to decide for that. Something had to make

one one way and one another. And so what we're

arguing for there then becomes intelligence,

power, and decision, right? Which then I got

ahead of myself a little bit. Okay, so choice

implies agency. If someone makes a choice, that

means they are an agent in that situation. Agency

implies personhood. That means that it's a being,

right? If somebody can carry on something, then

they are a being. If your dog can fetch a bone,

your dog is a being. If your dog can't literally

do anything, it's a vegetable, four legs and

brain dead and whatever, it might be living and

breathing, right? But basically, it's a living

and breathing rug. Because it can't do anything,

right? And so we understand that agency, the

ability to do things, implies personhood. And

then an impersonal force cannot decide constants.

So it's personal. So the P is personal, right?

So in the design argument, then not only can

we prove that he exists, that he's necessary

and non -contingent, but on top of that, we can

say that he's intelligent and powerful and personal.

So now we've got almost all the traits on the

top already figured out. And then we had the

moral argument, which we did. If moral values

exist, there must be a moral grounding for those

values. Objective moral laws require a transcending

grounding for them. In other words, somebody

came up with this idea. And since the very beginning,

mankind walked the earth. Even if you don't talk

about the Bible and Adam and Eve, the history

of men as they have traced it, they've always

accepted that certain things are okay and certain

things are not okay. Now the categories were

brighter. broader back then. So it has maybe

more, like there are more social mores than there

used to be. So there was a time a thousand years

ago, for example, that nobody said, Gesundheit,

bless you. Nobody covered their sneeze with their

elbow. Many of those little things like that

had never been invented. But whether or not you

could murder a person, whether or not you could

rape somebody, whether or not you could beat

up a child, things like that, those things always

have some moral connotation to them. So where'd

they come from? And the answer is they're objective,

which means they came from something outside

the people who are following them. So God is

transcendent and God is moral because he made

up those rules. They are commands, not just prescriptions,

and therefore they require a commander. If there

is a command, somebody gave the command. And

the army, they say, we have to move the rock.

Why? You're a private, I'm a private, why do

we have to move the rock? Well, because the corporal

said we have to move the rock. He's a higher

level than me, so we have to move the rock. Okay,

so we'll go move the rock, right? So if there

was a command, there has to be a commander. That

means he's personal. God has a trait of being

personal. Also, he's moral, because that's what

we're talking about is a moral code. And then

he's engaged. The E is engaged. So moral duties

are owed to someone. A moral lawgiver is not

indifferent. Justice, accountability, and moral

order imply involvement in the moral structure

of reality. So in other words, if God said do

this or else, and he did a number of times, and

sometimes he said do this and I'll do this, then

that... that would make him a moral actor and

he's engaged with society. Okay. And so we know

in the Bible that all these traits line up. So

he, let's see, he has involvement in the moral

structure of reality that makes him personal.

So it's personal, engaged, existing. And then

we already got transcendent and moral from earlier

in the same paragraph. So now we've got all of

them on the top, except which one? And if you're

looking ahead, you know, unique, right? The only

one that's on the top that we've not covered

in those three arguments is unique. So if the

the necessary, the word there is necessary being,

is the grounds for all existence, meaning he

has pure actuality. He brought everything into

existence himself. If he's infinite and unlimited,

which God is infinite and unlimited, then two

such beings could not exist. So there have always

been lots of religions, false religions over

the years that have had multiple gods in the

pantheon. And even now, There is a large swath

of charismatic Christianity that would add Mary

as the fourth person in the Trinity, which is

heretical, right? The Bible says no. It's an

absolute sin against God to ever do that. And

the Pope, because they're Catholic, the Pope

has restrained them from doing that to this point,

and the bishops and so on. But there are bishops

who support that. And there actually was a delegation,

not during this pope's reign, but in the previous

pope's reign, that actually came and requested,

asked the pope to name Mary as the fourth person

of the Trinity. And it was from the part of the

world where Catholicism is growing. Everywhere

else in the world, Catholicism is dying. But

there's a huge section of the world where it's

growing. And so the fear was that this pope would

be from that region, and he would name Mary as

the fourth person of the Trinity, which is unbiblical.

