God's Existence, Part 3 - First Cause

Now that I am more confident over having better stated my position  (though not comprehensive) regarding physical evidence for God's existence, it is time to move to philosophical arguments. These are ones that answer more serious questions. For instance, how can we understand the world around us? How can we explain it? What do we know about it? How do we know what we do?

Before I begin, I need to re-iterate that my posts on these topics are never intended to be comprehensive. There are plenty of resources providing a  thorough look at these arguments. I do not want you to be convinced that issues of logic and philosophy are this simple. I merely want to bring them to your attention in a way that simplifies them, stirring interest in the topic. It is my hope you will be renewed in your mind as a result, or at least consider researching further details as you feel lead.


With that caveat in place, the first of the philosophical arguments for God I want to consider is one of the biggest, and most popular. It is the cosmological argument. This argument addresses cause and effect in the universe, and essentially says everything that is "caused" - the universe included - requires a "first cause". This "first cause" must not be caused - otherwise, there is no starting point for a chain of cause/effect. If there is no "first cause" at the end of the chain as you go back, you could go back forever. That "first cause" is what we call God.

To imagine this, picture yourself as a 4 year old. Someone tells you that your parents created you. "Who created them?" you ask in response. They reply "Your  grandparents", but answer after answer you innocently repeat the question. Before long, your parents are frustrated! How far back can you go? Forever? If you had just said "God created everything", it would have probably ended the argument.

The first known forms of this argument came from the classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Both verbalized the need for a 'first cause' based on their view of the universe. For Plato, the motion of the universe begged for a "first mover" - the implication being the universe has a fixed beginning and ending. Aristotle, however, disagreed - to him, the universe had always existed, but that begged the need for a.

Many centuries later, Islamic philosopher Avicenna would refine these arguments. He considered the "form" and "matter" of objects as being important to the argument. His idea was that the essence of the universe (whether or not it was moved) is not enough to infer "first cause". Rather, since form and matter give existence to something, there must exist a "first cause" that imparts these qualities to all objects, and as such cannot exist apart from the objects.

Eventually, however, it would be Thomas Aquinas who would revise these arguments in the 13th century, devising one of the most popular versions of the argument. He argued that the first cause itself arises out of the need that all cause/effect chains must have an "uncaused" origin. It is minor variations of this argument that are debated about today, particularly the Kalam cosmological argument (which clarifies that anything with a beginning must be caused). William Lane Craig is perhaps the most popular proponent of this argument, and has put much effort into developing it to adapt to discoveries of modern physics and science.

The basis of debates over this argument center around whether or not "something" (the universe) can come from "nothing" (no God). If so, then a "first cause" is not needed. Believers in God, of course, disagree. But physicists and skeptics say otherwise. Quantum fluctuations have been observed which appear to have no beginning - this would be "something coming from nothing". Other than this being very recent in history, though, saying it does not appear to have a beginning is not the same as saying it has no beginning. More than that, what is overlooked is how physicists defines "nothing". To them, this "nothing" is some sort of quantum vacuum of energy. But that makes it "something", rather than a complete "absence of being".

As you can see, it's easily one of the most complicated and debated philosophical arguments still today. Challenges are frequently presented to various details of the argument. These challenges prompt clarification of certain points, but as this is done, more questions arise. For this reason, it should be noted that the argument has limits to what it can prove. It is not by any means a "settled" argument.

Now that you've gotten a sense of the argument's nature, let's look at some of the more common objections [1]:

1. If everything requires a "first cause", then so does God!
2. Even if I accept there is such a "first cause", it can not be identified as any particular god or gods. 
3. The Big Bang is just as likely a "first cause".
4. If the universe is infinite, then infinite regress is of no concern - there can be an infinite # of causes and effects.
5. If the existence of everything in the universe can be explained, the existence of the the universe itself is explained. No first cause is needed.
6. The Big Bang created the universe, including time and space - therefore cause/effect (functions of time and space) are irrelevant to explaining the universe's beginning.

