Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

_{News
December 9, 2014

Fine tuning, News

1}_{Categories
Fine tuning
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.” Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

See also:Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

kairosfocus:
KS, an adequate answer for reasonable people has been given.
No, because reasonable people would like to see reasonable answers to these two questions:
1. Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami? 2. Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive? To actually answer those questions, you would need to write something like “God didn’t warn us of the tsunami because _______”, and fill in the blank. Regarding Jessica Chambers, you would need to write something like “God allowed Jessica Chambers to be burned alive because _______”, and fill in the blank.
Can you fill in the blanks, KF?keith s_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Me_Think asks, Is it foolish to assume that His intention would have been to save thousands of people ? I respond, Yes Biblically foolish. You must remember I'm a Calvinist I believe that humanity is radically depraved. We all deserve to die. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman @ 242
when God does not act according to your assumptions you conclude he does not exist. That is the best example of foolishness in the Biblical sense That I can think of right now.
Is it foolish to assume that His intention would have been to save thousands of people ?Me_Think_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

William J Murray
While one doesn’t expect all questions to be answerable, and while some mystery must remain, keith is not raising mere quibbles here. I’m the first guy to point out when keith has a bad argument; these don’t appear to me bad arguments given the premises. These are real issues that can drive people away from theism.
There is a price that must be paid for every sin ever committed, and the person who commits that sin does not always have to do all the paying. Sons and daughters must pay for the sins of their parents; future generations must pay for the sins of their forebears. It is impossible to disconnect ourselves from the human family and gain private justice with no loose ends. That is why there is a next world. That is there where the books are balanced. Accordingly, there is no free lunch in the moral world just as there is no free lunch in other realms. Acts, even private acts, have repercussions that reverberate into eternity. Pain and suffering are the effect; sin is the cause. Meanwhile, the pain and suffering that comes directly or indirectly from evil acts does not have to be useless or without purpose. Suffering can be used for good purposes, even by non Christians who are unaware of the good they are doing. First, pain can be used for expiation, that is, in order to make up for our past transgressions, failings, and sins. By accepting the suffering that comes our way without undue resentment, we can compensate for all the hurt we have brought to others. Second, pain can be used in reparation, that is, in order to make up for the failings, transgressions, and sins of others. In that sense, suffering is transferable. Saints willingly and literally take on suffering to purchase, yes purchase, the grace by which others are saved. There is nothing nobler in this world. Keiths arguments are not logical. Let's take just one of them: 1. Suppose that God gives each of us free will. 2. An omniscient God knows what each person will freely choose to do before he decides to create that person. 3. If that person is going to do something evil, God has the option of deciding not to create that person. 4. Therefore, any evil that a person commits is God’s responsibility, because a) God knew that it was going to happen, and b) God chose to create the person anyway. This argument is not logical because it shifts the responsibility of an evil act from the transgressor to the creator. It's like saying this: God gave Hitler the gift of free will Hitler misused that gift and created suffering for others, therefore, God is responsible for Hitler's actions and should not have created Him. On the contrary, if God refuses to create people who will become bad, then it is not possible for good people to become good since they will experience no physical trials from nature, which remains uncorrupted by a Fall, and no frustrations from other sinners, since they have not been allowed to exist. Without bad people or an imperfect nature, heroic virtue would be impossible--indeed, all virtue would be impossible. Under the circumstances, there would be no wrongs to be righted; no trying circumstances in which character can be tested; no trials through which virtue could be acquired. How does one love if there is no opportunity to make loving sacrifices? Real love costs. No good deed is done without some cost to the doer. How does one practice or experience real, self-sacrificial love in a perfect world in which no sacrifices are called for. If there is no such thing as the flu, then there can be no such thing as a mother who stays of all night with her child with loving concern. One can only become a virtuous person in an imperfect world that includes pain and suffering. One can only be saved by loving God and one cannot love God without practicing virtue. No one is born with virtue and no one can be saved without obtaining it.StephenB_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

