Inclusivism: Part 2

We're approaching the end of the Apologetics section of this blog. In fact, this will probably be my second to last post. After I finish Nash's lectures I'm going to slow way down on the blogging. I'll be listening to a "Theology of Missions" series, and I'll most likely only do about one post each week. 

Today won't be too long- it's just a continuation of the other Inclusivism stuff. 

John Sanders- Claim: All humans are saved until they reject the Gospel. 

Implications: People who've never heard the Gospel can be saved. Universalism for the unevangelized. Any movement to show people the Gospel would be harmful- because if they never hear it, they automatically get accepted- but if they have the choice, and refuse, they've been condemned. 

This pretty much says that Christian mission work is useless. We'd be better off letting everyone go their own way, rather than telling them the truth. 

This is crazy. It doesn't make any sense logically, let alone biblically. In fact, this is completely contradictory with the Gospel. 

My two cents: 

Nash is totally right here- this idea is ludicrous. But, I think he leaves something important out. 

I think the reason that Sanders goes this route is because his focus is messed up. He's got his eyes on Salvation, as if that was all there was to the picture. It sounds blasphemous to say, but Salvation really doesn't mean that much. Before you say anything, let me explain. Salvation is lesser, compared to a relationship with Christ. You see, salvation comes as a result of that relationship. Jesus has to come first. The point of Christ isn't just to be saved- it's to love and honor and serve him- the creator of the universe. Yes, Salvation is important, BUT, when we take our eyes off Christ, and just look at the saving part- we miss a lot of vital stuff. We miss precious time to develop our relationship with Christ, and we miss opportunities to bring others to Christ. Sander's view seems like it's for the greater good... right? It's actually kind of selfish. It sort of says, "I'm going to worry about me and my salvation, and I don't need to go share with anyone because as long as they don't have to choose- their ok". See? It really takes away from everything Christ stands for. Christ calls us to be love, to serve, to make disciples... not to sit idle at home and leave the world in the dark. (And I know you could argue semantics of the definition of salvation again, but for simplicity sake, let's just say it means the saving of a soul. Heaven instead of Hell.) 

Back to Inclusivism- The Book of Acts = great stuff. (This is a personal favorite book of mine. If you haven't read it, you need to). 

Nash talks for a while about this, but I'll just give some major highlights I think are cool. This book is literally filled to the brim with stuff that contradicts Inclusivism, and more than that, it's major spiritual food. 

In chapter 20:26-27 it says, "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. ²⁷ For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God."

My bit: 

Lets think about the implications of this for a moment. It's sort of an if-then statement. Meaning? If we do hesitate to proclaim the whole will of God, if we're passive about sharing our faith, if we do it half-heartedly, or don't take it seriously--- we have blood on our hands. Think of it this way: A man is walking by a bridge and sees a child hanging off the edge, above a very deep lake. The child cannot swim, and is about to fall. If it was your child- and the man kept walking- allowing your child to die- what would you think? At least some of the blame goes to the man, who had the power to help, but did nothing. Now, when it comes to sharing Christ with people, it's not like we're solely responsible for the faith of every person we know. But, take time to think about this... If you have the opportunity, day after day, week after week, month after month, ect. to share Jesus- and you never do... well, you think about it. We, as beleivers, have the obligation to share- to make disciples. Christ didn't say that it was our fault if people rejected him, or that we were responsible for everyone. But he did say that we need to try, if nothing else. We need to give it all we've got, because the price isn't just physical life- it's spiritual life. It's eternity. And I apologize if it sounds like I'm preaching from the pulpit. This is definitely convicting for me too. It's encouraging to think though- we've got the holy spirit on our side. In fact- he's the one who really does the saving. But I'm ranting... Sorry. Point? Don't be passive about sharing your faith. It matters. 

2nd example... 

In Chapter 26 it says something like this: "I am sending you to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light." 

Key word here is sending. It's not optional. The God of the universe has given us a mission- to share the light of Christ with the world. Any suggestion that people don't need to hear it for it to be true is completely blasphemous. And if they say it's not- refer them to this. 

Third example (From Philippians though. This book has some great stuff too, and it's by the same author... I think). 

Paul pretty much gives his testimony in this book- and it's great. He's a great example of why inclusivism doesn't work. He attests to personal salvation- explaining how he was in the darkness- in sin- and was saved through Christ. If inclusivism were true, then that darkness Saul felt was salvation, and was no different from the light. Personal testimony tells us this just isn't so. 

..........

So, a lot more personal commentary than I was planning on today, but it's an interesting topic, so I don't regret spending the time on it. I would say stay tuned, but I'm not sure when my next post is comming. Keep an eye out on facebook, I'll be sure to put a link to my next post. Feel free to comment on this one too. Thanks for reading. :) 

Inclusivism: Part 1

Lots of good stuff in this lecture. Sort of something you'd think would be rare, but again, like pluralism, I think a lot of people have this sort of liberal view. Another thing- you'll notice a lot of reference to scripture. That's because Pluralists don't consider the Bible to be truth. With them we had to go the logic route. When it comes to Inclusivists- they're claiming to be Christians, and therefore also claim to believe scripture to be true. Nash's entire case is pretty much using scripture to break down their argument. Granted- if they ever give up, and resort to believing that scripture is untrue- then you'll need to go a different route. For now though, here's what Nash has:

A. Inclusivism: No one can be saved apart from Christ, but- you don't have to know about it or believe in him to be saved.

B. "General Revelation"- A general idea of God's existence or our own mortality (things like that) that can be taken from nature. You could almost call them presuppositions. Sometimes they are things we instinctively know. But they're not specific. Hence the "general".

"Specific Revelation"- The biggest example would be the Bible- God's inspired word. It's not a general inkling of God's existence- it's his specific story.  It's not limited to this though- miracles, the work of the holy spirit, visions, charismatic gifts, etc. are also examples.

Further reading: http://carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-general-and-special-revelation

1. Is there anything in scripture, at all, to support General Revelation?
Absolutely not. Romans 1 explains that the only real reason for General Revelation is to give man-kind a fair chance at discovering God- and Special Revelation. That way- no one can blame God for not being saved. He's practically handing us his existence on a platter- but it's our choice what to do with that.

2. Claim: The content of the Christian Gospel is culturally relative.
False. Paul- in just about every one of his letters- says over and over again- a relationship with Jesus is the only way to Salvation. Some try to claim that this Gospel works for certain people, or can be "applied" to certain cultural groups (such as the Corinthians or Philippians  etc.). The implication in that would be that regardless of who believes it, the truth can be preserved. This is heresy. People who claim this are not only slaves to a paradigm- they cannot be Christians. Yes, the death of Christ saved sinners- but we've got to enter those gates. He's not forcing us in.

3. Isn't faith what matters? Regardless of what it's in?
No. Jesus matters. Faith is important- but Jesus precedes that. If you put your faith in anything but Christ- you are putting your faith into nothing. This completely tears out the heart of the Gospel.