So that's adding to a pantheon. That's adding

another god. But you can't do that. So if the

necessary being is the grounds for all existence,

pure actuality, infinite and unlimited, two beings

could not exist. That would require a limitation

or a differentiation. How do you know that Tony

Tate and I are not the same person? Because he's

over there and I'm over here. Because he looks

like he looks and I look like I look. He talks

like he talks. I talk like I talk. Okay. If I

am infinite, then there would be no room in the,

if the way I talk is infinite and covers every

possibility, then there would be no room left

for Tony Tate to have a way to talk. If I am

infinite and everything that I cover, all the

looks of anything that could ever look like anything,

right? Then there's no room for him to have a

separate look. If I am infinite and my boundaries

of my skin involve all that is. As far as the

stars and everywhere, like I fill the entire

world, then there would be no room for Tony Tate

to have a skin. See, so God has to be unique,

a truly necessary, the word there is necessary,

infinite being could not be divided. or multiplied.

Therefore, uniqueness follows logically, okay?

So we didn't talk about the actual arguments,

but we see where the arguments, which part comes,

okay? So these are the three arguments summarized

for you. We're not going to read the whole thing,

but I'm just going to take just a couple quick

excerpts just to remind you, okay? I would encourage

you to read them, all right? So the first one

is the cosmological argument. contingent things

exist that is to say things that are based on

other things exist everything that exists is

like that so everything has a cause right can

continue things require an explanation outside

themselves the universe is contingent therefore

the universe requires an external explanation

you go down to the bottom there it says therefore

there must be a necessary that's a blank non

-contingent that's a blank the spelling is on

the front if you need it being that grounds all

reality a that's a blank necessary transcendent

powerful cause exists okay then the next argument

was the design argument and it goes like this

the universe contains fine -tuned constants and

complex information stuff like that happens because

of a mind basically The best explanation of fine

-tuning is an intelligent cause. And then the

last one was a moral argument. If objective moral

values and duties exist, they require a sufficient

foundation. Objective moral values and duties

do exist. Therefore, a transcendent moral lawgiver

exists, okay? So that's the three arguments now

broken down. You got them right there in front

of you so you can use them. So together, here's

the set of values again. These arguments point

to a being that is, the N is? We've said it a

bunch of times. He is necessary. He is transcendent,

which means he exists outside of his creation.

And then he exists, which means he exists, right?

He's real. He exists. He is unique, which means

no one else is like him. We can be like him a

little bit, but we're not the same as him. He

is powerful. He has the power to do things. He

is non -contingent. The blank in the middle is

non -contingent, which means he is not dependent

on anything to be who he is. God does not need

you to believe in him. In fact, if you choose

not to believe in him, that's your own stupidity,

basically, especially based on these arguments.

And then intelligent. He is intelligent. And

then the P was what? Personal. RJ's nailing it.

He's got every one of these things down. Personal,

moral, and engaged. OK, so again, if you can

nail down those traits and we're going to use

them again in two weeks, if you can get those

things in your head and when you're talking to

people, you'll hear them say something like,

well, I question whether or not, you know, there

really had to be someone to create the universe.

Or I question whether or not, you know, really

is abortion really wrong? You know, why is it

wrong? You know, and things like that. And you'll

realize what they're doing is they're questioning

God's traits in order to get out from underneath

God's standard is what they're doing. They don't

want to. believe that God exists because if God

does exist, then they have to make some kind

of a decision. I have to do something with that.

If God is real, I have to do something with that,

right? If God is real and he's moral, then I

have to be moral. And I'm not. In my flesh, I'm

not moral. And then, so then what do I do? Just

go to hell? Be away from God for eternity? You

know, that's the end result of that. Well, that's

not good. I need a savior. I need someone to

stop that from happening. Jesus comes in. Jesus

saves me. Now I don't go to hell for eternity.

And a moral God can rightly not send me to hell,

even though I sinned again. him because Jesus

paid the price make sense yeah Yeah, so let's

talk about that for a second. We take the extreme

and we say women and children. To us, that's

the extreme. But it's not a question of a universal

moral standard because there are people in prison

right now who ate women and children. There are

people who raped women or beat them or killed

them. And they may or may not accept that what

they did was wrong. They may or may not think

it was wrong. They may say, well, I wouldn't

have killed her if she wouldn't have been so

lippy. And they may argue that morally that's

okay. That's not the question. It's not the question

of whether. or not everybody has the same moral

standard. The question of is there a universal

moral standard does not mean that the universal

moral standard is the same for everybody. But

every person, no matter how bad they are, For

example, Jeffrey Dahmer, who was the guy who

went to jail and then he was put to death eventually.

And the last week he was alive, he accepted Christ,

allegedly. He said he accepted Christ. But Jeffrey

Dahmer, for example, may have been somebody who

believed that you don't tell a lie or you don't

take money that doesn't belong to you. So he

had a moral code. I'll get you in a second, Tim.