kf said:
I add that at this level, there will always be difficulties and concerns and limits of our understanding of the core of ANY worldview, and I will note that too often Christians are not particularly theologically, biblically or philosophically sophisticated on a subject that gets rather deep very quickly and often without warning.
Agreed, and I don't hold that against any Christians - but I think it's what largely rhetorical arguments against Christianity bank on - the inability of many Christians to respond in a satisfying way. My first step towards a satisfying theism was deconstructing certain concepts about god that were formed via what I would consider to be an average childhood in America, where the God they taught about in Sunday School was pretty much the same kind of magical, arbitrary entity Keith's arguments reflect (at least to my young mind at the time). Nobody said anything about classical theism, prime movers, or logically necessary grounding. Honestly, what I got growing up was pretty much a bunch of what seemed to be fumbling, self-contradictory, faith-based tropes and scripture that did more to put me off track than on. I have no problem with tradition, dogma or faith that leads one down a generally good path - which I now see that in general Christianity does - but, there are those like me that require(d) something more logically substantive. BTW, thanks again for all the information you've provided this thirsty mind on these topics.William J Murray_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Me_Thinks says, but your comment is just Pretzels twisting and deploying chaffs to change the direction of tsunami issue. I say. No it's not. I'm pointing out that you make unwarranted assumptions about what God would do in a given situation and when God does not act according to your assumptions you conclude he does not exist. That is the best example of foolishness in the Biblical sense That I can think of right now.fifthmonarchyman_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman @ 240
What about a warring about a universal impending judgement about to fall on everyone through a humble carpenter in a backwoods town of a minor province in the empire
That is not the view of other religions. They have their own omnipotent being(s) and His emissary, but your comment is just Pretzels twisting :-) and deploying chaffs :-) to change the direction of tsunami issue. Merry Christmas to you too.Me_Think_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

@Me_think in 239 What about a warning about a universal impending judgement about to fall on everyone through a humble carpenter in a backwoods town of a minor province in the empire? According to the wisdom of the world such a thing "is absolutely underwhelming and not expected of omnipotent being". That is the point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCVIJBB7o4 Merry Christmas peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 237 No body minds if God wants to manifest Himself in various strange ways, but warning about an impending huge wave about to wipe out thousands of hapless humans (including children) through a child who is mute (dumb is archaic word) is absolutely underwhelming and not expected of omnipotent being.Me_Think_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

WJM, useful questions, I suggest that KS and many others are in fact off base in their portrayal of the God of theism, and before he gets that far, that he has left unanswered the IS-OUGHT gap, which forces us to seriously consider as the IS that grounds ought, the creator-God who is a necessary and maximally great being. I add that at this level, there will always be difficulties and concerns and limits of our understanding of the core of ANY worldview, and I will note that too often Christians are not particularly theologically, biblically or philosophically sophisticated on a subject that gets rather deep very quickly and often without warning. (My own experience started at age 3 when we had a vine that died and the gardener chopped it, so I asked questions about life and death and finally my father said God made living things and man made non living ones. Promptly, I floored dad with, who made God? He said ask pastor. Sunday as soon as service was over I ran down the aisle, Pastor, pastor, who made God? He caught me up and explained simply, concerning infinite regress and necessary, ultimate beings, which I have never forgotten.) But then, in the first classes we were dealing with in Math back in grade school, we were at the threshold of infinity, the infinitesimal, transcendental numbers and more, and were blissfully unaware, being gently steered to one side or the other by our teachers. I suspect that much of the issue is, that we are less likely to get into major mathematics and linked phil debates, and certainly in a less contentious atmosphere, than with theology and philosophy. KF PS: I have already linked, at 101 level: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_gdvsevl . . . and this may be a beginning on the Nicene Creed summary of the Christian understanding of God: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-3-our-anchorage-in-god.html#u3_maker (Beware, a serious Systematic Theology will generally be 3 - 6,000 pp.)kairosfocus_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

MT, Do you think it strange that the almighty God would communicate to people as a newborn baby in a feeding trough in a stable? Or, would hang in agony from a cross -- the cruel means of execution for the lowest of the low? Being there as a victim of judicial murder because of nasty power politics? Here is a response on such, that should bring us all up short:
1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. 22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 23 but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. 24 But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. [NET]
kairosfocus_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

KS, an adequate answer for reasonable people has been given. KFkairosfocus_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Eric Metaxas: Marriage, Miracles & Movies - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31VEEJVs8LY Joy interviews Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer, about broken bones, marriage, his philosophy on dating, his new book MIRACLES and his upcoming movie!bornagain77_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