Note: Here Nash goes on a rant about the Vatican, and the Pope, talking about their shift to Inclusivist views. This lecture was recorded in 2001, so I did a little research to check the accuracy.  I trust Nash to make this claim, because I'm guessing he's researched the crud out of it. As for the claim holding true today, I have no clue. I tried to do some research, and found a whole bunch of random stuff. My head is spinning. Feel free to comment though, if you know anything about the Vatican's current stance on this.

C: What about Old Testament believers, they were saved without Christ right?
Yes, but now that Christ has come, things have changed a bit. We're considered a part of the New Testament set of believers, so we need Jesus. Period.

D. Here Nash talks about Holy Pagans. I have notes on it- but I'm not even going to type them out. People who are nice enough to read this thing don't want a 10 minute rant on this topic. It's not that interesting. Really. If you want to hear about it, here's the link: http://www.biblicaltraining.org/inclusivism/christian-apologetics

E. Infant Salvation: What about babies that die? Since they don't believe, are they condemned?
(I find it interesting that Nash includes this in here. It is applicable, but considering he wrote an entire book on the topic, I'm just surprised he doesn't take more time on it. Here's his short and condensed version...)
No. Infants are the elect of God- they are his personal creation- his work of art. At this point- they haven't sinned. (This doesn't exclude natural sin- the kind we're born with. I'll get to that in a second). Because infants are the elect of God, if they pass away as infants, they go to heaven. Salvation is totally the work of God- nothing we do saves us. In the same way that God saves us, he chooses to save these infants- who cannot choose to accept or decline his salvation. He gives them the faith to be saved.

I'm splitting this into two parts because this was all I could get typed today. More tomorrow on Inclusivism.

Pluralism: Part 2

Today's pretty much Nash's rebuttal to Hick's argument. I gotta say though, after going through, and thinking about it- this argument is a LOT more prevalent that I first thought. If you think about it- there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who hold sort of a modified version of this argument (I'll elaborate a bit later...).

Nash's objective- to tear apart Hick's argument without help from scripture. It'd be easy enough to say, "I reject that theory because I believe in the Bible, and scripture refutes this claim"- but you're not going to convince many pluralists. To defeat them- you've got to meet them on their own turf.

Eschatological Verification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatological_verification)- essentially a rebuttal to Logical Positivism; which says that in order to be meaningful, or true, something has to be able to be proven with the scientific method. The implications of this pretty much result in Naturalism. This is one of Hick's major discoveries. It made him famous. E.V. refutes Logical Positivism by saying this- "Christians CAN verify their position through those means- and therefore make it meaningful/truthful- the thing is- they just can't do it right this instant.

Say a Logical Positivist dies, and is feeling a bit hot- well, he's going to know that he's been barking up the wrong tree. The Christian dies, and is feeling pretty great, at the throne of Christ- and can then verify through logical means that he was right all along. Christianity really does fit the Logical Positivists criteria- just not right this instant.

Anyways- that's one of Hick's biggest "discoveries", so he's not going to give it up (Nash uses it against him here in a sec...).

Criticisms (Based on the whole E.V. thing)

This next part is going to be a stated claim by Hick, and then a refutation by Nash, and maybe a bit of commentary by me.

Hick: God is both Impersonal and Personal 

Nash: But according to his E.V.- when we die, some of us will be right, and some will be wrong.

My bit:  You can apply this to the parable. All of them gave characteristics  but none of  their claims were actually correct. The guy holding the tail may have thought it was a rope, but Hick was wrong to say that it could be a rope for that person. It may have seemed like a rope- but it wasn't really. When people interpret God- there are right or wrong answers. (Even Hick concedes to this).

Hick: Salvation can mean lots of different things to different people (It's basically ambiguous). 

Nash: Given this ambiguous definition- anything could be Salvation. The Nazi regime could be considered Salvation to some. When you leave the definition of Salvation open for tampering with- bad stuff happens. This clearly isn't ok.

Me: I completely agree. This kind of goes back to relative truth. When you mess with definitions too much, you get twisted results. There has to be some sort of set rule, or constant, because if everything was ambiguous, and open for debate- then where would morals go? How would we really know if anything was real or not? See- sketchy.

Hick: Not every religion can be true- just the major ones with a central deity. So basically, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism are safe.
But not stuff like Jim Jones (For anyone who doesn't know, Jones was kind of a crazy guy who brought a group of people down to somewhere in South America and gave them all poisoned Kool-Aid to kill them. It was awful.)

Nash: But, above- you don't give a set definition of Salvation. In the case of Jones, how do you know it was wrong? Why couldn't it have been his definition of salvation? See where this is going? And remember that Hick also has Universalist views (thinks that no matter what, everyone will end up in Heaven). This also poses problems. He's saying that things can be evil and wrong- but that it doesn't matter because no matter what- everyone will enter heaven.


Logical Issues: Hick is ignoring the Law of Non-contradiction without actually coming out and saying it. He takes the creeds of the major religions, and nullifies them. There's huge irony in this- by trying to ensure the salvation of these religions, he completely insults and alienates them. Can you imagine if he were to walk into an Islamic temple, and preach about how none of their rules or beliefs matter- except for the one about Allah? I can't imagine they'd be too happy about it. Same goes for Judaism, or Buddhism, or Christianity. We take our stuff seriously.

Hick: If Jesus was really the Son of God, he would be the only savior (because of his Theo-centric theory). He then tries to destroy the deity of Christ. 

Nash: Look into this more if you want- but his arguments against Christ's deity are completely outdated and rejected in the modern philosophical world.

Hick: Geographical/Cultural conditioning influence people into their religions. It would be unfair to condemn them because of that conditioning.

Nash: What? Absolutely not. What about converts? Missionaries? Things of that sort? And another thing- if we again went with this theory- Nazism would be justified. They could say "Well, we were just born into Nazism, so it's ok".

Me: I could literally write a book on just this little section alone. Seriously. I'll try to keep it somewhat condensed though.

Here's the thing- this is where my earlier comment comes in. There are a lot of people who sort of modify this view- and hold onto it. They ask themselves this question, "How is it fair to condemn 6 or 7 billion people to Hell, when a majority of them grew up in environments that conditioned them to be the way they are?" They then draw conclusions such as these:

• I can be apathetic- Salvation doesn't really matter, because if it did, then the whole world's in trouble.

Sound familiar? How many people do you know that have this attitude? "I don't want to condemn myself, or the world, so I'll stay apathetic to it..."?? A lot of people. And sometimes it's frustrating trying to get them to care as much as we do about Christ. A lot of people ignore eternal consequences, and just focus on today, which again, is frustrating to watch for those of us who have tasted God's grace; but it's a battle worth fighting.

•  Maybe all beliefs work toward some sort of salvation. Maybe Jews and Christians and Muslims can all have some sort of Salvation.

This one is common too. Sometimes people go Hick's route- and modify "Salvation", so that all people can share in it. This isn't ok. And watch out- If someone claims to be Christian, but also claims that all people can have "Salvation" regardless of their methods- they're lying about their faith. Christianity and this view can't mix. It just doesn't work. Yes, God is loving, but Christ is the only means of Salvation.


Essentially- it all comes back to the problem of evil. It's not an easy thing to explain- but the underlying issue here is God's characteristics. He gave us free will to do as we choose- and there are some who choose not to take advantage of his gift of salvation (which only comes through Christ). God is loving and gracious- but He's also just and fair.

