Participants: Bill Santos (Host), Randy Ruggles
Series Code: IIWC
Program Code: IIWC201127
|
00:01 >>Bill: Well, he's back by popular demand. Randy
00:02 Ruggles is with us. 00:05 Today's topic, "Does God Exist?" We'll be 00:06 back in just one moment. 00:23 >>ANNOUNCER: IT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME... 00:26 GOD'S BOOK, THE BIBLE. 00:29 STILL RELEVANT IN TODAY'S COMPLEX WORLD. 00:34 IT IS WRITTEN . . . 00:36 SHARING MESSAGES OF HOPE AROUND THE WORLD. 00:50 >>Bill: Well let me welcome all of our viewers 00:51 to our program this week. 00:55 Thank you for joining us and here at the table 00:56 with me is Randy Ruggles. 00:59 Randy, welcome back. 00:59 >>Randy: Thanks for having me Bill. >>Bill: It's good 01:02 to have you. You know, I said at the intro, back by 01:03 popular demand, and I have to tell you that your two 01:05 appearances previously have created quite the 01:09 stir. >>Randy: Have they? 01:10 >>Bill: Yes. Folks are very excited about your 01:14 presentations and we thought, well, it would be 01:15 great to have you, to have you back. So thank you for 01:19 accepting that. >>Randy: You're welcome. >>Bill: 01:23 So, our topic today - we don't have a whole lot 01:24 of time if we want to get through it - "Does God 01:26 Exist"? Now, let me just, right off the bat, say 01:29 something as, sort of, a disclaimer, right 01:30 >>Randy: Sure. >>Bill: You're not a scientist. 01:32 You make that perfectly clear that you're not a 01:34 scientist. >>Randy: Correct. >>Bill: You're a 01:35 marketer, a journalist, in fact, your 01:38 book "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" we'll show that 01:41 a little bit later, but is available at your website, 01:43 right? >>Randy: Yup. 01:45 Evolutionfactorfiction.com >>Bill: .com. They can get 01:46 that there but, you know, you researched this 01:51 and it's a passion of yours I think. >>Randy: 01:55 Definitely. Definitely. 01:55 >>Bill: And, so, let's get into the presentation. 01:58 >>Randy: Sure. Yeah. This time we're not talking 01:59 about evolution, per say, but I'm big on evidence 02:03 for the existence of God as well. And so we're 02:08 doing some logical and scientific arguments for 02:09 the existence of God. And I do this because I like 02:12 to talk to atheists often, people who don't believe 02:16 in God, and you can't really start with the 02:17 Bible with them because they don't believe the 02:20 Bible is the inspired Word of God. So imagine 02:22 yourself if you were having a discussion with 02:23 a number of the Islamic faith and they started 02:25 quoting the Koran, it wouldn't make any 02:27 difference to you. 02:28 So, this is a way that Christians can meet people 02:31 where they are and, if they're not a believer, 02:32 meet them on their own terms as far as 02:37 giving them logical and scientific evidence. I do 02:39 like to start off with a Bible verse though 02:40 and.>>Bill: Sure. 02:41 >>Randy:.we start off with, "Without faith it is 02:42 impossible to please God because anyone who comes 02:44 to Him must believe that He exists". So, obviously, 02:46 before you can have a relationship with someone 02:47 you must believe that they exist. Just like you 02:48 can't have a relationship with your wife unless you 02:50 believe she exis. 02:51 >>Bill: Yes. >>Randy: Now, so we're going to look at 02:53 three arguments for the existence of God. 02:54 The first is called the 'Cosmological Argument'; 02:56 the second is the 'Teleological Argument' 02:58 which is just a fancy word for design; and then the 02:59 'Moral Argument'. >>Bill: Okay. >>Randy: But first 03:03 we're going to define a few terms. >>Bill: Okay. 03:06 >>Randy: And I always like to, when I'm talking to 03:07 an atheist, first define 'proof' and 'faith'. And 03:10 when I do that because they will always say, 'if 03:12 you can prove to me that God exists, then I'll 03:13 believe'. And so I point out to them, if 03:15 you actually look at a dictionary definition, 03:17 first of all, 'proof' is evidence that compels 03:18 acceptance by the mind by a truth or a fact. And, 03:22 first of all, we just say in the verse from the 03:25 Bible that its evidence that compels acceptance 03:26 Well, you can't please God with faith. So there 03:33 is some measure of faith involved but I also like 03:35 to show them that there really is a myth about 03:36 scientific proof. I have a quote here from 03:40 'Psychology Today' that says, "contrary to popular 03:42 belief there is no such thing as a scientific 03:43 proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic. 03:46 Anyone who uses proof, prove, and proven in their 03:49 discussion of science is not a real scientist" 03:49 Pretty strong words but I always like to clarify 03:54 that I can't give you proof that God exists but 03:58 I can give you evidence. 