The concept of any meaningful "good" and "evil" requires a god of some sort (as objective moral foundation). Certainly, a god of some sort must be postulated as a necessary basis for this and other epistemological reasons. Yes, a god of some sort must exist to serve as the basis of good; and what we call good must be derived from that essential grounding of good. So, god must not only be good, but the standard of what good is. However, that alone doesn't let keith's challengers off the hook here. Keith is challenging a specific conceptualization of god which, if true, raises some very real logical problems that drive people away from theism because they see no palatable rational explanations. These same kinds of challenges drove me from theism many years ago. It's one thing to understand that god is a necessary being; it's another thing entirely to conceptualize god and our existence in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way that at least in principle accounts for what we actually see in the world. My own theism isn't subject to keith's argument because it doesn't hold to keith's (or most Christians) conceptualization of what god and existence is. For me, and I imagine for keith and many others, it's not enough for a god to be a necessary being; it must also be an intellectually and emotionally satisfying concept that isn't full of glaring, troubling discrepancies that appeal to faith to overlook. While one doesn't expect all questions to be answerable, and while some mystery must remain, keith is not raising mere quibbles here. I'm the first guy to point out when keith has a bad argument; these don't appear to me bad arguments given the premises. These are real issues that can drive people away from theism. I suggest theists here take the time to respond to keith's challenges thoroughly whether or not keith interacts in good faith in the discourse. This is too important a matter to leave up to keith to drive the dialogue. I also would like to hear how theists here reconcile their concept of god with the gist of keith's challenges. Is he employing faulty premises wrt your conceptualization of god? Wrt your conceptualization of existence? Free will? For example, my view of God's "omnipotence" is that it is not "magical" omnipotence; there are necessary constraints on what god can create, and whatever god creates, there are necessary logical implications and necessary effects manifested by any creation. In my view, god cannot create any "X" without necessarily creating "not-X" as the context or negative space within which X is an actual, discernible commodity. IOW, god cannot create anything good without also creating the negative space that gives good definition. The potential for great good requires the potential for great evil, just as a painting cannot have great contrast without both very light and very dark areas. Keith's premises and my view diverge in many fundamental ways, but I would be interested in hearing from other theists more elaboration on their views in this matter.William J Murray_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Hi Seversky, have you considered that God is all-loving. In order to give unconditional love an all-powerful being would have to relinquish some of its power. For example God was incarnate in Jesus. This was a sacrifice of power because of love for each and every human. It is easy to say that God is omnipotent; but to justify this statement is not so easy. Didn't Satan temp Jesus to take back some of the power he had relinquished? As a general note: If parents were to pamper to the every need of their child such as bringing them toilet paper when they run out they would probably end up with a spoiled child. Better to allow the child increasing freedom as it developed. That way it is bound to make mistakes but it will become a better person because of this. In future it will have the wisdom to check in advance that there is enough toilet paper, or if it has no access to any toilet paper it will have to experience going without which is no bad thing in the long run.CharlieM_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 227
I don’t believe for a moment that God is omniscient and omnipotent. These are silly Sunday school fables. Biblical scriptures do not support this view. In fact, they say the exact opposite.
Obviously, you are free to believe whatever you like but if yours is not the tri-omni God in which many Christians believe then what is it other than some sort of advanced - but not all-powerful - alien intelligence? It doesn't sound like something to worship, something that could create the Universe or bestow everlasting life on its followers.Seversky_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

StephenB #198: Keiths is afraid to answer any question or meet any challenge. When confronted, he simply runs away. He wants to scrutinize without being scrutinized. He has no intellectual confidence in his own position, so the dialogue is always one-sided, skewed, and perverse.
Isn't this the typical materialist' position? Whenever I debate a materialist I'm fully aware of the fact that I allow him/her to participate as if they are actual persons who are capable of reasoning. This is kindness on my part, since everyone knows that under materialism the person and rationality are mere "illusions" - in reality fermions and bosons are behind the steering wheel. So indeed, to engage in a dialogue with a materialist is in principle "one-sided, skewed, and perverse".Box_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