He had a moral code, even though his moral code

did not stop him from murdering people and eating

their body parts. So the fact is, if the only

way that it would not. this argument of moral

standards would not hold up is that the people

in general did not have a moral code in general.

Does that make sense? It's not that they have

the same moral code, but it's that there is a

moral code. And so there might be a classic example.

In the Jewish society, for example, it was considered

morally acceptable and even you were a person

of prowess and intelligence if you could lie

to a government official and get away with it.

When I was growing up, there was a moral standard.

cop didn't see it, I didn't do it, okay? That

was the standard. In our house, we joked about

it all the time. And so you could run a red light

if there were no police around. There was no

reason not to. Yeah. So, but listen, it's only

illegal if you get caught is a moral standard.

It's not an amoral standard, right? It's a moral

standard. It's just a moral standard saying that

I fully tolerate a set of things that I think

these set of, even like, so if you say there

are people who are for abortion and there are

people who are against abortion, right? And arguably

they are the pro -lifers who think that the baby

should live no matter what. And the women's rights

saying the woman should have a choice to do whatever

she wants. That's what they arguably say. So

they have a differing moral standard. Some people

think abortion is okay and some people think

it's not okay, right? But both of those things

are a moral standard. So the truth is mankind

has an understanding of a moral standard. Even

if Mike and I disagree what that moral standard

is, I have a moral standard and he has one too.

Why? Why were we treated with any concept or

any idea of any morals whatsoever? Somebody had

to be the originator of the idea that something

is moral and something is not, even though we

may completely disagree with what's moral. So

you go to Rome. for example, or let's take Germany.

In Germany, they feed their six -year -olds wine

with dinner, right? And 10 years ago, 70 % of

children were on Ritalin, for example, you know,

in several European countries. And America was

going, oh, that's wrong. You can't be medicating

your kids. But now in America, 70 % of children

are a ridiculously high percentage. At one time,

it was morally acceptable for them to do it and

not morally. Right now, abortion is illegal in

Mexico for any circumstances. You're not allowed

to get an abortion in Mexico. In Canada, you're

allowed to get an abortion, but only under certain

circumstances. In the United States of America,

it's fully legal. And they live, the guys in

Canada that believe in that moral code of no,

of. abortion only under certain circumstances,

are an hour away. And some people came from here

and came from there. It's not a question of what

the moral code is. It's a question that there

is a moral code. Why do people even care? Why

are we, what, that makes us different from animals,

right? And the funny thing is like some animals

seem to have a moral code. Like wolves, pack

animals, right? They seem to have an implication

of moral code, even though their intelligence

is so far, they'll never learn to read or program

or change the TV remote, really. I mean, they

may get bumble on it. But so why, why, why does

creation seem to have a moral code? And the answer

is because it transcends your thought processes,

my thought processes. It's not like I woke up

one morning and decided what was right or wrong.

We never. even think about it and it's not your

parents programmed you either because in order

for your parents to program your moral code they'd

have to talk to you every moment from the time

you got up to the time you went to bed every

single day all day to program your moral code

and we don't do that we just pick it up well

now i've never been in this situation before

what do i think i'm allowed to do here okay i

pull up the red light there's no police officer

around at all and the red light's been sitting

unchanged for two minutes and like it must be

on a sensor and it's not going to change is it

morally okay for me to run the red light or not

now it's breaking the law but is it morally okay?

If the red light's broken, is it okay? Why do

I even care? Why would anybody even ever have

that thought? We do have that thought. One person

decides it's okay. Another person decides it's

not okay. But we have the thought. And because

we have the thought, that proves the kind of

God that exists. Pretty cool stuff, by the way.

If you get in a conversation like that with somebody,

they'll go, well, I don't agree with you morally.

And you say, well, you cannot agree with me morally,

and all you're doing is proving that God exists.

If we disagree on morals, we both have morals.

That just proves we both have morals. have morals

therefore God exists yeah exactly and so yeah

yeah most people just yeah most people just don't

they don't People don't want to take it to that

next thought level. They just want to think,

well, you're dumb and I'm intelligent. Your morals

are ridiculous. My morals are right. And that's

what most people want to do, but they won't go.