So, what are we to think of these? They are reasonable arguments, but the semantics are what can be weak. Allow me to offer some counter-claims. As you read through them, you should see how important it can be to just ask questions.

1. The "first cause" must be infinite and uncreated to prevent an infinite loop - having no beginning. God is this cause and has always been believed to have these properties. To say that he has no beginning is to say that he operates outside of time-space limitations. That means he does not need to be "caused".
2. This is just pleading, not arguing. Even if the argument does not identify the nature of the "first cause", God's existence is as plausible as any other "first cause". What is needed is to define possible "first causes" and test those definitions for soundness. (much like testing different religions for consistency/truth)  This is outside the traditional scope of the argument.
3. From a philosophical standpoint, the Big Bang is not a "first cause" but an initial state of the universe. Something still caused it - physicists typically pointing to the previously discussed quantum vacuum. 
4. Infinity is a maximum boundary for the finite. Causes and effects are finite - if they were infinite in number, infinity would no longer serve as a boundary. This would be devastating to mathematics, which relies on infinity as a boundary for finite sets!
5. Can everything in the universe truly be explained? If so, by what terms? If we explain things in the universe using things that are in it, don't those things need to be uncaused? If we explain the universe by things that are not in it, then you have not explained the existence of everything!
6. Much like #2, God can be plugged into this equation. But considering #3, can the Big Bang really be the "first cause"? If so, wouldn't the same objections apply?

There are counter-arguments to each of these, but as I said before they focus on how to define the words used. For instance, how do we define an "event"? What is required of an event to be "caused"? But I hope I have shown the cosmological argument as a strong and plausible proof for the existence of a supreme being. At best, critics may be able to posit alternate scenarios or "first causes" as equally likely, but as the "first cause" is more clearly defined, it could be little else than God. This is what I hope to do as we look at other arguments together - clarify what else we can infer about this "first cause" that screams for a specific "cause" - a personal agent, God.



For further reading, look for some of William Lane Craig's books on the topic.or consider the following sources, which were used for this discussion:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
• Accessed 12/29/2011

• Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
• Accessed 12/29/2011

God's Existence, Part 2 - Christology

As promised, I am back with my series evaluating arguments for God's existence. Last time, we looked at challenges related to "physical" evidence. For the most part, they are often questionable or incomplete. Both skeptics and believers alike don't fully consider what they are communicating. Logic is ignored, bias becomes irrelevant and philosophical arguments are missed. Let's face it - the reality is none of us are perfect in our natural thinking. It takes formal training and time to understand these things!

I also offered a humorous look at Tim Tebow's winning streak as an example of evidence for God. I had  to get it out of my system while it was relevant! But for this post, I want to get more serious about the issue before I move onto philosophical proofs. Why? I was not fully honest before. I babbled for 4 pages and was afraid of my post being too long. I resorted to humor to keep attention and interest. But the truth is, there does remain an honest example of concrete evidence for God's existence. It is often so overlooked, it baffled me to discover it years ago. Can  you think of what that example is? Having recently celebrated the birth of Christ, I can. It is heavily on my mind.

It is the one event in Christianity more important than Jesus' birth.

It is the Resurrection of Jesus!

Think about it - if it can be proven that a human being died and later came back to life - breathing, speaking and interacting with people - this violates what we otherwise know to be true about the physical body. That means some form of supernatural force must have been at work!

You see, there is more to the issue of physical evidence than what we know, how we know it or how much it's been thought out. Another criteria for physical evidence exists - whether or not it is accepted to begin with! This is where I was headed with my Tebow example. Skeptics often feel their scientific evidences are ignored, and they are. We need to evaluate them closer and understand them. Science and intelligence are not the enemy! But skeptics also ignore evidence that points to the Resurrection as a historical event. It violates laws of physics and the natural world (what we know to be true from experience). Why should we believe it happened?