03:58 >>Bill: Okay. >>Randy: And a few examples, evidence 04:01 is always interpreted. 04:02 I just want to show a few examples that we've talked 04:05 about before, similar bone structures are 04:06 often interpreted by evolutionists for 04:08 common ancestry. >>Bill: Right. >>Randy: But a 04:11 creationist's interpretation is that 04:12 it's for intelligent design. >>Bill: Right. 04:14 >>Randy: We look at the fossil record and an 04:16 evolutionist says that's evidence for evolution, 04:17 we say it's evidence for a global flood. >>Bill: 04:19 Flood. Right. >>Randy: S we all have the same 04:21 facts, we all have the same evidence it's 04:22 just that, it's being interpreted.>>Bill: 04:23 Interpreted differently. 04:24 >>Randy: Exactly. And so that's what we want to 04:26 make, to get across when we're having a discussion 04:28 with an atheist. >>Bill: Okay. >>Randy: Now, in 04:29 regards to faith, 'faith' means complete trust or 04:30 confidence in someone or something or firm belief 04:34 in something for which there is no proof. Notice 04:35 it didn't say for which there is no evidence. 04:38 So, because it says there is no proof and science 04:40 doesn't provide absolute proof, even science 04:41 requires some measure of faith. And so, I have 04:44 a quote to that affect. 04:45 Max Plank, a very famous physicist said, "Anybody 04:49 who's been seriously engaged in scientific work 04:52 of any kind realizes that over the gates to 04:53 the temple of science are written the words, yee 04:56 must have faith. It is the quality which the 04:59 scientist cannot dispense with". Now, we're going 05:00 to go into the three arguments that I talked 05:06 about. First of all, just show you logical argument 05:09 structure. All of our arguments will be 05:10 structured in what's known as a syllogism, two 05:12 propositions or premises and a conclusion that 05:14 follows logically from those premises. So, as 05:15 an example, we'll look at 'All Men are Mortal'. Bill 05:19 Santos is a man therefore Bill Santos is mortal. 05:22 >>Bill: I would agree. 05:22 >>Randy: Okay, good. Good. 05:23 (laughter) That follows, the conclusion follows 05:27 logically from the.>>Bill Yes. >>Randy:.first two 05:29 premises. >>Bill: Yes. 05:30 >>Randy: Okay. So, in our first argument, the 05:31 Cosmological Argument, which really has to do 05:32 with the existence of the Universe, we say whatever 05:34 has a beginning or comes to exist has a cause. The 05:36 Universe had a beginning, came to exist therefore 05:37 the Universe had a cause. 05:42 That cause is God. So to show you evidence for 05:43 the first premise that everything that had a 05:46 beginning had a cause, I show none other than the 05:50 inventor of the scientific methods, Sir Francis Bacon 05:51 said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes". 05:55 In fact, the whole idea behind science is really 05:59 it's a search for causes. 06:00 Another famous quote I use is from skeptic David 06:04 Hume, who said, "I never heard so absurd a 06:05 proposition that something could arise without 06:08 a cause". So scientists acknowledge that science 06:11 is a search for causes. 06:12 Anything that has a beginning has a cause. 06:15 Now, we're going to go into the second premise 06:16 as being evidence that the Universe has a beginning. 06:19 Now, I'm sure you've been sitting at a railway 06:22 crossing before and you've seen a train go by 06:23 and you've heard the sound that it makes. It goes 06:27 "Neeeeeooooowwwww". The pitch changes as it goes 06:30 past. Now, what happens is what's known as the 06:31 Doppler Effect. You've probably heard of 06:36 that before. And what's happening is as the sound 06:38 ways are coming toward you they're compressed and the 06:39 pitch sounds higher and then as the train is going 06:42 past you the sound waves are elongated or stretched 06:45 out and it gives you a lower sound. >>Bill: Okay. 06:46 >>Randy: Now, the reason that's important is 06:49 because the same thing happens to light. You 06:52 have, as something is going away from you 06:53 it appears red and as something is coming 06:56 towards you it appears blue. It's called 'the red 06:58 shift and the blue shift'. 