And Yes, people tend to go with the religion that they grew up with- but that's certainly not always the case. But Christ makes himself known through the Holy Spirit. Whether it's through creation, a book, a person, a song, etc., the God of the Universe is showing himself to his people. Sometimes, we're just ignorant of his voice. And If anything, this is just encouragement for us Christians to be more open and minister to people. It's not something to "blame on God"- we have the power of evangelism. In fact, we're called to take part in this ministry, and if we don't, or we become apathetic about people's salvation- it's time to start questioning our own salvation. Seriously.

Right, back to Hick.

Hick: Christians are Intolerant because they say other people's beliefs are wrong (Because of our belief in Hell basically). 

Nash: There are two kinds of Tolerance- good, and bad. Hick is referring to the bad kind here. Just because we disagree with the views of other people, it doesn't make us intolerant. In fact, it's ludicrous to even suggest that. We can kindly, and peacefully disagree with people. We believe that Christianity is the truth- and so sharing it isn't intolerant, it's us caring about the eternal condition of others. If someone thought the earth was flat, and I politely reminded them that it was actually round, would I be considered intolerant?? Of course not. We have an intolerance for hate and evil and sin, sure- so do non-believers. But not an intolerance for people.

My bit: I love the way Nash puts this. I can just see him walking up to Hick, and politely reminding him of the flaws in his argument. I wish some of you could have heard him give his spiel too. I feel like after all these lectures I sort of know him- even if I've only been listening to his tapes. He seems like he'd be a cool guy to meet.


Alrighty- that's it for today. All in all a pretty good case. Nash gives this cool story at the end, but it's long, and the point of it is just to love people- because it wins them over better than trying to beat it into them. It really is interesting though- Nash worked on a committee that helped consult Steven Spielberg on Prince of Egypt with DreamWorks pictures. Pretty epic stuff. Here's a link if you'd like to listen- it's at the very end- http://www.biblicaltraining.org/pluralism/christian-apologetics.

I hope to have a post up about Inclusivism tomorrow, so stay tuned. :)

Pluralism- Part 1

Just like with the miracles thing- this post focuses mainly on Jacob Hick, and his argument for pluralism. This may seem like something that's rare in apologetics, but I actually know several people that hold this belief. It's not super common, but you do see it, so it's good to know how to address it.

A. Early Life of Jacob Hick

• Professor of Faith at Princeton
• Conservative, except for his view on scripture
• Denied propositional revelation (Nash didn't feel like explaining... I really don't know the significance of this)
• Claimed to be evangelized, but denied the Lordship of Christ. 
• Biggest thing-  "All major religions have salvific value"

B. First Stage

1. Copernican Revlutions- 4 total. One of them includes Hick's Revolution with Religion. (Not all of them are necessarily right). 

The first one was Copernicus. He changed the geocentric theory into the heliocentric one (said that the solar system revolved around the sun, not the earth. 

The second was Immanuel Kant. Before his discovery, philosophers said that the epistemological world revolved around the world and it's happenings. Kant challenged that, and said that the center of the epistemological world is our minds. (Not to sure on what this is getting at either. Feel free to give thoughts/comments). 

The third Copernican revolution is Hick's. Before his "discovery" the center of the salvific world was Christ (at least for Christianity). Point being- salvation was dependent on a Messiah like figure, or savior, etc. hick came along and said that the salvific world centered around God. Not a messiah. The implications of this are huge. The fancy way to say this would be that he created the Theocentric Salvation theory.

The fourth Copernican revolution is Nash (Or so he claims). His change had to do with economics, but other than that, he doesn't elaborate.

Hick's Position: 

• Appeals to a loving God. The implication here is that if God is loving he'll let anyone and everyone into heaven- regardless of their beliefs. 
• Essentially pacifies other aspects of religions. 
• Major issue: When he appeals to a Loving God, he implies that this God is also Personal. This is a major contradiction for Hinduism and Buddhism. 

(Side note- Nash mentions here that there's a version of Buddhism that considers God a force- rather than an intelligent being. He then said that if we really wanted to see this form in action- Watch Star Wars. Seriously- "May the force be with you". Same sort of thing.) 

In essence- Hick was cheating. He was contradicting himself. 

He claimed that God could be both impersonal and personal. (I agree with Nash here- I don't think there's any way to be both of those at the same time).

He also said that God was both knowable and unknowable. Nash poses the question, "How can you know that he's unknowable, or even know that he exists, if he really is unknowable?"

C. 2nd Stage

Hick refutes the Christological view of Salvation, and instead creates a Salvation centered view of world religions. But, that poses the question, what does salvation really mean? What does it entail?

Immanuel Kant:
Said that there were two worlds- the Phenomenal World (Life as we each experience it), and the Pnumenal World (Life as it actually is). Hick applies this theory to his own view of God.
There would be the Phenomenal God (God as we each perceive him), and the Pnumenal God (God as he actually is).

He actually uses an old Indian parable to explain his case- and even Nash admits that it does seem to help him.

There are 5 blind men on a safari. They come into a clearing and sense a strange creature. They each exclaim something about their discovery. The first says, "It's a snake!", having felt the trunk. The second says, "It's a rope", having felt the tail. The third says, "It's a fan!", having felt an ear. The fourth says, "It's a column ", having felt a leg. And lastly, the fifth one says, "No, it's a wall!", having felt the main side of the elephant. Each one's perceptions are technically correct- at least to them. In actuality  those discoveries aren't very accurate- but they are true for the perceiver.

Hick says that this is the way religions work. No one religion can have the whole picture of God because we are each "blind". Our perceptions aren't necessarily wrong, but they don't form a full picture.

At this point Hick also gets rid of the word God. Instead he uses the term "Ultimate reality".

Here's where Nash steps in-
When life is over, we may discover that God is really personal. What happens when we die and see that the ultimate reality is a real being with specific attributes? Then he ceases to be impersonal, and we discover that we've been mistaken.


And, that's it for right now. Nash has a LOT to say in rebuttal- but I'm going to make that a separate post. So, if you've got rebuttals of your own, feel free to comment, but remember that the big refutation should be up soon. Stay tuned. :)

Central Miracles: Part 2

This post is a lot like the one from the other day, but focuses on the resurrection, rather than the incarnation.

The format of this argument is basically disjunctive syllogism again (A or B- not B, therefore A). In this case, A is the resurrection, and the other possibilities are B, C, and D, which Nash shoots down.

So, if A didn't happen, what are other possibilities (assuming we still have eyewitnesses claiming to have seen him)?

B. Jesus didn't really die. Maybe he faked his death with the help of the disciples. 

Answer:
What about the spear in his side? Water and blood? The water has to do with breaching the pericardium, suggesting that major organs were hit. It's hard to fake something like that with a bunch of eyewittnesses.

Also, what really kills people who are crucified? Exhaustion? Exposure? Blood Loss? Nope. Suffocation does. Hanging from your arms makes it impossible to breathe. Even if the disciples had slipped Jesus something to make it look like he had died, he would have suffocated. The only way to breathe on a cross like that is to push up with your feet. Being incapacitated because of a drug like that makes muscle usage like that impossible.