There are many reasons skeptics reject the resurrection, most having to do with awful literature from when Bible criticism was hip and cool. Many of these arguments are addressed by Mike Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, and JPH in Defending the Ressurection. But aside from some of these silly ideas (such as "the disciples were hallucinating"), is there anything else we can discern that keeps skeptics unconvinced? Is it just their stubbornness?

I am inclined to think not. Rather, I think they are not given convincing reasons to believe. As Christians, we tend to preach taking things on "faith" (a wrong kind of "faith", mind you) so frequently, our belief appears hollow. We are only certain of God's existence from personal experience and that remains sufficient. We fail to consider the Resurrection, or our belief, any other way. Just like the skeptic, we ignore that there could be more dimension to our belief

Why do we do this? Is there something wrong with looking at Christianity from other perspectives? When skeptics reject belief in the resurrection, should we abandon it and just push our "faith"? The answer on both accounts is an emphatic NO. We should be convinced the resurrection actually happened. Paul claimed the resurrection of Jesus was the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It was evidenced by all the disciples (1 Cor. 15:5), over 500 believers (1 Cor. 15:6), James (Jesus' brother) (1 Cor. 15:7) and eventually Paul himself (1 Cor. 15:8). This is a bold claim: 500 is a large number when cities like Jerusalem were known to have populations of no more than 30,000-50,000. This was also a close-knit society that silences rumors with no basis in popular opinion (like Wikipedia). Skeptics may reject the Bible's account of history (for reasons that would take many posts to discuss), but the Bible gives us plenty of practical reason to trust it.

We should also be concerned with why skeptics reject the Resurrection. The message they receive from us as Christians has a stronger effect on their belief than any scholar they may read later. Their personal experiences with Christians influence their impression. Shouldn't we then communicate confidence and boldness - especially regarding this most important of events? Nothing is more important than the Resurrection. Paul says without it, our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14), we are liars (1 Cor. 15:15), still in sin (1 Cor. 15:17). Dead believers are lost (1 Cor. 15:18) and we, Christ's body, are to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19).

In short, without the Resurrection being grounded in historical reality, Christianity is founded on a theoretical event. Skeptics know this. Our belief becomes useful only for pop psychology and personal moral guidance. God becomes powerless over death and the natural world. Miracles become myths and Jesus becomes part of our imagination. Our Lord is reduced to little more than a great human being (as all religions claim). His message brings hope, but his victory is minimized and all of mankind loses out.

Without assurance of it's historical basis, the Resurrection becomes some kind of "spiritual event", instead of a reality that transforms our very existence and personhood. Our "faith" becomes irrelevant, and with it our "personal testimony". If we are to change the world with the news of Christ, shouldn't we begin to challenge that perception? Otherwise, how much power can Christ have in our world? How much can he work in someone's life who isn't convinced of his most powerful accomplishment?

I have obviously only touched the surface of the evidence for believing in Jesus' resurrection. I mostly appealed to the Bible - other sources are beyond the scope of my blogging. But hopefully you see it is a valid place to start. If someone denies the Bible's accounts as valid, the burden is theirs to prove why. Even a cursory glance at the composition of and manuscript evidence for the Bible provides difficult challenges to anyone who would just ignore it's witness to history.


In the end, we must reclaim Jesus' resurrection - not just as the central event of our faith, but as a real and historical event that changed the world forever. Skeptics have always been around - even prominent Romans doubted Jesus' resurrection. But eventually, most people became convinced. Why? Because witness to the event was too powerful to be denied! We have much more than "faith" to go on!

The Silent Struggle

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.(Ephesians 6:12)

The 'struggle' we fight as Christians is a silent one. I believe most Christians understand that. We may complain about ways our culture has been deceived by the enemy, but we know deep down there is a spiritual battle behind it. Not everyone may see it, but we do, and we know it is important to win.