06:59 Now, again, why is this red shift important is 07:02 because back in the 1920's Sir Edwin Hubble, the 07:03 Hubble telescope was named after - you probably 07:08 heard that. >>Bill: Yes. 07:08 >>Randy:.was named after him. He discovered in the 07:10 20's that looking out into a distant galaxies they 07:13 appeared to be red shifted toward the red end of 07:14 the spectrum and what that indicated to him was that 07:18 everything in the Universe was rushing away from each 07:21 other at a very fast rate of speed. >>Bill: Okay. 07:22 >>Randy: And, again, why that means something 07:24 is because if you could videotape the history of 07:27 the Universe and rewind the tape you would see 07:28 that everything is rushing away from each other, so 07:31 if you could rewind it it would appear to come back 07:33 to one point. 07:34 And that indicates that if everything comes back into 07:37 one point then it must have had some finite 07:38 beginning in the past. And so, that is important as 07:41 to why we know that the Universe had a beginning. 07:46 It's evidence for the Big Bang. Now, don't get me 07:47 wrong, I don't believe in the timescale of the Big 07:49 Bang. They say that the Big Bang happened 13.72 07:52 years ago. We're going to look at evidence that the 07:53 Universe and the Earth were actually quite 07:55 young. But I did want to point out that in the Old 07:58 Testament there are actually 14 verses 07:59 where it says 'the Lord stretched out the Heavens' 08:02 and I believe that He was referring to the this 08:04 expanding Universe that was predicted in the Bible 08:05 long before modern science caught up and realized it. 08:09 I have a quote here from Arno Penzias, who was, he 08:13 was credited with, he won a Nobel Prize for 08:14 discovering what was known as the 'echo' from the Big 08:18 Bang and he said the best data we have concerning 08:21 the Big Bang are exactly what I would have 08:22 predicted had I nothing to go on but the 5 books of 08:25 Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole. >>Bill: 08:29 Wow. >>Randy: Yeah. 08:30 Fascinating. And even Steven Hawking said, 08:31 "There was therefore a number of attempts to void 08:32 the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang. 08:35 Many people did not like the idea that time has a 08:38 beginning probably because it smacks at Divine 08:39 Intervention. They knew that if the Universe had 08:42 a beginning then it must have had a beginner. 08:46 >>Bill: Right. >>Randy: And all scientists 08:47 including Einstein himself tried to avoid the idea of 08:48 a beginning. They wanted the Universe to be eternal 08:52 and then they didn't need to have an explanation, 08:53 they could say it had always been there. >>Bill: 08:55 Right, yeah. >>Randy: So, again, getting back to why 08:57 all this is important is the Big Bang implied the 08:58 beginning of time, space and matter. It all came 09:01 into existence at once, it's a continuum. But if 09:03 time, space, and matter came into existence at 09:04 some point in time in the finite past then the cause 09:08 of the Big Bang because everything that has a 09:11 beginning requires a cause, the cause itself 09:12 of the Big Bang must be outside of time, space, 09:15 and matter. Therefore it must be timeless, 09:18 non-spacial, and immaterial. Now, that is 09:19 not, again, not a proof for God by any means but 09:25 it's starting to sound suspiciously like the 09:27 Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, correct? 09:28 >>Bill: Yes. >>Randy: Now, atheists will always 09:31 ask at this point, so if everything needs cause, 09:35 who caused God? Now first of all, I'd like to point 09:36 out that the argument is not that everything 09:39 needs a cause, it's that everything that has a 09:40 beginning needs a cause. 09:41 >>Bill: Oh I - good point. 09:42 >>Randy: And what I always point out to them is that 09:43 if I could answer that question and say, if I 09:47 could give you an answer and say okay, something 09:48 caused God and then you'd say, well, what caused 09:51 that? And then if I could give you an answer, then 09:53 you'd say well, what caused that? And we'd 09:54 have what's known as an infinite regression, it 09:56 just means that we could go on to an infinity and 09:58 we'd never get an answer. 