Monthly Archives: November 2008

Anti-God campaign…

I’m sure most of my readers, both believers and non, have already seen or heard about the latest campaign by the “new atheists.”  This one, in Washington DC features the phrase, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

This backs several of my recent blog posts, and/or comments.  The first is that there is now a group of fundamentalist atheists that like to proselytize their religion.  On the surface the group tries to hide their true aim of proselytizing behind some notion that atheists feel a bit lonely around the holidays.

Hmm….”Why believe in a god?”  Yup, that really seems to be about the loneliness of non-believers.  This also displays my point nicely about morality.  “Just be good for goodness’ sake,” provides no hint as to who gets to decide what “good” means, or why I should logically care about “goodness’ sake.”

Again, if there is no God, there is no absolute objective morality….if there is no objective morality, the definition of “good” is totally and completely up for grabs.  It becomes mere human opinion.

Of course proselytizing is indeed the real reason behind these campaign ads…do I support their right to put the ads out there?  Yes, but the true intentions behind the ads must become known as well.

Here’s a news story on FOXNews about the ads: “Why Believe in a God?” Ad Campaign


Filed under Atheism, Of Interest

Jehovah-Tsidkenu; The LORD our Righteousness…

Jehovah-Tsidkenu is another of the revealed names of God.  As noted above, in the title it translates into “The LORD our Righteousness.”  This is one of His names that should bring utmost peace and comfort to believers; for we do not have to rely on our own righteousness, which is as filthy rags to God, God Himself is our Righteousness.

Anytime we are being accused, being reminded of our sin, either by other humans, Satan, ourselves, etc… all we really have to do is return to this name of God.  He is our Righteousness, and no one can ever take away or put down a righteousness like that.

The name comes from Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

This name ultimately points to Christ, who does indeed become our righteousness, and anyone in Him has His righteousness imputed to them.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That is the only righteousness that counts for anything because it is a perfect righteousness.  This is why one must be in Christ to be reconciled to God, and we come to be apart of Christ by faithing in/on Him.

He is righteousness itself and He is the standard which we are called to meet; we cannot meet that standard on our own, which in turn is why we need Christ.

Romans 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

This is why faith in Christ (and Christ’s own faith) is so important.  Come judgment day those that have not faithed in Jesus do not have His righteousness accounted to them.  They must rely on their own righteousness, and that cannot stand before Righteousness itself; before a completely Holy and Perfect God.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Christians beating themselves up over some slip or sin. I do it all the time (yes, both sinning and beating myself up 😉 )…you start to question yourself, and realize what a wondrously adept sinner you really are, then that leads to questioning one’s salvation and it shouldn’t!  Why?  Because our righteousness does not come from ourselves, our righteousness is God Himself once we come to Him in faith!

Turn to this name to be reminded of that, and call out to God praising Him and thanking Him for being that Righteousness and providing us a means by His Grace to have that Righteousness accounted to us!  Thank God, literally, that I don’t have to present my sinful self to God without His righteousness being applied to me.  All believers, all faithers, in Christ have the exact same righteousness, and that is God Himself.

Other names of God I’ve blogged about thus far: Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah-Rohi, and Jehovah-Rapha.


Filed under Christianity, Names of God, Theology, Uncategorized

Apologetics; The Moral Argument for God…

As with the other philosophical arguments in support of God; The Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological, there is one more major one, and that is the Moral Argument for God.

This argument is also presented in a general way in philosophical circles; Moral Law only makes logical sense if there is indeed a God, though they don’t really attempt to label which God it is from a philosophical perspective.  As always, I’ll present this from that general perspective, and then show how it does indeed point to The God; The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The God of Christianity.

There is a distinction to be made before really getting into the main argument; that is the distinction between moral laws and Moral Law.  Moral laws (notice the lower case “l” and the plural), are those laws that vary from culture to culture, and person to person.  Moral Law (capital “L” (which is a personal notation preference of mint) and the fact that it is singular) pertains to morality in and of itself; the fact that everyone recognized that there is “a” right and wrong, even if disagreeing on the particulars.  Moral Law denotes moral principles that are absolute, and objective; in other words meaningful morality.

Humans have a definite sense of right and wrong, there are even areas of “universal” morality; such as each and every human culture having some kind of laws about marriage, and/or sexual practices.  Then, even with the differing moral laws, we see a high level of similarities.

CS Lewis brought this point home by urging people to compare the laws and moral thinking of the various civilizations; Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, Babylonians, etc… Lewis tries to get people to imagine a culture where cowardice in good causes is admired and taught to the next generation; it just wouldn’t happen, it would be illogical.  The idea of morality and Moral Law, or Real Morality is discussed by Lewis in depth in Mere Christianity, which I recommend to anyone digging into this.

