Participants: Chris Holland
Series Code: IIWC
Program Code: IIWC201503A
|
00:01 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE
00:06 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 00:13 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 00:19 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 00:26 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 00:34 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 00:41 PHILOSPHYS ACHILLES HEEL AN INVITAITON TO INQUIRE 01:31 >>Announcer: It has stood the test of time. 01:34 God's book, The Bible 01:38 Still relevant in today's complex world 01:43 It Is Written 01:45 Sharing messages of hope around the world! 01:59 >>Chris: The purpose of our last 2 shows was to make a determination on whether God 02:03 exists. If God does not exist, then a whole range of questions related to His 02:09 existence can simply disappear. Also, we might as well eat, drink and be merry 02:14 for tomorrow we die without any judgment or accountability. Yet, knowing 02:20 that God does indeed exist, how then are we to reconcile His existence with the 02:27 seemingly contradictory opinions about Him provided by philosophers and the world's 02:33 major religions? For instance: We have already made at least two assumptions through how we 02:39 phrased the question: The first is should we refer to God in masculine terms such as 02:46 Father, or as divine mother more appropriate? Or should we refer to God through something 02:51 a little more ambiguous, such as our heavenly parent Second, is it possible that 02:58 what may seem to us as contradictory expressions about God by the major 03:05 philosophies and religions of the world are only apparently contradictory? On the other 03:11 hand, perhaps they are contradictory expressions that are ultimately reconciled into 03:17 the One God? In other words, perhaps these are just different paths to the same 03:25 place? Is God a personal Being or is He an impersonal force? Does God exist in some 03:33 timeless and spaceless realm as some early Christian church fathers taught, thereby making 03:40 it impossible for Him to be acted upon and to enter into a relationship with us, or is 03:48 God freely able about to providentially step into our world and enter into a 03:54 relationship with us without at the same time compromising His divinity? Is God 04:01 essentially distinct from the "stuff" that makes up the universe, or is he through the 04:08 process of evolution coming to an awareness of himself as was taught by the 19th century 04:15 philosopher Hegel and popularized by films today such as the Matrix and Lucy? 04:22 Furthermore, in our search for answers, are we doomed to subjective explanations that 04:30 arise from our own particular faith communities, or can we apply an objective standard to 04:38 these questions regardless of whether we belong to any faith community at all? 04:48 Our purpose in this presentation is much broader than providing an answer to 04:53 all of the specific questions that we just recently raised Instead, our purpose is first 04:59 of all to seek for an objective standard that we can apply to the major 05:04 philosophies and religions of the world so that we can evaluate whether their claims 05:11 to authoritatively reveal God are in fact true. Before we begin to tackle this daunting 05:18 task, let's take a few moments to review the methods we analyzed in our previous shows 05:27 on the existence of God. Now if you missed any of those shows, you can go to 05:33 www.youtube.com/iiwcanada and watch any of our archived programs. As we studied over 05:45 the past two weeks, we discovered that although the founders of modern science 05:50 such as Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Pascal, Linné, and Newton all believed in God, 05:58 many scientists after Darwin abandoned the notion that the Creator God is the cause of 06:07 the Universe. We also learned that knowledge that is derived from the senses, reason, 06:15 intuition, feeling, experience, history and from the experts, constitutes an 06:24 interpretation of truth and nature. We can then draw two conclusions from this: First, 06:31 since knowledge from these sources constitutes an interpretation of the facts, 06:37 then it's obvious that these sources of knowledge have a high probability of error 06:42 regarding the question of God's existence. Since that is the case, then they are 06:48 unreliable in making a solid determination regarding the existence of God. The second 06:56 conclusion that we can draw from the reality that knowledge is interpretation, 07:03 is that we must look for a method whose probability of error is so incredibly minute 07:09 that it will decidedly place the problem of God's existence beyond question. 