And finally, with enemies like the Romans, you can be confident that they made darn sure he was dead. He was a threat that needed eliminated. It's unlikely that the guards would have been so ignorant as to let Jesus slip by alive.

C. Someone stole the body to make it look as though he had resurrected.
We know the tomb was empty- historical accounts back that up. Maybe friend or foe took the body.

Answer:
Those considered friends of Jesus were scared out of their minds after the resurrection. They've been following this radical leader- who's publicly been a threat to the Roman order of things, and now he's dead. The Romans were coming after them. They weren't plotting or scheming- they were hiding- trying to stay alive. Besides, even if they had gotten to the tomb to steal the body- the Roman soldiers were guarding it. Those guard's very lives depended on keeping that tomb secure. Its not like a bunch of disciples could have just strolled in.

As for his enemies stealing it- they couldn't have. Why? First off, it was NOT to their advantage to make it look like Jesus really was who he'd been claiming to be. It would make them look awful. If Jesus had just resurrected, well, then the Roman soldiers had just killed God incarnate. Making it look like they had just killed the Christ wouldn't have been to their advantage. And, lets say for a second that maybe they did take the body for some odd reason- when the time came and people were claiming that Christ had resurrected- they could have just produced the body. They could have been like, "Ha! This is your 'resurrected' Christ". But they didn't. Why? Because they didn't steal the body.

D. Maybe those eyewitnesses were hallucinating. 

Answer:
Going into the science of this sort of thing- a group hallucination doesn't make any sense. Hallucinations are person relative, and have to do with chemical imbalances in your brain. The chances that every single person to see Jesus alive after rising was having the same hallucination- let alone at the same time- is completely absurd. There's no way. And if someone were to say that it was possible- well, then I'd call that a miracle, and Jesus's incarnation and resurrection aren't so unlikely.


So, A, B, C, or D. Not B- Jesus really did die. Not C- no one stole the body. And it doesn't look like D holds any water either. So, A. Jesus Christ was dead, and rose from the grave. Pretty cool stuff.

Tomorrow we get into Jesus as the only Savior. Stay tuned. :)

Central Miracles: Part 1

I really liked this lecture. I think it had to do with the fact that in this one- Nash was pretty clear. It's also really applicable stuff. He basically sets up a situation where a person believes that Jesus was just a good person, and then completely destroys that view. So whether you know someone who has that view, or not- chances are that some day this stuff'll be applicable to you.

I. The Incarnation- The Deity of Christ 

Two radically different views on Jesus: 

     1. The Naturalistic View

     2. The Supernatural View

A. Naturalistic View

• There is no God.
• Miracles are impossible.
• Jesus was not conceived of a virgin.
• Jesus may have existed- but he was just a good man who did good things. 
• He was crucified, and died. The end. 

B. Supernatural View 

• There's more to reality than the Laws of the Universe. 
• Christ existed before bethlehem- that is- he's eternal. 
• He was instrumental in creating the world. 
• He is fully God and fully Man. 
• He lived a perfect life, performed many miracles, died, and rose again. 

So, how do we go about showing that the supernatural view is correct? Well, in this instance, there's really only two options. Either Christ was supernatural, or he wasn't (I'm not going to go into semantics of the definition of supernatural). If we have evidence that tears the Naturalistic view to shreds- than the only other option is the Supernatural view (If you figure out a third option, let me know). 

The Naturalistic view says that Jesus was just a good man, but someone who was a "good man" couldn't have, and wouldn't have, done or said the things Jesus did. 

Story Time: 

     Suppose a carpenter moves into your neighborhood. He makes friends with the local children. He never seems to make a mistake- he's always kind, gentle, etc. The children seem to be nicer after spending time with him as well. They listen better, are kind to each other, etc. 

     One day you start talking with some of the kids. They give you all sorts of information about this carpenter guy. At first it seems normal, but all of a sudden one of the kids says that this guy thinks he's older than Abraham. Eternal, in fact. He told these kids he was God. What's your honest reaction? Holy Crud, he's a maniac. Seriously. No one in that situation is going, "Oh, he's just a good guy". 

People try and say, "I can accept the whole moral principles thing. He had some good ideas- but I can't grab ahold of the Savior part." 

Here's the thing- because of the things Jesus said and did (Claimed to be God, Forgave people for things they were doing to other people, etc...), he's either a lunatic, just plain evil, or telling the truth. He didn't leave it open for "moral teacher". 

If we take a step back, this is reasoning to the best explanation. If we knew a person, with the same character and moral standards as Jesus, and they did the things he did, we'd go to those options (Lunatic, Liar, or Lord). 

So, some questions/objections for Nash (from other students)... 

Q1: Aren't you sort of taking the Bible's word as law, without questioning the validity of it? What if Jesus didn't actually do what the Bible claims he did? 

A: The Bible is great- but it's not the only historical account. There are loads of eyewitnesses, and other historical documents to paint a picture of Jesus- totally separate from the Bible. And to add to that- there were no contrary witnesses. The documents were written in the lifetime of people who had every right to speak up if something was falsely recorded. (My bit- Case for Christ answers this beautifully. If you want to know more about it, check out Lee Strobel's story. Fantastic stuff. He starts the book as an atheist, and ends up finishing as a Christian). 

Q2: What if Jesus was just mistaken? Honest, but wrong? 

A: There are two kinds of mistakes- Big ones, and Little ones. 

     Nash's words: A little mistake would be if I believed "Ron Nash is the greatest Golfer in Cleveland". That's little. It can be overlooked. A bit prideful maybe- but not something to be overly concerned about. However- A Big mistake would be if I were to believe, "Ronald Nash is God". That changes things. That is a HUGE mistake. The biggest a human can make by the way. If someone were to say that- we wouldn't humor them. You wouldn't say to me, "That's great Nash, you are God". It's not a matter of being mistaken. If he truly believed it- which his actions show he did- then we come back to the three options- Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. 

My bit: So why did people humor Jesus? Because they were all crazy? Satanic? Mistaken? Not likely. No. It was because it was the truth. Really, thats the only thing that makes sense. 

Disjunctive Syllogism. (This is a lot simpler than it sounds- I promise). 

Two options- A or B. Not A, therefore- B. 

For example- life. Something is either dead or alive. If it's not alive- it's dead. If it's not dead (assuming the object has the capacity to live) it's alive. 

Two views- Either Jesus was Lord, or just a cool guy who had smart stuff to say. Not B- as Nash has shown- therefore- A. 

Tomorrow I'll get into the second miracle- the resurrection. Stay tuned. :) 

Miracles: David Hume

Some great stuff today (It's long- sorry). It's mostly refutation of Hume's argument, but it really is helpful for showing that miracles are possible. These may come from a Scottish Philosopher, but I guarantee that you'll meet someone in your lifetime that has these same qualms with Miracles. Side note: Since he's Scottish, I was half tempted to "hear" Nash's lecture in Scottish. It's hard to keep it going though, seeing as I'm not actually Scottish. I'm Irish, but thats completely beside the point. Feel free to read this in Scottish. I'm sure it'll make it more interesting. ;)

David Hume

Has lots of accomplishments (To learn a bit more- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume). Our main focus is going to be on his case against miracles.