However, I often wonder if we're short-sighted in considering our strategies for the war. The obvious ways to fight the struggle, according to popular wisdom, focus on being more spiritual. For example - pray more, read the Bible, practice fasting/discipline, refrain from sin, serve others - things that please God. And these behaviors are perfect for some the enemies' tactics. But are they enough? Are they always what is needed? Isn't this close to how the Pharisees acted?

The Greek here for struggle (Strong's 3823) literally means wrestling - as in Greco-Roman style matches (not WWE). This means the 'struggle' involves more than just our behaviors. It is a down-on-the-ground test of strength, stamina, grip, agility and strategy. It is a test in which the enemy is in our hands, eye-to-eye, fighting for domination and breathing down our neck. It is a struggle for every aspects of our life, a strategic test of our entire being. Ask someone you know who wrestled in school to explain the experience to you. To win requires whole-body training, time, work and effort. It is a sport, but it is not entertaining for the participants. For them, it is a hard-fought battle of mind and body, that can be over in just a brief moment. One wrong move can cost you everything.

Therefore prayer, good-will, wishful thinking or righteous behavior is not enough to fight the battle. We must be flexing and training all aspects of our being. We must prepare our whole person - body, soul, heart and mind. We cannot believe that narrow strategies are sufficient. We cannot believe that doing what is convenient to us is sufficient. We must go further than that, and be challenged to go deeper.

Why do I make this point? Because I think many strategies of Christ's body are not focused on mental aspects of Christian development. Sure, some people may be committed to memorizing Bible passages or reading scriptures. But how many? And how deep does that take one?

Allow me to share a recent experience, which I hope demonstrates how real and present a threat the battle for our minds is. I serve as adviser to the Jr. High youth for my church. I am 1 of 4 people who help plan activities for them to be involved in - from games and movies to service projects, over-nighters and everything in between. But I am also responsible for leading Wednesday night lessons once a month. And recently, I used my monthly lesson to wrap up things I did not finish during Sunday School.

The discussion was about how the Bible compares to other books. It started off well - the kids easily grasped how people use other books to get hope, purpose and comfort - things we believe the Bible is helpful for. Moving on, they also seemed to understand the Bible's uniqueness is its message of Jesus. From there, however, it did not take long for questions to pour in. The kids were steps ahead of my lesson plan!

One after another, each of the 6 kids had their own questions - and plenty of them. Questions came up about the Bible's origins and composition. Then were some questions about the compilation (canon) of the Bible. Another kid hinted at concerns about alternative gospels. Eventually, even dating the book of Genesis came up! I was hit from all sides, and this went on for half an hour. I have never more busy in all my evenings as a teacher in church!

Did you remember these were Jr. High youth? First year students, to be specific - most aged 12. Had I not studied apologetics for 7 years, I might have preferred a quiet room to sit in! Of course, this was the kind of thing God has prepared me for. I am grateful that He truly knows how to best use his followers! But how would you have felt in the same situation? How many Sunday School teachers do you know would have been able to answer these questions? What about parents? What would the kids have learned if I had not answered the questions?

I wish I could say this was just a rare scene, a coincidence. But this was 1 of 4 such experiences - in the last month alone. Other experiences involved more serious discussions. Questions were asked about God himself - why was he harsh in the OT? What does he do for people that don't know Jesus? Each kid had their own struggles come to light - and of their own accord. The enemy had not even set foot in the arena! How I handled this had consequences for how deep these kids might go in their faith. (read what child psychologists say about the teenage years)

I can't toot my own horn - the answers to these questions are standard fair for numerous apologetic resources. But are 12-year old kids who you picture as the target audience for apologetics? Consider this - these are not kids that ignore church. They are regulars, much like their parents, and have been since childhood. They are not college rebels, or adults soured on church. They are not "too-smart-for-their-own-good" geniuses (though some are very smart) and are not looking for reasons to abandon church. They are  teenagers - testing boundaries in the adult world, learning to be a part of it. They are trying to think for themselves. They are in the church, listening to what we say, wanting to know what we think. Have you wondered about what message they are getting?