KF @ 215
PS: The matter of tsunami warning is not so simple as KS makes out. Not only do we have the case of the little girl on vacation who — having been taught signs in school, recognised and gave a warning that saved many
Don't you find it strange that God chose to warn about tsunami through a hapless child frantically pantomiming to thousands of people? StephenB @ 226
Because He would have to eliminate free will and the consequences of freely chosen acts to do so, which would mean that they would no longer be freely chosen acts
Do you realize that you seem to be supporting suicide bombers?Me_Think_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Mapou, I'll let you fight it out with your fellow Christians.keith s_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB, It's kind of pitiful that I have to explain this, but here goes. What I am describing in that passage is what God could have done to prevent evil while at the same time granting everyone free will. In other words, the free will defense doesn't work, because an omniscient God can prevent evil without thwarting anyone's free will.keith s_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Keith has a beef against a subset of Christians known as fundamentalists. I am a hard core Christian but my idea of God is not anything like the idea of God that he's attacking. I don't believe for a moment that God is omniscient and omnipotent. These are silly Sunday school fables. Biblical scriptures do not support this view. In fact, they say the exact opposite.Mapou_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Keiths
Before God creates a person, he uses his omniscience to look ahead and ask whether that person will commit murder. If the answer is no, he proceeds. If the answer is yes, he refrains from creating that person and creates someone else instead — someone he knows will not become a murderer.
Where in the name of sense did you come up with this? It has absolutely nothing to do with the free will argument. Nothing. If God created only those people whose actions were going to please him, then everyone would have free will and everyone would be a saint since no one else would have been allowed to exist.
He hasn’t changed anyone’s nature. Each person is completely free, and yet no one commits murder, because they all freely choose not to.
Yes, and we might as well apply your perverse logic to the angels as well. God knew which ones would fall and which ones would not, so He created only those who would not fall and everyone lived happily ever after. As a bonus, no human would ever get temped. Your fanstasy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Nothing
If theists try to argue that by refraining from creating someone, God would be denying that person’s free will, then they put themselves in a bind — because that means that God is already denying free will to the gazillions of possible persons he never creates.
I can't imagine that any Christian would be so stupid as to argue that someone who was created with free will doesn't have free will. Now, if you don't mind, put away the nonsense and deal with my rebuttal. Keiths
Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive?
Because He would have to eliminate free will and the consequences of freely chosen acts to do so, which would mean that they would no longer be freely chosen acts. Do you think God should have prevented Jessica Chambers from being burned alive by eliminating free will? If so, why do you think so?StephenB_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Andre:
Are you saying that God could make us all as goodie two shoes that could not have the ability to commit any evil acts? And also drop us on a planet where nothing could ever go wrong?
First, let me reiterate that libertarian free will is an incoherent concept. I'm assuming that LFW is possible, but only for the sake of argument. Here's what I'm saying: 1. Suppose that God gives each of us free will. 2. An omniscient God knows what each person will freely choose to do before he decides to create that person. 3. If that person is going to do something evil, God has the option of deciding not to create that person. 4. Therefore, any evil that a person commits is God's responsibility, because a) God knew that it was going to happen, and b) God chose to create the person anyway.keith s_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Keith S No, he wouldn’t [have to eliminate free will to stop evil acts]. I explained this to Andre earlier in the thread: I'm getting pop-corn please explain how preventing me from doing evil does not impede on my free will? Are you saying that God could make us all as goodie two shoes that could not have the ability to commit any evil acts? And also drop us on a planet where nothing could ever go wrong? Do you understand that there can be no free will in such a world Keith S because you never ever have to choose anything ever! Problems with such a world..... You can not kill or be killed. Everybody's sports team will win every single time Everybody will always win the lotto You will have no emotions because everything is perfect! You can't feel pain because you'll never bump a toe! There will never be any scenarios for you to choose what to do because everything is perfect! 1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. The perfect part is coming Keith S but only after we have chosen what we want.Andre_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
It is not God’s responsibility to prod the authorities to set up a warning system for earthquakes or tsunamis, just as it is not God’s responsibility to prod authorities to warn citizens about tornadoes, hurricanes, meteors, or floods. It is their responsibility to do it for themselves and for each other.
Stephen, Let me ask you the same question I asked littlejohn:
littlejohn, Let’s say you’re a bridge inspector for the state. You inspect a bridge over the Mississippi and and discover huge cracks. It’s clear that the bridge will fail very soon. If you choose not to report the cracks, innocent people will die. Would it be morally acceptable not to report them?
keith s_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Keith S And just to put this to bed God takes full responsibility for all natural evil..... Exodus 4:11 "he LORD said to him, "Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." So the all powerful Creator who is perfectly loving takes full responsibility for all natural evil, moral evil however er is our own responsibility and the choice to do good or evil is ours. You want God to intervene every time? Well then there will be no such thing as miracles and what was once supernatural will become natural (No more science BTW because everything will be an act of God all the time). But here is why it does not work like Keith S wants... If God constantly revealed himself to everyone there is no point to free will. So what Keith S is really angry about is the fact that God gave him free will, because he wants a God that constantly meddles, intervenes, and settles matters as he sees fit. Keith S really wants a scapegoat so that he does not have to give an account of anything one day.Andre_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I explained it already. You can read it again here.keith s_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

SB: Because He would have to eliminate free will and the consequences of freely chosen acts to do so, which would mean that they would no longer be freely chosen acts. Keiths
No, he wouldn’t [have to eliminate free will to stop evil acts]. I explained this to Andre earlier in the thread:
SB:
Explain it to me.
Keiths, (for the third time) I am still waiting. Explain it to me.StephenB_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Keith S You refuted and showed me zip..... Please and make this the last time you ever say;
Given the evidence, it is irrational to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God.
As a materialist you can lay no claim reason and logic because reason and logic is grounded in an unchanging standard. If everything is subjective then there is no such thing as reason and logic.Andre_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Keiths
I rebutted your answers
No. You evaded both points, which I repeated and elaborated on @217, Also, there is the problem that you are afraid to answer my questions.StephenB_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply