As Christians, society proposes to us many questions. Many years ago secularists and atheists sought to prove that there was no God. However, in recent years the narrative has flipped. No longer are they seeking to prove the nonexistence of God. Instead God’s nonexistence has been assumed and the burden of proof falls on us as Christians to demonstrate that God truly does exist.
As we journey into this land of evidence and proof, we will be looking to answer four questions (Does truth exist? Does God exist? Are Miracles Possible? Is the New Testament true?). I believe that if we can answer these four questions in the affirmative that we will have reasonable proof that the God of the Bible is the one true God.
Why are these the four questions? Obviously, the Bible can’t be true if truth doesn’t exist. Likewise, if truth doesn’t exist no book written by an atheist can be true either. If there is no truth, the bible may not be right, but neither is anyone else. This way of thinking is called relativism or postmodernism. You can see that there is a problem with this line of thinking.
Does God exist? You can’t have a word from God if there is no God. If God doesn’t exist, we need to throw out the bible and any other book that talks about God. As we tackle this question over the next couple of weeks, I hope to show that there is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful, moral, and personal being that both created and sustains the universe.
Are miracles possible? Even if God exists, the bible can’t be true if miracles aren’t possible. You can hardly turn a page in the bible without finding some miracle being referenced. If miracles aren’t possible, the bible is simply a book of lies. As we tackle this question, I hope to show you that not only are miracles possible, but the greatest miracle of the bible has already occurred and we have scientific evidence for it.
Finally, we will answer the question, “Is the New Testament True?” The New Testament doesn’t have a chance if truth doesn’t exist, God doesn’t exist, or miracles aren’t possible. However, if truth exists, God exists, and miracles are possible, the New Testament has a fighting chance of being true. If these questions are true, we can look to see if we have a historically accurate and reliable account of miracles occurring in the first century to a man named Jesus and his disciples which are contained within the twenty-seven handwritten, greek manuscripts which we’ve placed under one binding called the New Testament. Do these accounts accurately document the events that happened two thousand years ago or were they written much later by religious people who made it up and embellished it with fantastical miracle stories?
You may look at this claim and think to yourself, “What about the Old Testament? Do you believe the Old Testament is true?” If the New Testament is true you get the Old Testament thrown in for free. Why? Who is in the New Testament that can attest to the validity of the Old Testament? Jesus. If Jesus is God, as the New Testament claims, than whatever Jesus teaches is true. Jesus taught that the entire Old Testament is the word of God, so if the New Testament is reliable, you get the Old Testament as well. This doesn’t mean we still don’t have to interpret it in order to understand it correctly, but if Jesus is God and God says it’s true, it’s true whether we understand it or not.
French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal is quoted as saying, “People almost invariable arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” We see this evidenced in our own lives. Dr. Frank Turek, as he visits college campuses and interacts with the students, when a student in the Q&A session seems adamantly opposed to the idea of God, will ask one question. If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? In many cases the student yells back at him, “NO!” This student is an atheist, a beacon of reason and thought. How can he blatantly dismiss something after it’s been proven to be true? It’s because he doesn’t want it to be true. For him, it’s not a matter of knowing it in his head, it’s a matter of knowing it in his heart.
Author and speaker James Sire travels across the country visiting college campuses and gives an eye-opening seminar titled Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? In this seminar he asks the students to classify why people believe what they believe. Each answer fits within one of four categories, sociological, psychological, religious, and philosophical. He then walks them through each category to determine if that is a good reason to believe something.
In the sociological category we find sources such as your parents, friends, society, or culture. Are these a good enough reason to believe something? Why not? Often our parents, friends, or culture can be wrong. The Nazis had a culture that accepted the murder of Jews.
What about the psychological reasons, comfort, meaning, hope, or identity? Are each of those a good enough reason to believe something? Just because it feels good, does that mean that it’s right? A junkie might find comfort in his latest drug, but that drug might kill him. Truth is important because there can be major consequences if we’re wrong.