There are two interpretations of Hume's argument- a wrong one and a right one.

1. Metaphysical Argument (Wrong Interpretation of Hume's stuff) Says:

     a. A miracle is a violation of the Laws of Nature. (Pretty much says that Hume was trying to prove the Impossibility of Miracles). This interpretation also functions as the supposed definition of a miracle (again, it's flawed).

b. Nothing can violate a Law of Nature, therefore Christians are loony to believe in miracles.

But, that wasn't what Hume was claiming when he created his case.

The metaphysical interpretations would bring up an extremely embarrassing flaw in Hume's thinking. He was too smart of a guy to make that kind that kind of a mistake.

You see, Hume's greatest "discovery" or work, was his analysis of the Laws of Science.

He claims that there are two parts to every Scientific Law:
     a. What it says about the past (Based on experience and observation).
     b. What it says about the future (Basic assumption that the future will always be like the past).
But, Where comes the confidence that the future will always be exactly like the past?
Humes answer? We can't have perfect certainty. We have a presupposition, or an act of faith, that allows us to believe that things will stay consistent.

Everyday of each of our lives, and of the lives of millions of people before us, the sun has risen in the east. Technically we can't know that it will happen that way tomorrow. Something in us knows, believes, that it will- but we really can't be 100% certain.

This is the thing, the argument, that made Hume famous. It is in direct contradiction with the metaphysical argument, and therefore- that interpretation is not correct.

So, what is this contradiction?
If we have no real assurance that the Laws of Science will hold up, and miracles are things that seem (Keyword here) to go against those laws, then you can't claim that miracles are impossible. Hume understood that. His point wasn't to disprove their possibility- it was to undermine their probability.

2. Epistemological Argument  

What Hume was really getting at:
(Verbatim Nash's words) "No one can prove miracles are impossible, BUT, even if a miracle did occur- no human could ever know it was a miracle because the probability of a miracle happening is too small. Humans, by nature, will always try to rationalize miracles."

Take for Example This story: (Nash's story)

Say that you and a friend live in the age of Abe Lincoln. Both of you happen to be in Ford's theatre when the president is tragically shot from behind. Let's say you go across the street with Mr. Lincoln, and watch as he slowly passes into the abyss. Staying for a few minutes, you witness his skin grow cold, and can attest to the fact that poor Abe really is dead.

Now, lets say that the next day you wake up, and go into work to find your buddy having a heart attack. He's really freaking out. Once you go over, he proceeds to say, "I saw Lincoln alive this morning. I talked with him, and felt the warmth of his skin. He must have come back from the dead!" Well, the first thing you do is check to see if he's been drinking, or smoking something he shouldn't have been (Keep in mind, this friend is normally stable, and reliably honest).  He genuinely seems to be telling the truth.

Applying Hume's theory- you have two options. First choice- you choose not to believe what your friend has said- and rationalize the situation. You say to yourself, "It was probably something else". Option two- you take what he says as truth.  In all honesty, if someone had said those words to you, what's your response? It's not a rhetorical question... and it' not difficult. You'd probably pick option 1. You saw Abe dead for crying out loud.

So, is it probable that Abe is actually alive? No. Why? Because in your personal experience, no one has ever come back from the dead. Things that have died have stayed dead. It feels unreasonable to you, given your personal observation, to pick option 2.

However...
Nash points out here that our experiences aren't always good enough. We want to pick option 1 because we feel like this sort of exemption has never happened before. This isn't the case though. If we take a look at history- there have been a great many instances of people "coming back from the dead".

So, this changes the definition of a miracle. Now it's not something that contradicts a law of science- it's merely something that seems to be a contradiction- given our own personal experience and observation.

Hume is saying that even if we wanted to believe, our human minds would rationalize the miracle away.
(Link for furthur reading: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/miracles.html)

Response to Hume: 

http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/humefumes.html (This is like all of them... ever. Nash just picks a big one to talk about. If you get bored, and need something to read- this link is for you). 

Hume insinuates that the only way to come to believe in a miracle is through hearing testimony. He doesn't account for first hand experience. 

Another Story: (I do apologize for inserting all these stories, but I feel like they add a bit of color to all this argument stuff. It' nice to have a bit of humor once in awhile.) 

Nash's words, Verbatim: 

" There was a night when I was driving home from a church service (I was in College at the time, living in a little town in NY). It was foggy- to the point of very limited visibility. The road was next to a river- and it had just rained, so the ground was extremely muddy and soft. I took a corner or something wrong, and slipped off the side of the road into the mud. Because the ground was so soft, I couldn't get back onto pavement. Being the stupid 19 year old I was, I kept gunning the motor. Little did I know, I was headed straight for a cliff, and the swirling depths of this river. All of a sudden, the wheel was jerked, not sort of pushed or slightly moved- but jerked left, and I found myself miraculously on the road again. I fancy to myself that I heard a voice say, 'Dummy, let me drive for a while'. Whether that's really what I heard or not.. Well, I'll let you decide. Point being- I was there- and I felt it. You can be a skeptic all you like- but nothing changes my personal conviction that God was intervening that night." 

Direct testimony can be extremely powerful in overturning the Laws of Science.
C.D. Broad- "Clearly many propositions have been counted Laws of Nature because of an invariable experience in their favor. Then, exceptions have been observed time and time again, and that Law ceases to be considered a law."

We used to think we knew a lot of things- and then we discovered that we were mistaken.
But heres the thing- the first time one of those exceptions occurs- it looks like a contradiction. That person looks crazy.

David Humes argument says to reject those exceptions. Hence- if the first report ought to make no difference in the Law, then the second or third...etc, won't either. Hume says that if A doesn't follow B to a specific person (personal experience), they should rationalize it away. This line of thinking would mean that no amount of proof for B following A will ever prove it.

If scientists had actually proceed with Humes thinking- some of the most important Natural Laws would have never been discovered.

His theorizing actually harms scientific progress. Ironic.

One of Humes rebuttals: 

Competing religions also use miracles to support their beliefs. Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. So, how do we show that Christian miracles are any better than the others?

Answer: 

Richard Pertil (Catholic Philosopher)

Genuine incompatibility in miracle would harm us. For example- If a religion were to claim that one of their prophets had come back from the dead and was actually God in human form- we'd have an issue. However, its hard to show that any contradictory miracle such as that has ever been claimed (at least with any shred of credibility).

Other people see miracles, but attribute them to the wrong thing. They actually belong to our God, and fit under our miracles. They don't actually contradict us.

Alleged miracles of non-Christian religions actually help our case. They are an opportunity to put the focus on our All-Powerful, Loving God. We can point out the consistency with our stuff, versus how that miracle fits in with their religion.


Wow. Lots of stuff. Great though- and extremely interesting. Thanks for reading. :) A bit more on miracles to come. Then we'll move onto arguments for Jesus being the only Savior. I'm pretty excited. Stay tuned!