But even though your morals are ridiculous compared

to mine, by my assessment, I still recognize

that you have morals and I have morals. Where'd

that come from? That's the question. And the

answer is God or is a God, right? We haven't

proved that it's the Christian God or the Bible

God yet. We're going to get there before we're

done, but we're not, not today. Okay. We got,

we got scripture here. So we do need to, that

was cool by the way. I don't know if you enjoyed

that or not, but that was cool to me. Okay, so

look under number one right there. The N is necessary.

Yes, sir? Cosmological argument. Yes, a necessary,

yep, transcendent, powerful cause exists. So

each one of those conclusions is really what

gives you your meat. It's like gives you your

teeth when you're talking with somebody. Good

stuff. And it's necessary, non -contingent, and

personal. Are those blanks? And now we're on

number one, and it's necessary slash creator.

So it says, Marcus says he understands how things

inside the universe have causes. He looks around

and says, I see that one thing causes another.

But he struggles to see why the universe itself

needs one. Why does the universe need a cause?

He doesn't understand that. He wonders if existence

might simply be just there. without any ultimate

explanation, okay? And so what, the big blank

there, what argument would you use? Are the ones

we're talking about cosmological argument, design

argument, or moral argument? Which one of those

would you use to reach him and help him make

up his mind why the universe needs somebody to

have started it? Anybody want to take a stab

at it? There's only three possibilities. You've

got a 33 % chance if you have no clue, okay?

The design argument works when looking at the

complexity, but he's talking about causes, right?

So he's saying, I see that things are caused,

like I exist because my dad and my mom got together

and did the deed, right? So I see that things

exist because of a cause. So the only one of

the arguments that actually addresses the cause

-effect thing is the cosmological argument. It

says that everything that you see is an effect,

everything. It also can be a cause that causes

something else. You go outside, you see the cold

weather, right? It is an effect. It's an effect

of the... that right now the planet is tipped

away from the sun on our side we're getting less

direct sun right wind patterns it's an effect

of all those things but it also can be a cause

because it can cause me to wear a coat right

so he says i see a bunch of stuff is caused but

if i to the cosmological argument says so if

we go back to the beginning is the first thing

going to be an effect or a cause and the answer

is it's got to be a cause and so it has to be

a cause that is uncaused right it's not an effect

of anything and that's the argument that you

could make to help and Right away, an intelligent

person that's not doing it because they're, you

know, mean or trying to be vindictive or something,

it should latch onto that and go, oh, yeah, that

makes sense. The first thing has to be a cause.

Something had to start this cause and effect

chain, okay? And then we have some scripture

references there that go, so the next thing,

in the next smaller blank, write Exodus 3 .14.

You got a boogie now. I dilly -dallied on that

one point because I was excited about it. Now

it's going to take a little bit. It's Exodus

3 .14. Okay, Exodus 3 .14 basically is where

it says, I am who I am. God says, I am who I

am. He's self -existent. The next reference is

Romans 1 .20. You can abbreviate like R -O -M

1 .20. We're still on number one. So the first

box was cosmological. The first longer line was

cosmological. The next short line is Exodus,

so I just put E -X 3 colon 14, like that Exodus

3 .14. And then the next is Romans, so I put

R -O -M 1 .20. And Romans 1 .20 says, God's eternal

power and divine nature clearly seen. 120 romans

120 so it's cosmological then exodus 3 14 then

romans 120 and the last one is hebrews 3 4 and

hebrews 3 4 is where it says every house is built

by someone and it goes on to say all all the

creation was built by God. Okay? All right. So

again, if you're talking with anybody and they're

struggling with causality, like why does there

need to be an intelligent designer? If I, you

know, why couldn't things just always exist?

Then you can, from the cosmological argument,

you say, well, everything that you see is an

effect, right? And it can also be a cause. But

because everything you see is an effect, it has

to have come from a cause, which also was an

effect, come from a cause. And you can go with

a piece of paper and write C -E -C -E -C -E all

the way back. And so E -C -E -C. all the way

back and say, well, when does it stop? What was

the first thing? Was it an effect or was it a

cause? And they'll say, well, it had to be a

cause, right? You can't be, there's no infinite

and it has to be a cause. And then you can help

them see that God needed to be there. Okay. The

second one then, and I kind of got the clue on

the top there in the parentheses, intelligent.

Leah is fascinated by the complexity of DNA and

the precise balance required for life on earth.

But she believes these things are probably the

result of chance over time. She struggles to

see why intelligence must be involved in the

structure of the universe. And I already. gave

you the clue at the top. That's the design argument,

right? Now, how does that make sense? If that's

the question she's asking, how would you explain

it to her? She's fascinated by DNA and the precise

balance, but she believes these things are probably

the result of chance over time. So what would

you say to help her understand that can't be

right? Yeah, it's not in a short time frame.