What about religious reasons? If your pastor says it or if you read it in the Bible or Qur’an, does that make it true? The question arises, which of these two books or religions is true? Clearly they contradict each other, so they can’t both be true. One says that Jesus was crucified and raised to life while the other says he was never crucified. To determine which of these two books is true, we must look at outside evidence.
The only category which remains is that of philosophy. This is more than just somebody’s opinion. Philosophy is the foundation to all science and knowledge. The Ph in Ph.D. stands for philosophy. While you may get Ph.D. in Aerospace Physics, it’s a doctorate in the philosophy of aerospace physics. This idea of philosophy means to find the truth through logic, evidence, and science.
I propose to you, in light of this evidence, that there is no relative truth. All truths are absolute. Something that is true is true for all persons at all times in all places. Many will say that this is absurd. While I may be cold here in North Dakota, people down in Hawaii are warm, therefore truth is relative. That’s not relative. It’s absolutely true for all people at all times and in all places that right now I feel cold. Truth is what corresponds to its reference. Referring to myself, it is true that I feel cold right now despite how the people in Hawaii feel. It is absolutely true for all people at all times and in all places that the people in Hawaii feel warm. Truth is truth.
However, when you make claims like this people will invariable object. Here are some of the common objections to this idea of absolute truth:
- There is no truth
- All truth is relative
- You can’t know truth
- It’s true for you but not for me
- No one has the truth
If we can’t refute these particular objections, we can’t say the bible is true. Fortunately, we have a tool in our arsenal called the law of noncontradiction. This is a scientific and philosophical law that simply states that contradictory statements cannot be both be true in the same sense at the same time. “A is B” and “A is not B” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
In order to refute these claims we’ll apply what Dr. Turek refers to in his book as the Roadrunner Tactic. We’ve all seen the cartoons where Wile E. Coyote is chasing the Roadrunner. They come to the edge of a cliff, the Roadrunner stops short and Wile E. Coyote keeps running. He runs for a little ways until he realizes he has no ground to stand on and then plummets to the ground. In the Roadrunner Tactic, we will seek to apply the claim to itself to show that it has no ground to stand on.
We turn the claim on itself in the first example, “There is no truth,” and ask, “Is that true?” If it’s true that there is no truth, then the claim that there is no truth can’t be true. It’s a self-defeating statement, such as “I can’t speak a word in english.” Obviously that statement can’t be true because I just said it in english. How about, “Everything I say is a lie.” That statement is self-defeating. If we use the Roadrunner Tactic and apply the claim to itself we see that if that statement is a lie then I was telling the truth and therefore the statement can’t be a lie.
What about these other statements. “All truth is relative.” How do you respond to a statement like that? By saying, “Is that a relative truth?” No, it’s supposed to be an absolute truth. If it’s a relative truth that all truth is relative, it’s only true for the person uttering the statement. However, it’s being posed as an absolute truth which applies to all people.
What about, “It’s true for you but not for me”? This one is a big one in our culture. How do we use the Roadrunner tactic on this claim? We say, “Is that true for everybody?” If true for you but not for me is true for everybody, then true for you but not for me can’t be true because it’s true for everybody.
There’s actually a more fun way to deal with this statement. If somebody says to you, “It’s true for you but not for me,” simply tell them, “Sure, go try that with your bank teller.” Go to your bank teller and tell them, “The economy’s down, and I need some money. Give me $100,000 out of my account.” The bank teller pulls up your account and says, “I’m sorry, you only have $48.16 in your account.” Tell them, “That’s true for you but not for me. Give me my $100,000.” That’s never going to work. If it’s true that you have $48.16 in your account, it’s true for all people at all times and in all places.
If it’s true for you then it’s true for everybody if it’s a truth that refers to a referent. That’s true for religious claims as well. If it’s true that God exists, it’s true for all people at all times and in all places, whether you believe it or not. If it’s true that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose again, that’s true for everybody whether you believe it or not. Will your faith change whether Jesus died and rose again? No. He either did or he didn’t. Do you have to believe something to make it true?