Miracles: Intro

A lot of great stuff in this "chapter". This is a topic that seems to come up a lot- mostly because Christianity is centered around it. We wouldn't have Christianity if God hadn't been born as Christ, or resurrected after being crucified. Keep in mind, this is just an "intro" post, so theres a lot more to come (This is pretty short compared to my other ones). Just a heads up- Nash focuses in on a specific philosopher and his arguments in the lectures to come. It won't be so broad or generic.Though, I think I'm going to try and water things down at the end of the chapter, so that it all comes together again. Feel free to leave comments and thoughts.

A. Miracles

Great dividing line between Liberalism and Biblical Christianity.
If people don't believe in miracles, there is no biblical way they can be Christian. It just doesn't work.

B. David Hume: Scottish Philosopher

Really important guy. (He'll be the main focus for the majority of tomorrow's lecture). Has major argument against Miracles. (But, he believed in God).

Some people offer arguments for the denial of Miracles. Something important- they've got the burden of proof here. There's no argument that completely proves their non-existence.

After we prove that their possible, that's when you can go into specifics (ie. the resurrection, water into wine, etc.)

Logic addresses the possibility.
History addresses the actuality.
(Don't be fooled, History helps us prove miracles- at least the Christian ones. There is a TON of evidence for Jesus's miracles).

Miracles and Worldviews: The reason why some people can't believe in miracles, is because their worldview won't allow it (ie. Naturalism).



I've already listened to the next lecture, and it really does have some great stuff. If this sort of thing interests you- stick around, there's more to come.

Possible Worlds: Middle Knowledge

Alrighty, Just a warning: this lecture sort of trips back on itself. You'll understand better once you read, but as you're reading, keep in mind that Nash says things that he later goes back on. It's to make a point, not to really contradict himself, but nevertheless, it's sort of confusing. Bear with me. It's good stuff though, I promise.

So, Middle Knowledge. What is it? 

A form of knowledge attributed to God by a Jesuit priest- Molina. He was accused of heresy, which tainted his reputation, but he still has great points.

Case study to better understand:
Judas's Betrayal of Jesus

Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. Possible World Scenario: What if Judas had not been paid the 30 pieces?
That proposition is called a Contrary to Fact Conditional.

Remember- Conditionals are "If A...Then B..." statements.
A Contrary to Fact Conditional contains an antecedent clause that is false.

"What if Judas was offered 20 pieces?"
2 possibilities:
     a. He still does it.
     b. He doesn't do it.

You can pursue the possibilities through possible worlds.

Theres no riding the fence, Only one of the possible worlds can obtain. The answer? No clue. Only God knows.

He knows what Contrary to Fact Conditionals would have obtained (essentially, he knows which one would have happened, given it's change in circumstances).

The means through which God understands this is "Middle Knowledge".

There are three ways God knows (Discovered by Molina):
     a. He knows what has happened, and what will happen
     b. He knows what could happen (Pure possibility/All the possible worlds)
     c. He knows what would have happened given a changed variable (This is the big one...)

Implications 

(Here's where you need to take a step back. Don't take all of this seriously, Nash goes back and explains why it doesn't really work. It does sound nice at first though...)

Middle knowledge, given the things we've already stated, has an impact on the Divine Sovereignty Debate. It could possibly reconcile human freedom and divine sovereignty.

God controls the circumstances, and we come in and make the choices.
God leaves the real decision making up to us.
God does not actualize on all of the possible worlds- he can't. He actualizes one through the influence of circumstance. For example, God knew Judas would say yes to 30 pieces of silver. Judas still made the choice though (Preservation of free will).

It solves the relationship between Divine Sovereignty and Free will. (But not really....)

Here's the problem: 

"Entrapment" - When police lure a criminal into making an act through manipulating circumstances (when otherwise the criminal wouldn't have acted).

So, does this mean God is "entrapping" us?
According to the thing above, thats what it looks like.

Mini Rant: Nash doesn't reconcile this, so I'm going to attempt to (Please comment with thoughts...). I think that in order to understand this relationship between Gods sovereignty and free will, we need to take into account his other characteristics. This doesn't answer the non-believer's side, but it sort of addresses it for the believer. God is omnipotent. He is truthful. He is all-knowing. So, when he says that he's sovereign- he means it. And when he says that we have free will- he means it. We may not get the ins and outs, but we're human. We don't necessarily have to get it for it to be truth. And honestly- you probably aren't going to find a super solid answer to this issue. There are ways to reason through it, but it's definitely not an easily fixed problem. If anyone has thoughts on this, PLEASE share. Its making my head spin in circles. I'd really love to know how to address this issue. Nash doesn't even scratch the surface (maybe he will later, but who knows).

Right... Back to Nash...
According to the "Implication" bit:
In order for God to bring about a state of affairs (following the above propositions), he would have to manipulate the entire state of affairs in the history of the world (because everything is intertwined).

All these antecedent conditions which God brings about lead to events happening, like Christ's birth and crucifixion.

BUT...
A sovereign God doesn't need to do that. He doesn't need to manipulate an infinite number of circumstances- it could just be a few. God doesn't need Middle Knowledge (All possible worlds) to influence circumstances. Now, he "needs" it to be considered Sovereign, but he doesn't use it the way certain proponents of Middle Knowledge claim (that'd be the "implication" stuff). Since God is omnipotent (I guess Nash means minus Middle Knowledge...), he could use 1 or 2 circumstances, variables if you will, to change things.

Conclusion

This is another one of those topics that takes a while to digest. After listening to the lecture, taking notes, and writing this post, I'm still not 100% sure on it. But- Nash had a lot of great points. Pondering God's sovereignty (not questioning, just thinking about) is really cool. Its sort of awe-inspiring to think about all the things he knows. Like, specifics, not just "everything". He knows how many stars there are, what each of them is named, the grains of sand, the names of every man, woman, and child, and even better- you. Me. All of us. Not just superficially either- he really knows us. Incredible.

Not to be a broken record- but seriously, if you had thoughts on today's lecture, or even just read it, leave a comment. I love feedback. :)

Stay tuned, soon we start stuff on Miracles. Super interesting stuff guys. You won't want to miss it.

Possible Worlds

I think this lecture helped me make sense of some of the things Nash said in the Intro part of this bit. It's an interesting concept- the whole idea of possible worlds. If you're thinking other dimensions or some sci-fi thing, it's not quite like that. Think philosophy. Like Nash said, it's a tool for understanding the possibility of things. I warn you, it gets a bit heavy at times, but it comes together at the end. 

 A. What is a Possible World? 

It is a way the world could have been, compared to the "real world". 

Think of these circles as possible worlds. Every change in a state of affairs creates a new circle- a new possible world. (Think about a man in the woods, with dozens upon dozens of forks in the road. Sometimes the choices are near endless, and each variation on his route is a possible world. Now multiply that by the number of people that have ever existed in the universe. That'd be the number of Possible worlds. Pretty big huh.)

B. Possible Worlds and Logical Probability 

A state of affairs must be logically possible to exist in a possible world. 

A state of affairs meets these requirements if its definition does not have any logical contradictions.  

C. Logically Possible Vs. Physically Possible

Something can be logically possible, but not physically possible. For instance, is is logically possible to swim across the atlantic ocean, but not physically possible. Not even a little bit. 

Synicuanome- logical consistency. 