I often worry that a large part of Christ's body is focused on spirit, soul or body in our 'struggle'. The battle for our mind is not fully engaged. We see it as won when we can quote scripture, believe the right things, hold to traditions or correct attacks from the enemy. But is this enough? What are the "right things", anyway? Do we understand our beliefs? Can we teach them to others and share it as part of our witness? Have we had them challenged? When we read things we don't understand, do we seek to study them? Or do we disengage from the intellectual battle, retreating into prayer, righteous and wishful thinking?

I will re-iterate this is only one aspect of the struggle we have with our enemy. But, fearing it to be overlooked, we must make a better effort to engage it. I would dare not try to define a "one-size-fits-all" solution to the problem, but a good start is knowing where to go for answers (rather than thinking you must have them all, or ignore it completely). We must understand what we know to some degree. We may not all be Bible scholars, but we should try to figure things out and see them in context - as part of a larger picture. We should know what covenants are, what words actually mean. doesn't hurt to know how the Bible was composed, either, or what rhetoric and oral tradition are like. It  It may not affect your salvation, but it could affect your witness to others. Or, it just may be you that gets caught with a question you can't answer. What will you do then - give the enemy a foothold by retreating to the familiarity of your strengths? Or will you train yourself for a wrestling match?




If you're ready to train, consider checking out Tektonics online, or look for Josh McDowell books at  your local Christian bookstore. His work is  great for beginners, and he even publishes books aimed at teens. Beyond  that, Bible study must involve more than opinions of friends or church members. Consult experts - scholars, commentaries and the like - to get a broader view of scripture than we are capable of. We would seek medical advice from doctors after all, right?

God's Existence, Part 1 - Intro and Evidence

As Christmas gets near, it is difficult for me to be in a serious frame of mind. The holiday itself brings plenty of stress and strain on schedules, so I try hard to remain "merry" and "light" during this month. It is even harder to be serious with my recent discovery of rappers "Fog and Smog" from the Hyundai Holidays commercial. So it may be weeks before I'm looking at life seriously again. I suspect a bone-chillingly cold winter morning will be needed to snap me back to reality.

That being said, my post today kicks off an attempt to tackle a serious topic. It is a very broad topic in scope, very complicated, and should take many posts to flesh out. I will not do them all in sequence (I have many current issues I want to discuss). These posts will also not be my best work. What is this complex topic? Arguments for the existence of God - something people often believe easily settled, but is often more complicated than given credit.

The fight over proving God's existence tends to take 1 of 2 general directions: either it focuses on actual evidence or philosophical proof. There are over 2 dozen philosophical proofs - more than I care to look at during Christmas. So for now I will focus on physical evidence. After all, there is much hype over Hadron colliders and Kepler exoplanets these days. Physical evidence also happens to be the most easily abused path of proof, as people rarely consider things like epistemology (how do we know what we know?) or pre-suppositions (what do I assume to be true before I even interpret evidence?).

On the side of evidence, empiricism states we should only believe what we can observe with our natural senses. In it's more extreme form, it is said that because we cannot observe God himself in a measurable way, we should not hold belief in him. Or, if we do, we do so merely on "faith" (wishful thinking) and not reality. It is a popular philosophy, and one that under-girds much of mainstream scientific opinion. But despite its presence in this modern arena, this type of thinking is not new. It actually predates the modern scientific era by a few thousand years, being championed as early as 3^rd century BC by thinkers like Epicurus.

Giving this concept serious consideration is difficult, as numerous challenges can be offered. Should we expect God, part of an unseen spiritual realm, to be measurable by visible, physical standards? Because one does not have the proper tools to “measure” God’s existence, should it be ruled out? If I were born a century before Galileo, but was convinced of heliocentrism - should I have abandoned that belief because I did not have the tools to prove it? These are all just the most obvious of questions that should be considered. They are by no means complete, but fairly self-evident and yet rarely addressed by scientists and skeptics.