09:59 So the only way that I've ever seen out of infinite 10:01 regression there is that we must come to terms with 10:02 the idea that something must be eternal. And as 10:06 far as I know the only two things that have only been 10:09 proposed to be eternal are the Universe itself 10:10 or God. And we now know through evidence of the 10:13 Big Bang that the Universe is not eternal. So that 10:16 only leaves one choice and so therefore, God is 10:17 the uncaused cause of the Universe. Another thing 10:21 they will say, well first of all, you can tell them 10:25 that it's known as a category mistake and 10:26 logic. It's like saying to whom is the bachelor 10:30 married? Or how many sides does a circle have? You 10:33 know a bachelor by definition is unmarried 10:34 and a circle by definition has no sides and God by 10:37 definition is uncaused. He is eternal. So that's, you 10:42 know, we can point out to them that they're actually 10:43 making a fallacious mistake there. A category 10:45 mistake. But they will also ask you sometimes, 10:49 well, why not many God's? 10:49 How do you we know that it's your God? How do we 10:52 know that it's the God of the Christian Bible? And 10:53 I always appeal to what is known as the 'Ockham's 10:56 razor'. There was a man named William Ockham who 10:57 basically said that the simplest explanation is 10:58 usually the best one. I'm not sure why it's called 11:04 'Awkman's Razor', it may be that he came up with it 11:06 while shaving in the morning but he said the 11:07 simplest explanation is the best one. Entities 11:12 should not be multiplied unnecessarily so I will 11:15 often say to an atheist, why postulate many God's 11:16 when one God will do. 11:19 >>Bill: One God will do. 11:19 Would answer the question. 11:20 >>Randy: Okay, now let's go on to argument two. 11:23 >>Bill: Okay. >>Randy: It's called teleological 11:24 argument and like I said that's just means an 11:25 argument of design. There are many different 11:27 arguments from design out there but we're going to 11:30 look at one known as the 'anthropic principle' 11:31 which I will explain what that means in a second. 11:33 If the Universe exhibits evidence for design, it 11:36 requires a designer. The Universe appears to be 11:37 designed therefore the designer must exist. That 11:40 designer is God. Now, what the anthropic principle is 11:44 it comes from the Greek work 'anthropos' 11:45 meaning 'man'. We have anthropology which is 11:48 the study of man. We have philanthropic which is the 11:53 love of man. And so really what the anthropic 11:54 principle is saying is the Universe appears to 11:57 be finely tuned for life, especially human life, to 12:00 exist. And I'm going to give you some examples 12:01 here. Earth has even been referred to as the 12:04 'goldilocks planet' if you remember the story. 12:06 >>Bill: Okay. >>Randy: Not too hot, not too cold, 12:07 just right. >>Bill: Just right. >>Randy: So a 12:09 few examples of the fine tuning, specifically of 12:11 our Solar System is that the Earth's distance from 12:12 the sun is just right that if it were just a little 12:16 closer to the sun water would boil off, no life 12:20 could exist but if Earth were just a little further 12:21 away.>>Bill: It would be solid. >>Randy: Solid 12:22 ice. >>Bill: Solid ice. 12:23 >>Randy: Solid ice, exactly. The Earth's 12:25 rotation speed at 23 hours and 56 minutes that gives 12:28 us our seasons. Which again, if the Earth 12:29 rotated too slowly it would end up one side of 12:34 the Earth would be facing towards the sun for too 12:39 long and it would end up cooking everything to a 12:40 crisp. Earth's axial tilt of 23.5 degrees that 12:44 actually is what gives us our seasons. >>Bill: Our 12:48 seasons? >>Randy: Exactly. 12:48 Yeah. So that whenever you look at a globe it's 12:51 always tilted over like that and that makes it so 12:52 that no area of the Earth again is too hot or 12:55 too cold for too long. 12:56 The properties of water themselves are very unique 12:59 in that water happens to, when it freezes, it floats 13:04 rather than it gets, rather than sinking to 13:05 the bottom. If water acted like other liquids that 13:08 we know of it would sink to the bottom, it would 13:13 freeze, and our lakes and oceans would rapidly fill 13:14 up with ice and all the little fishies would die 13:17 and there would no life on Earth. The size and 13:21 position of the moon. The moon is important because 13:22 it's again the right distance from Earth and 13:25 it's the right size that first of all it helps to 13:27 stabilize our axis and it helps to create the tides 13:28 It refreshes the oxygen in the ocean which again 13:33 allows life to exist. And finally, there is the size 13:36 and orbit of Jupiter. 