Physical possibility can also vary from world to world (Because of the circumstances that can change). For instance- there is a possible world in which I am a cross country runner. Let's say the best in the state. It would be physically possible for me to run a 5:30 mile. If I attempted that in the real world, I would die. 

But, If something is logically impossible, it cannot be physically possible in any world. Take a square circle. It is not logically possible, and therefore is physically impossible (even for God) in any world. 

D. A Possible World is a Complete State of Affairs

Our lives are just a tiny slice of the real world. Imagine that one of these circles (lets say the very first one- top left) is the 'real' thing. It's the one that's actually happening- the one we live in. The other circles are just variations on the real world. 

Plantinga names the real world Charlie (Just to be fun I suppose. I don't quite understand why Nash throws this in here, but it is mildly amusing). 

Nash names his real world "Ronnie". 

Story Time: 

Nash was at a conference where Alvin Plantinga was speaking on the doctrine of Possible Worlds, and the Problem of Evil. Plantinga made the claim, "In every possible world with human beings, they will somehow misuse free will and therefore produce evil."  

Nash's response was something along these lines, "Pardon me Mr. Plantinga, but scripture says that in heaven, there is no sin. Heaven is a possible world, with human beings (and free will), and they never sin." (Nash even admits that he was arrogant enough to believe he had bested Plantinga. He was expecting Plantinga to agree). 

Plantinga response was thus: "Mr. Nash, that just won't do. Heaven is only a slice of a possible world." 

Nash sort of explains the point of this encounter as follows: Heaven is not a possible world- it is a slice of Ronnie. A piece of the real world. It's a big slice- because it's eternal, but it's not a possible world on it's own. (Draw your own conclusions from that, my head's still spinning trying to grasp it's point...) 

E. Books 

For every possible world, there is a "book" about that world. (This is another metaphor...)

All of the propositions for the states of affairs make up the book. 

You cannot add states of affairs into a world, it is complete. (I'm not quite sure what Nash means by this... after contemplating it, I think it might have to do with the variables that change within worlds. Nash doesn't really specify if in a possible world only one thing can be different, or whether multiple variables can be manipulated. I think that he alludes to it here though. He suggests that in a possible world, with it's propositions, a circumstance cannot be "added" in, or changed, because doing so would create another possible world.) 

Because of the number of Possible Worlds- there are that many possible Books. 

There is a Book for the real world as well. Our book is the sum total of propositions as they relate to the states of affairs in our world, past/present/future, as they exist in the mind of God. God knows what's in all of the books. 

Mini Rant: I like that Nash inserted this last bit- "as they exist in the mind of God". Sometimes I feel like when we can't prove something, we automatically assume it's falsehood. This works with some things, but with others, it can be dangerous. As humans, our minds are limited. When it comes to 'extent' statements (Propositions that feel ambiguous- "She likes chocolate a lot") we feel like there are lots of different answers. In everyday terms, we call it opinion. Ultimately though, it's God's 'view' that matters. Ambiguities become clear in the mind of God. Because he is supreme, even if we don't understand something, or cannot fully explain it, that doesn't mean that it cannot exist or be logically possible. 

 F. Contingency and Necessity 

1. Contingent and Necessary Beings

Example of a Contingent being: Humans. We are contingent. We are beings whose non-existence is possible. If your existence is finite, it is contingent. Also, our existence is dependant on variables being manipulated (Food, water, shelter, safety, etc.)

If you are a contingent being, there are possible worlds where you do not, and cannot exist. 

Necessary beings exist in all possible worlds (God is a necessary being). 

2. Contingent and Necessary Truths

Same as Beings. 

 G. Essential and Non-Essential Properties 

Human beings have non-essential properties. Nash uses the example of Baldness (you can guess how much hair he has on his head...). 

An essential property is one that has to be there. We are finite beings. If we weren't, we wouldn't be human. 

On the flip side, God has essential and non-essential properties as well. 

Kenosis Theory says that God gave up some of his attributes to incarnate himself, BUT, if there is a possible world where God gives up an attribute, he ceases to be God. (Notice, there is a difference between attribute and property... Nash doesn't explain that well. When it comes to attributes, he means characteristics. Properties leans more towards decisions. You'll see how in a second...)

So, what is a non-essential property of God? 

Creation. 

How? 

If being the creator was an essential property of God, we'd have pantheism. It would link God and the world in an inseparable way (Instead of God being above and in control). God didn't have to make the world- he chose to. Just like being our savior. He didn't have do, but he did. 

H. Naturalism 

1. Naturalism denies the existence of anything outside the box. (The box refers to Nature or the Universe. See my earlier post on World views). 

2. All you need to disprove Naturalism is 1 thing that exists outside the box. The touchstone proposition of Naturalism is "nothing" outside the box. 

3. Laws of logic must transcend the box. This is ironic, because in order to defend Naturalism- you need the laws of logic. 

Every Naturalist (true naturalist) believes that Naturalism is superior to other worldviews (in essence, they believe it's true). But, to prove that Naturalism is better, he must give evidence, and the evidence must follow the laws of logic. 

Logic cannot be contingent. Why? Because if it was, that would make it finite and dependent on changing variables. In essence, contingent logic is relative truth- which defies the law of non-contradiction. It would be absurd. 

Conclusion (One that Nash has given several times...)-- Naturalism is logically self defeating. 

I. Logic and Laws (Of science, physics, etc.) 

There is a major difference between these things. The laws of say chemistry and physics only exist in some possible worlds. They are contingent. Since the laws of logic transcend the box, they are necessary. They must be infinite and concrete. 

Conclusion

 Lots of stuff covered today. Granted, It was good stuff, but a lot to sift through. Really, this is just a tool for understanding the possibility of things. It's definitely interesting to sit and ponder. Imagine- a near infinite number of Possible Worlds, with different scenarios, choices, people, things, decisions, etc. God knows every one. That blows my mind. 

More stuff on Possible Worlds tomorrow (We get into Middle Knowledge). Stay tuned.  

P.S. Feedback/Comments are seriously welcome! :) 

Possible Worlds: Intro

Today's lecture was interesting. Just a note: It's mostly definitions and pre-stuff. The real meat'll come later. For today, Nash covers the basics, and sort of explains the building blocks of what the Possible Worlds Doctrine is.

A. Modal Logic

What is it?
Traditional Logic has two values- true and false. (Binary Logic)
Modal Logic- refers to three value logic. The three values are true, false, and modality (Modality being necessity, and possibility/impossibility).

Some propositions are contingently true (Meaning it must be true). Others are necessarily true (Meaning things could have been different).

Turning the words into language of Possible Worlds helps that possibility factor be understood.

Heuristic Device: teaching tool. Sort of a metaphor for helping us understand things. Example: styrofoam models of the solar system.

The doctrine of possible worlds is a heuristic device. It's not meant to be literal or straightforward.

B. Review on Propositions 

Difference between a sentence and a proposition. Propositions are best understood as the meaning of a sentence.

Example:
John is the husband of Mary.
Mary is John's wife.

Clearly, these aren't the same sentence, but the meaning (proposition) of both of them is the same. They share the same truth.
Truth is a property of propositions.