It doesn't happen ever. There is no observable

place in creation where creation moves to more

complexity over time. It falls apart. There's

a scientific principle called entropy where everything

decays. Everything falls apart. Now some people

say, oh, we swirl the water and it goes down

the drain and the water gets more complex as

it goes down the drain, right? And it'll go faster.

But it took you or someone doing something to

cause the swirl. So if you leave the water alone,

does it swirl automatically? No, it does not.

There is no place in creation that creation becomes

more complex on its own. And then they'll say,

well, but there is a one in a 74 gazillion chance

that something could have fallen together and

become what it is. But that's mathematically

impossible, right? And actually, the numbers

are much, much, much higher. They're infinite.

There's a one in infinite chance, really, that

those complexities could have developed randomly.

And then lastly, remember we talked about DNA?

How DNA is complex parts organized in certain

orders, and what do we call that? What's on this

page? Language, right? So DNA is a language.

and if dna is a language where does language

come from someone right a person an intelligent

person right if i find a note someone wrote the

note dna is intelligent communication in the

form of a language there's actually to the point

now they're getting the point is they know it

so well you could write a letter to your friend

using the parts of dna because it's it's language

it's so complex right now it's a specialized

language for a specific purpose so it would not

make a lot of sense but it would make enough

sense that you could probably convey once we

know it all you could convey the message because

dna is language so to argue that dna is random

doesn't make any sense it came from an intelligence

because it is a language okay now the scriptures

then for that that you could use to support it

connect it to the bible psalm 19 1 and that's

where it says the heavens declare the glory of

god Then, Isaiah 40, 26. You can shorten those

up. Psalms can be PSA and Isaiah can be ISA because

nothing else is the same. And 40, 26. Isaiah

40, 26. God brings out the stars by number. And

then the last one is John 1, 3. Through him all

things were made. Of course, that's talking about

Jesus. John 1, 3. That was the easy one. Don

won three, but you're probably tied up on the

harder one. Okay, next. Three left. Anthony believes

some kind of higher power exists, but thinks

it must be an impersonal force like gravity or

energy. He finds it difficult to believe God

could think, choose, or relate to people. Which

of the three arguments above would you use most

easily anyway to argue, to help him understand,

basically? And I gave you a clue already. It's

the design or moral argument. Either one of those

things would work, right? So the design... argument

works because the best explanation of fine -tuning

is an intelligent being, right? And so why would

he do that? Why would he create those perfectly

oriented rules to make the universe work? And

could the force or gravity do that? And the answer

is no, right? And then also the moral argument

works really, really well because objective morals

and duties do exist. Therefore, a lawgiver exists

and the force, gravity, these things are not

that right they can't give laws they can't give

commands because they're impersonal okay and

then the verses then for those Genesis 1 27 we

know that that's where humanity was made in God's

image Genesis our first one was Genesis 1 27

and then Jeremiah 29 13 and that's where he says

you will seek me and find me yep 29 13 sorry

did I say 29 13 and then James 4 8 draw near

to God And he will draw near to you. So if the

person is willing to accept biblical testimony,

you can use those verses. And you can make connections

between those verses and the arguments that you've

made. That's the value of them. Number four,

Jasmine. Why would morality require God? So which

argument explains why objective morality points

beyond us or beyond government or whatever? You

already know the answer, right? The moral argument.

Moral values are truly objective, not merely

cultural preferences. They have to be grounded

in something beyond human opinion. Moral law

reflects moral character. If there is a binding

moral ought, like I ought to do this, whatever

that is, it's different for each person. If there

is an ought, then there must be a moral law giver.

Verses Romans 2, 14 and 15 talk about the law

written on the heart. By the way, Romans 1 and

2 do a great job with this because they even

say, I'm going to paraphrase, but it even goes

on to say that what people do who don't know

God is they set up their own rules and then they

break them, which is what people do. Like you

marry your wife and you tell her, I'll never

lie to you. And then you lie to her, right? That's

what people do. I'm going to get by nine. I got

to get by nine every day to be successful. I

got to get by nine. 9 .15, still snoozing the

clock. That's what people do. They set their

own rules, and they break them. And then God

says, based on that, they deserve what they get,

basically. Micah 6 .8. Micah 6 .8 is the next

reference, and it is, what does the Lord require?