13:36 Jupiter is the largest planet in our Solar 13:39 System, it's huge but happens to be on the 13:40 outside and the reason that is important is 13:44 because Jupiter acts like a cosmic vacuum cleaner. 13:47 There's all kinds of space dust, and comets, and 13:48 asteroids flying around and it sucks them in so 13:52 that we're not constantly bombarded with these 13:55 things and makes life impermitable. And so, for 13:56 an earth-like planet they need to have all these 14:01 conditions plus many, many others that have.>>Bill: 14:05 For life to be able to exist. >>Randy: Exactly. 14:06 And so, that's what we call the anthropic 14:08 principle. Now, one of the objections to anthropic 14:11 principle that an atheist will give is, well, the 14:12 Universe is what it is because if it weren't we 14:15 wouldn't be here talking about it. And, to me, 14:18 that's a little unsatisfying in that if 14:19 you were the lone survivor of a plane crash and, you 14:22 know, you're the only one that survives say out of 14:26 100 other people and then the media asks you, 'Wow, 14:27 you were the only one that survived. What, you know, 14:30 what happened? Why did you survive?' And you say,' 14:33 Well, if I didn't survive I wouldn't be here 14:34 to answer your question.' It's not really a 14:37 satisfactory answer. They would still end up looking 14:39 for some reason that.>>Bill: Some cause. 14:40 Right, right. >>Randy: They're still going to 14:42 look for a cause. Exactly. 14:43 Things don't happen by chance. >>Bill: Yes. 14:44 >>Randy: They'll also say, 'why not an infinite 14:46 number of universes?' You've probably heard 14:47 about the multi-verse theory that's been banding 14:50 about lately. And what they're actually saying 14:53 there is maybe this whole idea of fine tuning is 14:54 just an illusion and maybe what's really happening is 14:58 that there are trillions or billions or an infinite 15:03 number of other universes out there that all have 15:04 slightly different values to them and then by chance 15:08 you're going to happen to get one where the values 15:11 are just right for life to exist and that happens 15:12 to be the one that we live in. And so they will 15:15 invoke this multi-verse theory and I have a very 15:17 interesting quote by a gentleman here, Bernard 15:18 Carr, and he said, 'If there is only one universe 15:21 you might have to have a fine tuner. If you don't 15:24 want to have a God, you'd better have a 15:25 multi-verse.' So you'll find over and over again 15:27 that a lot of atheists are, you know, they're 15:31 trying to avoid the whole problem of the anthropic 15:32 principle and fine tuning of the Universe by 15:36 invoking the multi-verse >>Bill: Multi-verse. 15:38 >>Randy: Yup. Let's go on to argument three, it's 15:39 called the moral argument and that's if God 15:42 doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. 15:45 Objective moral values exist therefore God 15:46 exists. Now, first of all, I should explain that this 15:51 argument is not by any means saying that atheists 15:53 can't be moral. I know many atheists who probably 15:55 lead good moral lives better so than even some 15:59 Christians. So, we're not trying to say that 16:02 atheists aren't good people or that they 16:03 can't be moral. What this argument demonstrates is 16:05 that when you don't have God in the equation then 16:08 you can't, you have no foundation and for saying 16:10 what is right and what is wrong it really just 16:12 comes down to your opinion >>Bill: Right. >>Randy: We 16:15 have a quote here from Romans 2:15, that says 16:16 "They demonstrate that God's law is written in 16:18 their hearts, for their own conscience and 16:22 thoughts either accuse them or tell them they 16:23 are doing right." So the Bible itself says that 16:25 even atheists know that, they know what is right 16:29 and what is wrong. Now, Richard Dawkins, one of my 16:30 favorite guys to quote off of, and he admits in the 16:35 God delusion, 'It's pretty hard to defend absolutist 16:38 morals on grounds other than religious ones'. So 16:39 even Dawkins is admitting that absolute morals 16:43 generally come from religion.>>Bill: 16:46 Religious. >>Randy:.or a belief in God. >>Bill: 16:47 Okay. >>Randy: Now then you'll always get people 16:49 at this point who will say.