But, as mentioned before, the Moral Argument rests more on Moral Law, instead of the changing laws of culture.  Moral Law is moral consciousness; everyone has a sense of right and wrong, even someone like a psychopath.  Now, that psychopath won’t have the same idea of moral laws, but there will be somethings that he will indeed hold to be “right” or “wrong.”  He might very well think it ok for him to kill someone, but he probably would think it wrong for someone to steal his car.

On another level, the psychopath example serves as another illustration; the vast majority of humans recognize that there is something wrong and deviant with that psychopath.   We all recognize that we don’t just have a difference of subjective opinion with Hitler, no, we recognize that Hitler was absolutely and objectively wrong in his actions, even to the point of being evil.

There can only be objective and meaningful right and wrong, good and evil, with an Absolute Law-Giver.  That Law-Giver is labeled “God.”  Of course there are some philosophers that claim to be relativists; they claim that indeed all morality is completely and utterly subjective…but how many of those philosophers actually live out that perspective?

If I stand up in front of a room of people and declare it perfectly ok to kill a little three year old child that annoys me, simply because he annoys me, they are going to very rightly disagree.  A relativist has to admit that it is a valid opinion, and just as true or good as those that argue against killing that child.  That means there would be not actual right nor wrong, no good nor evil, all of it is just opinion.

Relativism also falls by pulling the logical rug out from under its own feet; if every opinion is just as true or right as every other opinion, then what about the opinion that there is an absolute and objective morality?

To any rational human being that is a totally outrageous claim that does not jive with reality.  So, if we claim any kind of meaningful morality at all, it requires a Source; an objective, absolute and unchanging source; that source is God.

One wonderful thing about Christianity is that Christ Himself embodies God’s will, and His unchanging nature.  Not only did the Law-Giver reveal His will and Law to mankind, He also sent us the Son Who is the absolute model of that Law.  He fulfilled the Law without ever sinning (which is simply missing that perfect bulls eye of God’s Will), and He is unchanging in that perfection.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

If morality is right and wrong, we get and act in all true “rightness” via God. God isn’t just the author of Righteousness, and He doesn’t “just” define it like we define a word, He is Righteousness. If Righteousness is “right-ness” everything God does is “right;” God is right if you want to.

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

It’s not about a matter of arbitrariness, righteousness from God is, just as God is (He is “I AM”). Without God, there is not an actual, useful idea of righteousness, without Him it is a meaningless, subjective, arbitrary concept.  This idea is backed up by one of His names; Jehovah-Tsidkenu; The LORD our Righteousness.  It’s one of those wonderful teachings of Christianity; we don’t have to really on our own poor righteousness; The LORD Himself is our righteousness.  I’ll have to do a longer blog post on this name of God soon.

Leviticus 2:18 Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.

He is constantly revealing Himself to us as Righteousness and Holiness itself.  As with the other arguments for God, the God of the Bible fits the bill perfectly.


Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Philosophy

Another example of how Atheism is a religion…

Uncommon Descent posted this bit about Adam Rutherford’s comments on Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life: Adam Rutherford on his atheists’ Holy Book.

I blogged in the past about the religious overtones of Atheism, and how those within it’s own ranks even see the connection, though are usually loathe to admit it.   Church of the New Atheists was my previous post, which explores the odd idea of Atheist “church,” and the fact that many atheists, especially online, love to proselytize their religion.


Filed under Atheism, Origins

God and politics…

I talked briefly about Religion and politics in an earlier blog post.  This time I want to shift the conversation to God and politics.  Many people have reacted in one of two ways to the outcome of the election; with great joy or with great sadness.

Regardless of our personal feelings, there is one thing to always keep in mind; God is in control.  Ultimately it is His will that indeed will be done, and He does influence and move certain individuals and nations at certain times to see that His will is carried out (ex: Romans 13).

Now, that in no way means that we are to follow a civil law or command that goes against our Christian faith or belief; there is plenty of scripture quite to the contrary(ex: Acts 5:29).  However, we all know that even when Satan, or even just human folly places the wrong person in a position of power, God can enter into all things to turn it to good.

In history, there have even been those enemies of Israel that God did indeed use for His own purposes.  Even those that set themselves against God and His people can and will be a part of His will.

So, either way; if God chose the next president and put him in that position, or if other forces were in play, God will indeed bend the present, and history to His use, it is all in His control.  As always we are told to fret not, and also that regardless of person positive or negative feelings that God’s will is what is important, and that we should all pray that it be carried out here in our current lives.