Of course, the challenge from skeptics is not itself shallow. While believers do not hold to empiricism, they still claim 'proofs' for God based on similarly subjective or questionable criteria. For instance, people may argue God based on the effectiveness of prayer, a personal experience they've had, or some child’s out-of-body experience. Believers try very hard to point to people and say “God exists!”. But each of these things, no matter how well intentioned, are little better than the infamous Pascal's wager. They leave one to be convinced by little more than chance (Pascal), isolated incidents (personal experience), things that cannot be measured (effectiveness of prayer) or visions of the afterlife that are ethnocentric (the product of a particular ethnic or cultural influence). Sometimes, the experiences themselves even have natural or psychological explanations.

So, I believe skeptics have a right to reject such proofs. Christians should be careful to use them, too. The Israelites were told how to test for people falsely speaking for God (Deut. 18:20). The punishment was the most severe possible. Are we prepared to subject our own beliefs, experiences and comments to the same scrutiny? Are we so impervious to personal deception simply because we claim belief in God? These are useful proofs, but are best used to peak curiosity in people uncertain about their beliefs, that may not be asking for intellectual evidence .

In the end, both sides of evidence-based arguments are not as helpful as they would seem. They seem to be simple and surefire ways to point to God’s existence (or lack thereof), but are ultimately based in personal opinion or experience. In some sense, one has to "stack the deck" to make these arguments work all on their own. Skeptics operating on empiricism are saying "you can prove a supernatural being exists, but don't use supernatural proofs". Christians trying to argue their own experience are often implying "I don't care about your proofs!"  This is a hard pill for anyone to swallow who is seriously considering all possible explanations for something. Neither side will ever win on this type of tactic alone.

Skeptics should be vocal about their prior commitment to excluding supernatural proof, much as people prefer to know when drug companies fund studies showing the benefits of their latest drug. Similarly, Christians are committed to proving God's existence by all means. This is confirmation bias - a dirty word with many "objective" people. It may be viable, but it alone is not sufficient -these types of proofs are rarely ones to rely on alone. We should supplement them with other arguments, and not insist on them convincing our enemies.

It would be better if we could find some evidence all people agree on and work from there. (SARCASM ALERT) In that regard, perhaps this year has finally brought the world such evidence. And in an surprising source - Tim Tebow. No sports star in history has proven so difficult for sports commentators to understand or accept. Why? And what does this have to do with proving God's existence? I believe the answer to the second question will be obvious if I carefully frame my answer to the first.

Part of the controversy over Tebow comes from his public acknowledgment of his Christian faith (a topic I hope to explore more), and the natural opposition that follows. But aside from that, Tebow's performance for Denver this year has been the greatest source of confusion for sports writers. They have all tried to explain it away, but have utterly failed - some beginning to get on the bandwagon. Let me elaborate:

Tebow was a Heisman-winning quarterback (the first as a sophomore!) who set SEC records for the dual-threat of his pass efficiency and running prowess. An obvious candidate for superstardom, he was drafted to the NFL by the Denver Broncos. However, he struggled to convince coaches of his ability to start. His first year, he did not even start until late in the season – when the Broncos record was of no consequence. Summer camp came and went, and Tebow seemed destined to be another victim of professional competition - remaining out of the starting position for yet another year.

That was, until 5 weeks of play proved Denver’s starter, Orton, just as poor a performer. With hope for little else, Tebow got his chance. He grabbed a few lucky touchdowns, but the game was still lost by a very shaky performance. It seemed he was as bad as people feared, if you believed sports writers. His next game, he started and his performance continued to lag. All but 3 minutes ticked off the game clock, and Denver was scoreless. Coaches had to be wondering if they made the right decision. Then, it happened - Tebow began a miraculous (and historic) comeback – grabbing 18 points in a way that would have made John Elway blush.