>>Bill: There are no 16:52 absolutes. Right. 16:52 >>Randy:.there are no absolutes. >>Bill: 16:54 Everything's relative. 16:54 >>Randy: And I say to those people, 'Well, are 16:56 you absolutely sure?' Because what they're 16:57 doing is they're making an absolutely statement that 17:00 there are no absolutes And, really, what they're 17:02 doing is making an argument that is what's 17:03 known as self-refuting, self-defeating. It 17:06 doesn't live up to its own standard. Just like if I 17:09 said to you, I don't speak a word of English, would 17:10 you believe me? >>Bill: No. >>Randy: No because 17:13 I just spoke to you in English. So that's when 17:15 they're saying there's no absolutes you can show 17:16 them that what they're saying is demonstrably 17:18 false. But we go on from here and I have a quote 17:24 from C.S. Lewis, the very famous atheist who became 17:25 a Christian later in life, and he said, "My argument 17:28 against God was that the Universe seems so cruel 17:31 and unjust but how had I got this idea of just and 17:32 unjust. A man does not call a line crooked unless 17:35 he has some idea of a straight line. What was I 17:39 comparing this Universe with when I called it 17:40 unjust?" And so, even he recognized that in order 17:43 to have some kind of moral standard you've got to be 17:48 appealing to something transcendent. >>Bill: 17:49 Yeah. Something standard. 17:50 >>Randy: Yeah. Something outside of humanity unless 17:51 it's just your opinion. 17:52 >>Bill: Absolutely right. 17:53 >>Randy: Quote Richard Dawkins again, he says, 17:55 "The Universe we observe has precisely 17:56 the properties we should expect. If there is 17:59 a bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no 18:02 good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA 18:03 neither knows nor cares, DNA just is and we dance 18:07 to its music". And I'm going to reference these 18:10 in a second but we have one more quote from 18:11 another atheist named Peter Atkins and he said, 18:13 "Free will is merely the ability to decide and the 18:15 ability to decide is nothing other than the 18:16 organized interplay of shifts of atoms". So what 18:20 they're doing is, they're notice that they have to 18:23 not deny the existence of good and evil, they 18:24 have to deny the absolute existence of morals and 18:26 they have to deny the existence of free will 18:28 because in order to be able to do something right 18:29 you have to be able to choose it. If you're going 18:33 to say something that you ought to do something. 18:37 Ought implies can. You have to be able to do it 18:38 >>Bill: Sure. >>Randy: Okay. So now basically 18:41 atheists must deny evil, deny good, deny morals and 18:45 deny free will. I even have a quote from 18:46 a biologist who says, "Where's the logic in 18:49 debating an individuals' responsibility when the 18:52 reality is that none of us are biologically 18:53 responsible for our actions." And this guy 18:56 happened to be referring to that he though serial 18:59 killers shouldn't be put in prison. They should 19:00 maybe be segregated from society in some way 19:04 but they should not have some punitive punishment 19:08 imposed on them because they are not responsible 19:09 for their actions. >>Bill: Who's to say what they 19:11 did was wrong? >>Randy: Exactly. Because it's just 19:13 our opinion and they're just controlled by their 19:14 genes so they can't control what they're 19:15 doing. >>Bill: Right. 19:16 >>Randy: So what I do is I've come up with - this 19:18 doesn't originate with me but I've come up with, I 19:20 think, a possible thing that almost no atheist 19:21 will refuse or deny is wrong. And it sounds kind 19:28 of difficult to deal with but its, is torturing 19:31 babies for fun objectively wrong? And if you can look 19:32 someone in the eye and ask them, is torturing babies 19:36 for fun objectively wrong Can you ever imagine a 19:38 time in history or a culture or a time when we 19:40 could have evolved that maybe torturing babies 19:42 for fun would be okay? And almost invariably they'll 19:46 say "No". >>Bill: Of course not. >>Randy: Now, 19:47 if - you do get some who say 'yes' and the ones 19:50 that say 'yes' they can imagine that it could be - 19:53 no, I'm sorry, they will say that it is objectively 19:54 wrong but you will get some who will say that, 20:00 no, they don't think that it's objectively wrong, 20:02 just someone's opinion. 20:03 And at that point I will usually say, I thank you 20:06 for your honesty and your candor but that is why I 20:07 could never be an atheist because I do believe that 20:10 torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong. And 20:14 a lot of times if you have someone who's maybe an 20:15 agnostic or someone who's sitting the fence, who's 20:18 listening and they realize that this is what atheism 20:21 leads to, that I'm actually admitting that 20:22 torturing babies for fun is not wrong. But then 20:25 the ones that you do admit that, that do admit that 20:30 it was wrong, I point out to them that as soon as 20:31 you have, as soon as you are saying that it's no 20:34 longer your opinion that torturing babies for fun 20:38 is wrong you are now appealing to an outside 20:39 standard. If you want to call it God, you can 20:41 call it God but whatever it is, it is something 20:44 transcendent outside of humanity that says this is 20:45 absolutely wrong for all time. >>Bill: You are 20:49 absolutely right. Sure. 20:50 >>Randy: One more quote, "Our conscience shows 20:52 us that God is a personal being". What I say, when I 20:55 say that is because if you were to break your 20:56 wife's favorite vase, for example, you might feel 20:59 a little bit guilty and morally obligated to 21:02 either fix the vase or replace it. You'll feel 21:03 obligated to your wife. 21:05 But you don't feel morally obligated to the vase, do 21:06 you? >>Bill: No. >>Randy: And not because we 21:09 don't feel obligated to inanimate objects.>>Bill: 21:12 Inanimate objects, sure. 21:12 >>Randy: And if you had, you know, that is the 21:15 reason why when we do something wrong, even if 21:16 nobody knows about it, our sins still convict us and 21:19 we still have a sense of guilt and I believe that's 21:22 our conscience telling us that God exists and 21:23 that he's a real personal being. And, so, I'm going 21:26 to end with just summing up here what we can 21:31 determine from all of these arguments, even 21:32 though none of them are absolute proofs for God, 21:35 what we can determine from argument one, the 21:38 cosmological argument is that God is immaterial, 21:39 non-spacial and timeless, He must also be 21:42 unimaginably powerful in order to create the 21:45 Universe. From argument two, the fine tuning, 21:46 we can determine that He obviously must be 21:49 supremely intelligent and He must be purposeful and 21:52 orderly. Argument three, the moral argument, we can 21:53 conclude that He must be morally pure which 21:57 includes infinitely loving and just and He also must 22:01 be a personal being. So, again, I would give these 22:02 arguments to an atheist and I would say, although 22:06 these do not prove God in any sense, they are 22:10 certainly evidence of and it sounds suspiciously 22:11 like the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Now it's 22:16 your job to go out and find out who He is and has 22:20 He possibly at any point entered history and tried 22:21 to demonstrate who He is, possibly through the 22:25 person of Jesus Christ So, I have one final 22:28 quote. There's a man named Robert Jastro, died 22:29 recently, but he was an American 22:33 astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist, wrote a great 22:36 book called 'God and the Astronomers' and this is 22:37 the very last quote of his book, it's often quoted 22:40 and it's worth the price of the book just to read 22:44 this and he said, "For the scientist who has lived by 22:45 his faith and the power of reason, the story ends 22:49 like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of 22:52 ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak, 22:53 as he pulls himself over the final rock, he 22:57 is greeted by a band of theologians who have been 23:00 sitting there for centuries". And that's it. 23:01 >>Bill: Incredible. I mean we all exercise faith 23:04 everyday.>>Randy: Exactly. 23:04 >>Bill:.and unfortunately, for many, we sometimes 23:09 talk about it only in the realm of theology and 23:13 religion. We all experience, we all 23:14 experience faith. Now, Randy, do you get an 23:17 opportunity to go out and speak to these groups. Do 23:20 you get the chance to speak to atheists? Now, 23:21 what do they say? They come to a presentation 23:24 like this, what do folks say to you? >>Randy: Well, 23:26 most of my presentations occur in churches, though, 23:27 unfortunately I don't get to speak to atheists in 23:30 person. I do happen to do a lot of chatting on-line 23:33 and I'll go on YouTube and I'll start up 23:34 a conversation with an atheist and it's really 23:37 interesting that I get different reactions. For 23:40 the most part I get bashed and called names and all 23:41 that but too often there will be someone listening 23:44 who's just lurking there in the background and I 23:47 frequently get emails from people saying, I really 23:48 like how you handled yourself there. You 23:52 didn't get angry. You gave evidence for your beliefs 23:55 and they'll say, I respect you even if I don't 23:56 agree with you I certainly respect where you're 24:00 coming from and I at least like that you're defending 24:04 you faith as opposed to just saying it's all 24:05 about, you just accept it blindly. >>Bill: Because 24:09 it is, right? >>Randy: Exactly. >>Bill: Yeah. And 24:11 I think you do a fine, a very nice job as a lay 24:12 person, if I could say. 24:18 You're a lay person. 24:19 >>Randy: Yeah, sure. 24:19 >>Bill: Your research, I think your logic 24:22 is impeccable. It's interesting that, you 24:24 know, even the comments that we get that were on 24:25 the negative side, you know, they didn't 24:28 attack the logic of the arguments. >>Randy: Okay. 24:34 >>Bill: I think there are some; there are some - 24:35 that's what I appreciate about you. You've done 24:39 some good work here in pulling this logic 24:44 together. And, you know, folks will say all kinds 24:45 of stuff, they say all kinds of stuff about 24:47 me and they'll say - but it's interesting that they 24:50 didn't attack the logic of your arguments and I think 24:52 you're doing a great job and we're going to 24:55 continue to pray that the Lord continues to use you 24:59 as you go out and speak and that, I believe 25:00 there's truth speakers out there, there's people that 25:03 are searching. >>Randy: Yeah. I come across them 25:07 in everything. >>Bill: Through a program like 25:08 ours at 'It Is Written', through the work that you 25:11 do, through the personal testimony of each and 25:13 every one of us as we live our lives out there, that 25:14 each one of us can do our part in transmitting to 25:18 those around us who don't yet know this loving God, 25:22 this all powerful God that we can transmit to them, 25:23 you know, who they are. 25:28 And you're doing your part and.>>Randy: 25:29 Thank you. >>Bill:.and congratulations for that. 25:31 I want to close this part of our program with a word 25:33 of prayer. >>Randy: Sure. 25:34 >>Bill: Father in heaven, we want to thank you so 25:36 much that you have called Randy to this ministry, 25:37 Father, as he has put these presentations 25:42 together and is using them to communicate to others 25:47 who don't know you yet, who you are. And Father, I 25:48 pray that you continue to bless him and use him in a 25:52 mighty way. And Father if there's someone watching 25:56 here today that has maybe, up until this point, 25:57 doubted your existence may you speak to their hearts 26:00 in a powerful way now that they may know that you are 26:07 the true God. Bless each and every viewer, Heavenly 26:08 Father, I pray in Jesus' name. Amen. >>Randy: Amen. 26:30 >>Bill: If you enjoyed Randy's presentation today 26:31 and maybe would like to share it with a friend, 26:33 well, we can make it available to you on DVD. 26:37 It's a gift from 'It Is Written'. Here is the 26:38 information you need to order your copy. 27:41 >>Bill: Hey, Randy, I want to thank you for being 27:42 on the program. >>Randy: Thanks Bill. >>Bill: And, 27:44 to our viewers, I want to remind you of his book, 27:47 "Evolution: Fact or Fiction". You can acquire 27:48 this book at his website evolutionfactorfiction.com 27:51 . And you can book Randy for a presentation at your 27:56 church or group. He'd be happy to come out and 27:57 do that for you. Also, remember to visit the 28:00 'It Is Written' website at itiswrittencanada.ca. 28:04 There you can send a prayer request, you can 28:05 watch this program again, you can send a donation 28:09 if you feel so moved to do so. You can watch our 28:14 programs on the YouTube channel, follow us on 28:15 Twitter. We pray that we will be back next week. 28:19 We hope you will join us Until then, remember, it 28:22 is written; man shall not live by bread alone but by 28:23 every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. 28:31 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
Revised 2015-02-06