Filed under Christianity, Musings, Religion and Politics

Correlation does not equal causation…

Repeat it with me folks: “Correlation does NOT equal causation.”  I realized, whilst watching the news this morning, that this indeed a very important concept for people to really grasp.  I mean, I know it is important because I teach it in both my college Psych course and in Logic…but, I didn’t really realize how many people don’t really get the meaning of that phrase.

So, if two things are correlated, they do indeed have a relationship; for one example as one variable rises, so does the incident of another variable.  For a real world example, I’ll use this morning’s news blurb; A study has found a correlation between autism and rainy weather.

This means that kids raised in a place with more rainy weather had a greater incident of autism than those who were not.  Now…the common mistake is for someone to latch onto that and exclaim, “So, rainy weather causes autism!” No, no, no, no, no…no.

Just because something has a relationship does not speak to cause and effect.  You cannot make the claim that rainy weather causes autism, because that is not what the study found…all you can say is that rainy weather and autism rates are correlated.

This is something the news anchor didn’t seem to grasp and began to ridicule the study.  Now maybe the study was a poor one, I don’t know, but I do know that there was no claim made in the study that the rain causes autism.  Now, it is possible to study this further, which I’m sure will be done, but the point of this blog post is to hammer this fact into people’s head; just because there is a relationship between two things, it does not mean one caused the other.

The person being interviewed understood this, and gave an example of what could be happening (remember, this is just speculation); perhaps kids that live in rainy environs do not go outside nearly as much as those who live in sunny environs…that would have several possible impacts.  The rainy kids may watch much more TV, get less exercise, be vitamin D deficient, may not interact as much socially with others since they are stuck in the house, etc… OR perhaps there are chemicals in the rain, blah, blah, blah.

This mistake of thinking correlation equals causation is a very common one, especially in “scientific” research (“scientific” is in quotes because some supposedly scientific research is anything but).  Mainly it is misunderstood by people trying to interpret research, including reporting in the news media.

Here’s another example that every single one of my students knows, and loves: It is a fact that as ice cream sales rise, so does the number of deaths from drowning.  Now, the mistake would be to think that eating more ice cream causes more people to drown…what’s really going on?  Think about it.  That’s right; it’s summer time; ice cream sales and deaths from drowning are indeed correlated positively.  In summer, both variable are affected as more people buy ice cream in the summer, and more people also do water activities in the summer.

So, remember: Correlation does not equal causation.


Filed under Logic, Musings

Apologetics; The Ontological Argument for God…

I must admit, right off the bat that this philosophical argument for God, in its “simplistic” form is one of my least favorites, though when seen as a set of arguments for God, it makes much more logical sense.  As with the other two philosophical arguments I’ve already blogged on: The Teleological and Cosmological, this argument is presented as a “general” support for God, not religion specific.

St. Anselm is kind of the “go-to” philosopher for the Ontological Argument, and it revolves around that idea of God, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”  Then, through different logical arguments winds up with the conclusion that God must then exist.

If God is defined, not as just a definition, but as a being that is the most perfect being in existence, or the greatest being possible, then the argument goes that He does indeed exist.  Why?  Because God is the greatest or most perfect being, and it is greater to exist than to not, therefore God must exist.

To put it simplistically; which would you rather have a million imaginary dollars, or a million real dollars?  Which is greater?

The big argument against the Ontological argument for God comes in the form of a question; Is existence a “predicate?”  A predicate is a defining property or, if you like, a defining characteristic or attribute.  Does the fact of existence actually add anything meaningful to the idea of God?

Well…that is a good question if we stop at Anselm’s first argument, but if we continue to look at his arguments it becomes clear that there is logical reason to see God’s existence a predicate.  This “second” argument of Anselm’s revolves around this notion; God is a greater being if He cannot not exist; if His existence is necessary.  If His existence is necessary, then it would indeed be a predicate.

Basically the logical idea boils down to two possibilities; since God is not a limited being, either His existence is impossible or it is necessary.  The existence of God is not impossible, therefore because of His nature and the nature of existence, His existence is necessary.

To put it in the words of Norman Malcolm (1963), “If God, a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, does not exist then He cannot come into existence or have happened to come into existence, and in either case He would be a limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not.  Since He cannot come into existence, if He does not exist His existence is impossible. If he does exist He cannot have come into existence (for the reasons given), nor can He cease to exist, for nothing could cause Him to cease to exist nor could it just happen that He ceased to exist.  So if God exists His existence is necessary.  Thus God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.  It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd.  Assuming that this is not so, if follows that He necessarily exists.” (Knowledge and Certainty: Essays and Lectures)

Breathe.  Take your time and read it over again slowly…it definitely is a logical argument that can confuse if read too fast.  The first time I read the Ontological argument it felt as though someone was trying to pull the wool over my eyes, or just simply put one over on me.  It takes some time to really grasp the logical argument in all of this.

Scriptural backing for this philosophical idea from a Christian perspective?  I find the most compelling parallels in the very names of God, such as I AM that I AM, and also titles such as “The Almighty.”  The first shows God’s self-existence, and the second shows His supremacy over all things created.

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God…

The idea of God as the ultimate being is readily apparent as well:

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

His necessity is also clear, when we read of Him being The Creator of all things;

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So, both we as humans define God in a certain way even just on a philosophical level, and God Himself has revealed to us that He is indeed the greatest being possible, that His existence is necessary, and that He does indeed exist.


Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Logic, Names of God, Philosophy, Theology

Movie Review; Lost Boys: The Tribe

Ok…first thing first, for any big fan of the original Lost Boys, you have got to already know that this movie will disappoint you.  It’s inevitable, isn’t it?  Even with that in mind, did I find it disappointing?  Yes.

Chris and Nicole Emerson have lost their parents; they died in a car accident.  They apparently have no one else in the world except a horrible aunt…so they relocate thinking she’ll help them out with a home, but no such luck.  Moving to Luna Bay, they quickly discover that the local surf scene is much more interesting than elsewhere; as the waves are ridden by a gang of blood suckers…one of which falls for Nicole.  “Hilarity” ensues.

There are good things about the movie, and bad things about it…one of the worst things is that if a few actors, and plot lines had been changed ever so slightly, it would have actually been a decent sequel.  First, the bad; it was as if the creators of the movie wished to gross everyone out.  That seemed to be the whole point of the movie.

Fake blood and guts galore.  Wonderful.  I can get that from any second rate horror flick out there; it is a disservice to the original that was all about a new and different story told with emphasis on characters and their relationships…and life, as well as a new take on the vampire myth.  Yes, the original had fake blood too, but the focus was not on the cheesy effects.  I didn’t like the overdone (and changed) makeup of the vampires in this one; the more subtle metamorphosis of the vampires’ features in the first was much more preferable.

The sex scenes.  Gratuitous.  They seemed to be inserted into the movie, not for any real plot device or any real reason…but just to try to get teenage boys to rent and watch the movie hoping for a glimpse of skin, which they would get plenty of.

The acting…I usually don’t like to say negative things about people’s acting, but they definitely could’ve gotten a different lead actress to play Nicole Emerson.  I don’t think it was entirely her fault, but I could not buy the sibling chemistry between Nicole and Chris in the movie.  Again, that chemistry pales in comparison with the original siblings of Michael and Sam.  Why do I place more “blame” on her?  Because, even in scenes with Angus Sutherland, I never lost sight of the fact that she was acting.  I saw her (Autumn Reeser) rather than her character, Nicole…to me, she seemed distinctly uncomfortable.

I suppose some would count this next bit as SPOILERS: Corey Feldman does make a return as Edgar Frog.  What upset me a bit about this was that with a few changes, the character of Edgar Frog could’ve really taken center stage and pulled the two movies together.  As it stands, it is almost as if the director just told Corey to act like he did in the first one.  The result?

Edgar Frog is now a man in a full grown adult body, but despite all the things he’s seen and done, he’s still acting and talking like an adolescent.  I get it; it was supposed to be funny…but the character could’ve really been surprising and fresh if he had indeed grown up in every sense of the word.  A good thing about Edgar’s character?  Corey Feldman himself did a great job stepping back up to the plate.

Now, other good things?  I did enjoy Tad Hilgenbrink as Chris Emerson; he fit the part, acted well, and really seem to get the “Emerson” vibe down, filling Michael’s shoes (Jason Patric from the first movie).  Also, Angus Sutherland, who is Kiefer Sutherland’s younger half-brother, did a wonderful job of helping the audience recall “David” from the original while giving us a whole new character of “Shane;” leader of the new generation of lost boys.

Shane’s character was definitely a high point…though his “tribe” was totally pathetic; which would lead to me questioning his fictional judgment.  Angus did a lovely job being “striking” in a totally different way than Kiefer was in the original…if you’ll recall Kiefer’s “David” had very very few lines, and was striking in sheer looks and attitude.  Angus has many more lines, and I enjoyed the manner in which he delivered those lines…his tone and inflections are what made Shane’s character striking. (I also enjoyed a secondary character; Evan played by Greyston Holt.)

Yes, the other boys in the tribe…who would want to live with their characters into eternity?  Bleh.  In the first movie, I got the distinct impression that the lost boys actually cared for one another, and enjoyed being together.  The new guys?  Apparently torturing each other, and being totally psychotic pigs was on the top of their lists.  They weren’t a group of guys you would even think of as “cool,” as the original ‘boys came off on screen.

Overall, you could skip this movie and not miss much; if you liked the original and don’t mind a bad sequel, wait ’til it gets really cheap to rent or comes on TV.  It does introduce new characters into the Lost Boys movieverse, and brings in old faces too…but as far as advancing any actual plot, it kind of fell flat (we are left to guess in the movie whether the Emerson siblings are Michael and Star’s children, or niece/nephew/cousins).  I do know that they released a “Frog Brothers” comic book that may enhance the story, and fill in some gaps.

For those who care about such things; this is indeed rated R for good reason; lots of blood and gore, nudity, sex scenes, profanity, etc…

If you do decide to watch it, make sure you watch into the credits for another “surprise” cameo…

Leave a comment

Filed under Of Interest, Reviews

We serve a God of strength and power…

Many people forget it…many preachers make God and Jesus into some kind of cosmic genie, or some kind of being that is able to be manipulated, weak…and fluffy.  Sometimes we just need to be reminded that God is not to be trifled with, and that God is indeed The Almighty.

I was also thinking about all of the passages in the Bible that pertain to singing and praising God, playing instruments and praising and Him and came across this one:

Psalm 21:13 Be thou exalted, LORD, in thine own strength: so will we sing and praise thy power.

Think about this song of David’s.  His call for the LORD to be exalted in His Own strength, so much so that not only will be sing and praise God, but God’s very power.  Yes, I can very well imagine David’s kingly voice sounding forth this Psalm, the angelic host itself paying attention to that line….

Ah, well, just musings…

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, Musings

Apologetics; The Cosmological Argument for God

Again, this is a philosophical approach to the question of whether or not there is a God.  This argument is presented in philosophy in a general way; is there a God? Not, is there a specific being from any one religion.  The Cosmological Argument for God is the answer to the question; where did all of this (everything contained in our universe; space/time, energy, matter, etc…) come from?

The basic idea is this; nothing comes from nothing.  If there was ever absolutely nothing, nothing could ever come into being; therefore there had to be something.  This something must be transcendent.  It must not be bound by space/time, since space/time is the very thing that had a beginning, that had to come from something.

This is why the Cosmological Argument is sometimes referred to as the “First-Cause” Argument.  The first cause is God.  Also, a similar title for God; the Unmoved Mover comes up as well.  The universe is in motion…to have energy there needs to be “motion.”  Nothing can begin to move unless acted upon by a force…so, there has to be something to act to get everything moving.  You wind up, through a series of logical steps at God, Who is moved by no other (“unmoved”).  If you want to dig more into this from both a philosophical perspective, and a theological one, St. Thomas’ Five Ways are a good starting point.

These things point at the logical conclusion of the self-existence of God.  Many skeptics, at this point, ask; Well, who created God, and where did He come from?  This question shows a basic lack of understanding the philosophical arguments here.

One simplistic way to explain it is this; Every event (and effect) must have a cause and every created thing must have a creator.  God is neither an event (nor an effect), not a created thing; therefore has no need of a cause nor a creator.  God has no beginning, since that first “thing” would be transcendent, or outside of time.  If there is no time, there is no “beginning” only self existence.

Now, does the Bible back this idea up?  Absolutely.

First, you have God as the Creator of all; the originator of all things.  Secondly, we have His wonderfully descriptive title of Himself; I AM that I AM.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

God reveals truth in His names, and He is very clear here; He is I AM; eternally self-existent…He also clearly tells Who He is in relation to Moses, so that he can relate to God in a more human fashion; The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  God does not depend on anything or anyone else for existence unlike everything else.

This is yet another case where logic and reason points directly at the fact that a God does indeed exist and He is The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that makes Him the Christian God.  Christ Himself alluded to His divine title, and the Jewish listeners understood Him quite plainly:

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

What did the hearers do?  Picked up rocks to stone Him to death.  Jesus was indeed existent prior to Abraham, even as He was in their midst.  At that point in time, not only was He present with those people, He was also, at the same time, present before Abraham was.  He also was the Creator;

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Just further support for the Cosmological Argument pointing at the Christian God…and also support for the triune nature of God.

Again, as a remind, if you are taking a philosophy course this argument is presented for the general idea of a God.  But, you can see that the Bible not only backs this argument up, it also points directly at The One and only God; The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Names of God, Philosophy, Theology