Do you have to believe in gravity to stay on the ground? Do people who stop believing in gravity start floating away? No. Your faith doesn’t change whether or not the bible is true. The only thing your faith does is to appropriate the salvific content of it to you. It does not change whether God exists, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, or whether or not the bible is true.
How about this one, “There is no truth in anything but science”? You hear this a lot of college campuses. They say all that religion is just a matter of faith and all real truth comes from science. What’s the problem with that? To apply the Roadrunner Tactic we can say, “Is that a scientific truth?” Did that truth come from science? No! You can’t go into a laboratory to prove that. It’s a philosophical claim. It defeats itself.
While our society puts a lot of faith in science, and rightly so, the truth is that science can’t tell you everything. In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Science doesn’t say anything. All science does is present the data. It takes a mind to then interpret the data and determine what it means.
It’s hard to believe, but it has been over twenty years since O.J. Simpson was put on trial for the murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman. Did you know that some of the evidence that you can look up regarding the trial shows that O.J.’s blood, Ron Goldman’s blood, and Nicole Brown-Simpson’s blood was found everywhere mixed together. It was found at the crime scene, in O.J.’s Bronco, in O.J.’s house, and on O.J.’s clothes. In examining the case, it has been determined that there is only a 1 in 21 billion chance that the blood on O.J. Simpson’s socks was not Nicole Brown-Simpson’s. Given that revelation, does science show that O.J. was guilty?
Surprisingly, the answer is no. Science doesn’t say anything. Scientists have to look at the data and interpret it. In this case, jurors have to look at this evidence and first determine if it’s good evidence and second determine if 1 in 21 billion is enough to determine guilt. Science doesn’t say anything. It’s the scientists that have to figure out the most reasonable explanation for the data.
Interestingly, ten years after the murders, NBC conducted a survey to try to determine the attitudes about the trial ten years later. The survey found that 77% of people thought that O.J. was guilty. However, there was a sharp ethnic divide. 87% of whites thought he was guilty versus only 29% of blacks. They had the same evidence but came to different conclusions. Why? They had different world views. The blacks, having experienced racism and racial tensions, were more sensitive to it. They thought it possible that the whole thing could have been a setup. They’re much more apt to think that than whites who haven’t experienced racism. Their worldview helped to determine how they interpreted the evidence.
I’m not getting into whether I think he’s guilty or not, but this is goes to show how our differing worldviews can change how we interpret the evidence. That’s the case when it comes to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The Darwinists have already ruled out any intelligent causes and interpret the data from that worldview while Intelligent Design proponents are willing to consider the possibility of a designer. To say that we get all our truth from science is self-defeating.
So, does truth exist? As I believe we’ve established, there are no relative truths only absolute truths. While contrary beliefs are possible, contrary truths are not possible. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true, and just because you don’t believe something doesn’t make it false. Truth is always absolute in terms of its reference. You can believe everything is true, but everything cannot be true. The law of noncontradiction states that “A is B” and “A is not B” cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. And finally, objective truths can’t be denied without being affirmed. You can’t say that all truth is subjective (just being within them, the subject) without making a claim to an objective truth.
If you run into someone who makes this claim, what should you say to them? “Is that an objective truth?” If they say yes, their statement is self-defeating. If they say no, then say, “If it’s just your opinion, then why should I believe it?”
It’s quite obvious that there is truth out there. It’s self defeating to say that there isn’t. There’s just one problem with truth, or more accurately with us. As Pascal stated earlier, most people are not on a truth quest. They’re on a happiness quest. Most people are only believing what they want to believe and find attractive. They aren’t looking into the evidence to discover the truth but arrive and their conclusions based upon what makes them feel comfortable.
So, it is true to say that truth exists. To say otherwise is self-defeating. If our reasoning is good up to this point we’ve successfully shown relativism and postmodernism to be false. Knowing that truth does exist, next week we will begin to look at whether or not it is true that God exists.