That's what Micah 6 .8 says. And then it gives

some answer to that question. But the point is,

the Lord requires something. Psalm 89 .14 is

the last one. So the first big box there was

the moral argument. The first big line, I mean,

should say moral. And then it's Romans 2 .14

-15, Micah 6 .8. You can just write moral on

the open line, whatever line you have open. It

doesn't matter what order they're in. So one

line says moral, then Romans 2 .14 -15, Micah

6 .8, and Psalm 89 .14. And the last one! Derek

believes God may have created... 89 .14, correct.

Oh, sorry, did I not read it? Righteousness and

justice are his foundation. Okay. Yeah. Teleological

slash design. Design or moral. Right. You got

it. Okay. Last one. Derek believes God may have

created the universe, but doubts God is still

involved in human life or concerned with justice.

He wonders why a creator would remain interested

in human behavior after creation. This one's

a little bit more tricky. Picking which argument

to use isn't really, that's pretty easy, but

how to make the connection is the hard part.

Okay. So first of all, you're using the moral

argument. Okay, that's the moral argument. And

then you're trying to extend it by using Scripture.

But let me ask you this. What if Derek's not

a big fan of Scripture? What if he doesn't want

to use the Bible or your idea of what the Bible

says or whatever like that to make that extension?

How would you still do it? So think about what

the moral law is. The moral law is given to us

by God. If you have a moral law, it's a command,

right? It's not a description, but a command

from a moral law giver. So if someone gives you

the direction on what to do, then they are doing

that. Okay, good. Yeah, so you're... Yeah, so

that's an analogy, what you're doing, a parent

and child analogy, and that's a good way of doing

it. Basically, if a person... is taking the time

to give you the direction on what the right thing

to do is, and it's justice, then clearly they

are interacting and engaged, right? Otherwise,

why would God give the direction? Same thing

as the parent. Let's use a parent analogy. The

parent's directing their children on what to

do because they think that's what's going to

get them the results that the parents want. And

when they get older, they may say, well, you

got to make up your own mind when they get to

be 18 or whatever. You got to decide what you're

going to do with your life kind of thing. But

even that. They're doing because they think that's

what's going to get the good result. They're

not trying to intentionally sabotage. Or if they

are, maybe that's their morals. They're trying

to intentionally sabotage their kids the way

their parents sabotaged them. But it's still

a moral directive, and they're still engaged.

So good analogy. So that's the moral law, but

you have to use a little bit of an extension

on it, whether it be an analogy about parents

and kids or an explanation of what it means to

be a commander. If the lieutenant, for example,

use another analogy, if the lieutenant gives

the privates an order to move the rock, and then

he comes by later and the rock is not moved,

and the one private says to the other private,

or says to the lieutenant, well, I didn't believe

him. He told me, but I didn't believe him. The

lieutenant's going to say, I don't care. Go get

your toothbrush. You're scrubbing grout. Or drop

and give me $6 ,000. You know, whatever. Because

he gave an order. It was prescriptive. It was

a command. And now it was not followed. Okay,

so to back that up then are some scriptures.

Acts 17, 27 to 28. Acts 17, 27 to 28. This is

part of the speech of the Areopagus, and Paul

basically paraphrased here as he is not far from

each one of us. So God ordered your life intentionally

to put you exactly where you are so that you

could grow up around for him. And finding him,

you would find that he was never far away in

the first place. God has always been engaged.

And then Hebrews 4 .13, which says all things

are exposed to him. Again, that's a paraphrase.

Hebrews 4 .13. And the last verse, 2 Peter 3

.9. And we know what that says. Somebody knows

what that says without me telling it. That is

not slow as some men count slowness. 2 Peter

3 .9. Two Peter. Exactly. And so God does have

a vested interest. He is engaged. He does care

about the outcome. God's patientness, if you

will, God's patience, can be why people start

to think that God is not engaged. So they make

an argument and say, well, if God is engaged

with humanity, then why is it that so many bad

things are allowed to happen? Why is there so

much suffering? Why is there so much evil? Why

is there so much wickedness? So some people will

ask that question like they think, oh, that's

it. I've got you now. I've got a noose around

your neck, Christian. You can't possibly explain

that. And the truth is that Jesus has set the

standard for us that we will suffer and die as

necessary to see another generation of Christians,

to see more people come to Christ. And people

have been doing it ever since the church has

existed. And the truth is they did it all the

way back into the Old Testament. All the people

that had lived waiting, hoping for God to send

the Messiah, lived and died and never saw him.

And they did that for us.