Another example- Languages. Ordering between English and Spanish/German/French are different, but the proposition can be the same. Even if word choice is different, because of synonyms the essence of a sentence can be preserved.

C. State of Affairs 

Example:
Sentence:  GW Bush is president in 2001. (Remember, that's when this lecture was recorded)
State of Affairs: GW's being president in 2001.

In order to turn a proposition (Or truth from a sentence) into a "State of Affairs", first make the subject possessive  and then change the verb to gerrant ("is" turns to "being").

State of Affairs is really just the reality which is referred to by the proposition.

When the State of Affairs is true, we say it "obtained". When it is false, it did not "obtain".

Nash says here-
Most of this stuff is common sense/Not hard to figure out. The biggest part is vocab. (I sort of disagree... I think it gets a bit heavy at times, but he's a philosophy doctor, and I'm a junior in highschool...)

D. Eternal Entities 

Claim- propositions and states of affairs are eternal. (Regardless of being true or false. They are eternally one of those).

For example: The Cleveland Indians won the 1948 world series. (Nash likes the Indians)
This state of affairs can't be changed or erased. It has always existed in the mind of God.

It's the same thing as the number one, or the pythagorean theorem.

What about "now" statements? Can the be eternal?
Yes, because "now" refers to a state of affairs at a specific point in time, not the continual state of affairs in a constant "now" state.

For example:
I am typing right now.

This state of affairs in this proposition is this: My doing the action of typing in this specific point in time. The proposition is not saying that "now" is whenever the proposition is read- because then it has no chance of being true. The "now" refers to 7:53 pm on Friday, October 5th, 2012.  Because of the time parameter, this state of affairs is eternal.

Other factors play into the truthfulness of a state of affairs. Some propositions are true, but they haven't closed off those possibilities yet, so they feel false. For example- The dog is barking. This could be a true statement, but because I haven't elaborated, you have no reason to believe it. However, if I were to say, "My dog charlie is barking at 8:32 am on Saturday morning, October 5th, 2012, in Indianola Iowa, United States of America, Planet Earth." There really isn't any room for another possibility. That state of affairs is eternal- it has always existed in God's mind.

My bit: 

This possible worlds thing is pretty cool. I don't know how people sit down and think up this stuff. (I'm not saying they make it up, just that they process/discover it). It blows my mind. It's not too difficult to understand, I mean-  it's just another metaphor, but to be a pioneer for this kind of thinking- that's impressive.

More to come on Possible Worlds in the Next Post. Stay tuned, I think a bit of application is on the way. :)

Cosmological Argument

Alrighty, today is the Cosmological argument. Wow. To make sense of this monster, I'm going to type straight out my notes on Nash's lecture, and then try and process it. Let me know what you think. 

Nash's Stuff: 

Cosmological Argument- Two forms. 

(Good Form and Bad Form)

It's an attempt to argue God's existence because of the existence of the earth. (It's different than Intelligent Design though). Basically it says- God is the first cause. 

It relies on the term "First".  

There are two ways to interpret the word "first".

     a. Temporal- First in time. (Bad version). 

     b. Importance- First in value. 

3 Major failings of the "Bad" argument.  

Pause for a second: The bad argument is basically when a child asks his or her parents where the earth came from, and they respond with "God made it". The child then responds, "Who made God?", and the parents reply, "He just is and always has been. No one created him".  Sound familiar? Ya. That's because we tend to use it a lot. Nash doesn't think it's a very good idea to use it. Though, interestingly enough, he doesn't really give a replacement argument. He just says not to use this one. 

So, What's wrong with the bad argument? 

     a. Even if a series of causes exists, and even if the first cause was there- that doesn't prove that it's still around. Some believe that the universe is like a clock- that it could have been wound up and left to tick on its own. 

     b. It doesn't account for the number of causes. It concludes that there's only 1, but without logic to back it up. Maybe there were more than one "First causes". 

     c. A cause need be no greater than is necessary to produce an effect. So basically- it doesn't prove the characteristics of God, just that maybe something possibly "started" the universe in a way. 

Personal Research: 

Nash's thing just wasn't sufficient in helping me understand this. I'm getting my stuff from Wikepedia (I know, not the greatest source ever, but it's putting thing's simply, and this is purely to help me understand, not for reliability of information. So, sorry, but it's what I'm using). 

Here's how they put it: 

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Makes sense so far. 

Objections (Similar to Nash's)

1. The argument states that there is a First Cause. Meaning- it's exempt from the rule of needing a cause. But why? Why is it exempt? 

My own personal answer is this- (Its not so great, but bear with me...)

Earlier, we talked about presuppositions, and I believe that those come in handy here. A sane and reasonable person knows that there are causes and effects. Everything has some sort of cause. I believe that this is a presupposition that we have. To add on to that- I also believe we have a presupposition that has to do with a beginning. Thing's need a beginning. The third has to do with an infinite loop. We're resistant to let the cause-effect thing go on forever. Eventually we want to know where the cause came from. If you smash those three together- you can sort of paint a picture resembling the cosmological argument. We believe that things need causes, and that thing's need beginnings(somewhere to start). We are reluctant to let it infinitely go on forever. We can tentatively infer then, that there has to be a beginning to cause and effect itself (First Cause). These are just my observations. 

On the flip side, you could question that train of thought, and keep asking "why". I suppose another flaw would be those presuppositions. To acknowledge presuppositions calls into question their origin. I believe it to be God, but for a non-believer it gets a bit more complex. For them, the cause could possibly be evolution, or maybe presuppositions just aren't an option. If you find a flaw, feel free to let me know. 

2. Even if there is a first cause, that doesn't make it God. 

This one I have no counterargument for. The cosmological argument just isn't sufficient on that point. However, I will say that perhaps other arguments could take its place in helping to prove that the first cause is indeed God. (Remember the bucket thing??) 

This next thing completely blew my mind... I'm not even going to attempt to paraphrase. I'll copy, and then take the time to site it. 

Existence of causal loops

A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where travel backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.

The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."^[20]

Not exactly valid, but interesting to think about. 

In esse and in fieri

This is basically the difference between believing that the First cause stuck around, or ceased to exist. For Christians, obviously we believe that He's still around and involved. The cosmological argument doesn't do anything to prove this, it's just a variation of the argument. 

Conclusions 

Overall, I get the argument itself, but for a while, I didn't understand where Nash was going with it. After doing some research, I think I've come up with an answer (even if its not that great). When dealing with "Where did God come from?", a possible solution is this: If we accept (and have arguments for) the characteristics and existence of God, then it gives him the ability to be the exception to the cause and effect rule. If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then he can be the first cause. 

 Therefore- I agree when Nash says that the first response is a "bad" argument. I think the underlying issue is- it has nothing to back it up. It's the right response, but not defended well. If you were to approach it from the side- and say, "Ok, the cosmological approach doesn't work, but maybe arguments for God's omniscience will help..."  we start to see that the response wasn't necessarily "wrong", just in need of further thought. 

Hopefully soon I'll be able to find some good arguments for God's omniscience to share with you guys. 

Leave comments- they're really appreciated! :)  

Thanks for reading. 

Stay tuned for "Possible Worlds". Sounds interesting. Should be good.