07:19 We discovered that when we analyzed the wonders of nature and the universe, the 07:25 incredibly small probabilities of random chancecry out for an explanation, of which there 07:33 are only two; chance and blind natural processes on the one hand and design that points to 07:41 God on the other. However, what seems like an unavoidable conclusion is that both sides 07:51 believe in miracles. In light of probabilities such as 10 to the 40th power, 10 to the 60th 07:59 power, 10 to the 120th power, 10 to the 123rd power, 10 to the 190th power, the huge 08:08 number of 10 to the 40,000th power and finally 10 to the 5,000,000,000th power 08:19 demonstrate that any one who still believes in random chance as an explanation for 08:27 the universe still believes in miracles. The difference between the two sides resides 08:33 in the fact that one believes that God is responsible for the miracle and the other 08:39 believes that nature is responsible; but either way, a miracle has indeed taken 08:47 place. I happen to agree with scientist Fred Hoyle who, by the way, rejects the idea of a 08:53 God, -- now that I don't agree with him, but I agree with his statement when he states that, 08:59 "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed 09:07 with the laws of nature and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about." This is 09:14 why I believe that it is reasonable to say that God exists and that He is the 09:19 Creator of all things Now it is important to note that there is a source of knowledge 09:25 that we did not discuss in our previous 2 shows, that is knowledge that comes to us 09:31 from sources that claim to be authoritative and inspired How shall we test their 09:39 claims? Furthermore, do we believe our particular religion or philosophy because 09:46 it is true, or is it true because we believe it? 09:54 Before we answer these questions, I believe it's also important that we consider 09:58 various standards of test that will not work. For instance, shall we decide these 10:05 questionsof authority on the basis of:Miracles and answered prayers? Wise sayings? What 10:13 about literary style and beauty? The problem with these kinds of criteria is that you 10:21 are going to have people from all the major religions claiming that since God 10:24 answered my prayers or did something miraculous for me, this therefore means that 10:31 their philosophy, religion or sacred writings that they adhere to must indeed be 10:37 supernatural and thus authoritative. Each religious or philosophical group will 10:45 also claim that their own wise sayings, and their literary style and beauty of their 10:51 writings is superior to the rest. It's also pointless to base our analysis on how long 10:57 a particular idea, religion, or sacred writing has existed, or even on the number of 11:06 people that subscribe to it. These are all subjective criteria that will not work. 11:14 In other words, anyone who sets up these criteria to settle the issue comes very 11:19 close to saying that my religion is true because I believe it. What we need to do 11:27 is construct a test that only God can pass and that we can easily apply to any who claim 11:36 that their religious and philosophical writings constitute the one and only 11:42 standard. Then all claims must be measured by that standard. 11:52 When we applied probability theory to some of the laws of nature, we discovered that the 11:58 most reasonable explanation for the incredibly small probabilities is that the 12:05 universe is designed by an incredibly powerful Creator It's almost as if the universe 12:13 has invited us to test and examine it. This means that probability constitutes an 12:21 objective standard that inquirers can easily apply to the question of God's 12:27 existence. What I would propose is that we first examine some of the major 12:33 philosophies and religions of the world in order evaluate two things: first is whether 12:41 they invite an inquirer to evaluate their claims to authority or inspiration or do 12:48 they just force us to blindly accept their claims? Second, if they invite inquirer's to 12:55 examine and test their claims then can we apply probability theory to their claim to 13:01 inspiration? The logic goes like this: if probability clearly points to the 13:09 existence of God, then let's see if probability also settles the issue of authority 13:15 and inspiration. 13:21 Just before we examine what the founders of the major religions taught, let's draw a 13:25 little sketch of the major religious groups in the world. According to a 2010 13:31 demographic study that was based on more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and 13:38 population registers, the size of the major religious groups in the world are as follows: 13:46 31.5% are Christians, 23.2% Muslim, 16.3% are unaffiliated, 15% are Hindus, 13:57 7.1% are Buddhists, 5.9% are classified as Folk Religionists that include 14:06 African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and 14:13 Australian aboriginal religions. 0.8% are made up of other religions such as the 14:19 Bahai faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism to 14:29 name a few. Also 0.2% of the global population are Jews. In Canada, according to the 2011 14:39 national household survey, 39% identified themselves as Roman Catholic, 27% as Protestant, 14:46 24% as claiming no religious affiliation, and the remaining 11% include Islam, Hinduism, 14:54 Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Some have recently asserted 15:03 that all of these religious and philosophical ideas not only lead to the One true God, 15:10 but also that they are all of equal value. However, there are two major problems with 15:17 this: The first is related to probability. When we investigate the laws of 15:23 physics, there is virtually no room for error, which essentially means that there 15:28 is only one way in which the laws of physics are brought together to provide for and 15:34 sustain life. Thus, there are not many ways when it comes to sustaining life in the 15:41 universe, there is only one way. 15:48 The question must then be asked, why would God make only one way for things to work in 15:53 the natural world but then use many contradictory ways that somehow ultimately resolve and 15:59 lead to the One God in the spiritual life? It is much more reasonable to assert that 16:06 the consistency in the laws of physics that point to only one answer must be reflected in 16:14 spiritual laws, which should do the same. Also, in order to claim that all religious 16:21 statements are of equal value, we must have some objective standard to measure whether 16:28 they are indeed equal or not. Thus, it's problematic to state that all religions are 16:35 of equal value without providing a way to test if that is true. The second 16:41 problem refers to what the religious writings claim. When we examine the major religions 16:47 of the world, we do not find them saying that their particular brand of religion 16:52 is just one of many ways in which inquirers might receive the truth. Let's take 16:58 Hinduism for example. In the introduction to the Bhagavad-gita, it states, 17:22 The Quran states, 17:43 The Buddhist Scriptures declare, 18:07 Judaism states, 18:20 Christianity speaks of Jesus in the following way, 18:32 Jesus also stated, 18:44 Thus, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the writings of the world's major 18:52 religions claim that they constitute the one standard by which all others must be 19:00 judged. 19:02 Since that is the case, then let's see if their writings invite inquirers to analyze 19:08 their claims. Let's also see if we can use probability theory in order to evaluate 19:15 whether their claims have any objective authority. In the preface to the Bhagavad-gita, 19:22 it states, 19:32 Moreover, as Dr. Subodh Pandit points out, "It was lost and then repeated at the Battle of 19:41 Kurukshetra about 50 centuries ago." This certainly makes it impossible for an inquirer to 19:50 try to verify. As a result, the Bhagavad-gita itself states, 20:10 The Buddhist writings declare that 20:21 If absolute truth is undeterminate and beyond thought and word, then just 20:28 like Hinduism, its claims are beyond inquiry and verification. The Quran claims 20:36 to be unique among all classifications of literature, it declares, 20:53 In other places the challenge is to produce either one chapter or ten chapters like 20:59 the Quran. Here indeed is a challenge, yet, as DrPandit has perceptively noted, there 21:07 are serious problems with this challenge. First, the challenge did not state what 21:14 feature was to be equaled - whether it was prose or poetry or rhythm or diction of 21:20 philosophy or beliefs about God. Second, it did not define the method of comparison. How 21:29 then would the inquirer decide whether the Quran was better, equal, or worse? Third, who 21:36 would be the final judge regarding the comparison, Would it be an Imam, a Muslim 21:42 council, a neutral body, an international committee, or the individual? Fourth, to the 21:52 Orthodox Muslim, Arabic is the divine language of communication, and the Quran 21:58 is considered authentic only in that language. Hence to equal the Quran, the writing 22:06 should be only in the Arabic language. If millions of Muslims who don't know one 22:14 sentence of literary Arabic are not able test to accept the challenge, then how can 22:22 the rest of the world accept the challenge? Dr. Pandit concludes, "A subjective, 22:33 nebulous challenge, applicable to only a narrow segment of the world's population is not 22:40 a real challenge." 22:44 We now turn to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments to 22:51 see if they invite the inquirer to test their claim to inspiration and to see if 22:57 we can apply what we have learned from probability theory. In the Old Testament 23:02 Scriptures, the prophet Isaiah declares in Isaiah 41:21-23, 23:43 Here we find Isaiah stating that the test of divinity is the ability to successfully 23:49 predict what is to come. This is the test that only God can pass. Therefore, if extremely 23:57 small probabilities point to God's existence, then on the same basis the ability to 24:04 foretell specific events points decisively to the Old and New Testament Scriptures 24:11 as the standard that all other writings must be measured against. Let's notice what 24:17 Jesus Himself states: In John 13:19, He declares, 24:33 Jesus makes it clear that He does not expect His followers to simply accept His claims. 24:39 Instead, He realizes that claims can only be genuine if they can pass the test of 24:45 fulfilling the smallest of probabilities. There seems to be nothing in the Hindu, 24:50 Buddhist or Islamic Scriptures to which we can apply probability as we did with the 24:57 existence of God. 25:00 Of all the writings of the major world religions, it is only the Old and New Testament 25:06 Scriptures lay down what is the ultimate challenge in the form of predictive prophecy, 25:13 which can be analyzed by probability. Therefore, if the Old and New Testament 25:18 Scriptures not only lay down the challenge but also provide evidence to substantiate the 25:25 challenge, then the issue of authority is settled. Is the Bible reliable, can it be 25:31 trusted, will it pass the test. I invite you to not miss one show on this journey of 25:39 inquiry and discovery. 25:44 Lord help us on this journey of inquiry to discover the truth, we pray in Jesus name, 25:50 Amen 26:15 >>Bev: Hi, everyone. You know that saying "sweets for the sweet"? Well, I've got a 26:17 fabulously easy, totally delicious, low-calorie, and of course, highly nutritious 26:23 dessert to show you. It's a Better Than Ice Cream Frozen Banana Ice Dream. It's so 26:29 good. If you're an ice cream lover, you must try this. Simply peel some ripe bananas, 26:36 and they should have spots on them, because they're sweeter then. Cut the bananas into 26:40 chunks. Freeze them overnight. Then blend them in your blender or food processor 26:45 until they're smooth and creamy. It's that simple. Let me show you. I've got some 26:50 frozen banana in here already. I'm just going to add a little bit more. Put the cover on my 26:59 Vitamix blender here. And let's give this a whirl. It's looking good. I didn't get the 27:20 whole thing, but I'm going to leave it at that for now. And it's really easy to jazz it up 27:24 a little bit if you want to. You can blend in some nut butter to give it a richer 27:28 taste, a little nut milk. And I had to do that for this one 'cause it wasn't doing it so 27:32 well, so I just put a little bit of nut milk so it'd move. You could add some vanilla 27:37 extract, some carob chips, or other frozen or fresh fruits. And then the consistency of it 27:43 is just like ice cream. Look at that. It stays just like ice cream, and so you could 27:50 just put some in your bowl. In fact, let me just dish this out. It is so good and it's so 27:56 good for you. Totally delicious. Instead of all the fat and processed sugar in 28:02 regular ice cream, you're going to get all the goodness of the banana. It'll be a 28:08 low-fat, low-calorie, naturally sweet, deliciously healthy dessert that's got 28:13 great potassium, some vitamin C, fibre, vitamin B6, and some magnesium. You're not going to 28:20 get any of that in regular ice cream. Now, you'll want to use a powerful blender for this 28:24 recipe. As you saw, it might be difficult sometimes to get it nice and creamy. But the 28:28 Vitamix blender will do that. And you see the consistency of it. It's just like ice cream 28:33 and it is so delicious. To find out more about Vitamix blenders, you can go to 28:40 Vitamix.com. Enjoy this natural goodness, and I'll see you next time. 28:55 >> Chris: Friend, on this journey of inquiry I want offer you the "Discover Bible 28:59 Guides" that will help you discover about God and his existance. Here is the 29:04 information you need. 29:44 >>Chris: Thank you so much for watching. Join us again next week. Until then remember - It 29:49 Is Written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the 29:54 mouth of God. 29:58 $$$$$$$ |
Revised 2015-10-22