Unfortunately, game after game, week after week, one performance after another, Tebow continued to struggle. He seemed to be giving opponents hope of scaring him back to the sidelines. He lost his next game to Detroit. But as time went a pattern emerged - while he struggled in his games, he somehow made comebacks to win. Over time, the Broncos racked up 6 straight wins this way!

So, the fact that Tebow is a source of confusion for people is obvious. While his statistics are not terrible, they do not scream “good”, and would look terrible without the comeback performances. For instance, from the Wikipedia page:

And here's my point: anyone who leads a team through such an amazing winning streak with average stats and questionable performance, I believe, is undeniable evidence for God’s presence. Skeptics chalk the wins up to skill, but these stats do not agree. If his wins were also chance, Tebow would not have beaten a team like Minnesota. Te fact that New England broke the winning streak is not a disproof of my theory, either. Rather, it remains a subtle reminder of an NFL truism - anyone who takes on the Patriots needs more than God on their side.

For further thoughts on proving God, other problems with the issue and if we should even rely on it, see Glen Miller's thoughts at the Christian Think-Tank here (his response to question #1) and here.

Introduction

For my first post, I simply want to take the time to introduce you to the nature and purpose of my blog, and in the process share a bit about myself.

I was never concerned much about religion growing up. My teenage years were spent concerned more about video games than church. But I was always someone whose whole world took place in his mind. Entire conversations, relationships and even fights were only a few thoughts away. I always knew my brain was super active. So when I became a Christian back in 2004, it seemed a natural response when God led me to think critically about my faith. As I did, however, I found myself on the brink of skepticism. Questions came faster than answers, and I had never thought about any of this stuff.

Luckily, I found some great Christian apologetics ministries, such as Tekton, Christian Think Tank and Answers In Genesis. I studied  them obsessively, reading day and night, training my theological thought to be transformed and renewed. I have continued to do so to this day - broadening the scope of my knowledge as I seek to know the mind of God. I have studied beyond philosophical issues to look at contextual issues, text-criticism and even translation troubles. All the while, I have tried to remain involved in the world, using the knowledge for good and balancing it with grace. It has been a long road.

During all this time of study, I unfortunately found one theme that seems to stand out above any other - popular theological thought (in the west) simply stinks. It is shallow, devoid of context and lacks peer review. It caters to the fast-food world rather than challenging it. And it is, I feel, contributing to a trend in the America whereby there are many 'believers' in God, but their view of God is small - no matter how big they believe Him to be in their mind.

My goal, then, for this blog, is the very same one shared by the apostles Paul when writing to the Corinthians:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor 10:5, NIV).


How do I intend to do this? Quite simply by sharing simple but personal thoughts on issues that come to my mind, which communicate important points on Christian thought. If I give you, the reader, some tough thoughts to chew on, I'll succeed in my purpose. I am not wanting to change minds as much as challenge them - much like various people challenged my own thoughts to help them mature. I will tackle everything from apologetics to philosophy, current events and even conspiracy theory.  The things I share are intended to give fuel for people to change their minds; the change itself is a job only God's Spirit can achieve.

So, this is not a blog from which you should expect long, scholarly or detailed posts forcing my opinion. I want readers to know God more and strengthen their faith. That cannot happen if I "preach to the choir". Where it serves to support my point, I'll reference relevant experts or sources. And I do expect interested readers to follow external links to complete their journey. Those who don't should still come away with some helpful thoughts. But I am not an expert on anything in particular, and will never pretend to be. I also do not presume to be unbiased, but try to share and predict multiple viewpoints on a topic, as any good rhetorician would.

In closing, I hope you look forward to what I have to share. I have longed for a while to expose troubling theological thoughts, trends and tactics - taking them to task. In the hopes of renewing intellectualism within Christian circles, this blog, I hope, will start a ball rolling. The atmosphere of theology in Western culture is slowly becoming a dark place - it's time to shine a light...