Questions from a new Christian

[Ukranianlys]

Other question that I never can seem to find an answer too...i hope god helps me find the answer or if you guys can help me: What if there is multiple gods? How would I show them that there is only one?

[Gman]

Other question that I never can seem to find an answer too...i hope god helps me find the answer or if you guys can help me: What if there is multiple gods? How would I show them that there is only one?

If we believe that the Bible is the revealed word of G-d, then you won't have a problem defending the "one true G-d." If not, then you will need to take it by faith alone.

Exodus 20:2-3: "I am the Lord your God.... You shall have no other gods before me."
Exodus 34:14: "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 4:35: "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other."
Deuteronomy 4:39: "Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other."
Deuteronomy 6:4-5: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me."
1 Samuel 2:1-2: "My heart rejoices in the Lord; in the Lord my horn is lifted high.... There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God."
2 Samuel 7:22: "How great you are, O Sovereign Lord! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears."
2 Samuel 22:32: "For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?"
2 Kings 19:15-19: "Hezekiah prayed to the Lord: `O Lord, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Give ear, O Lord, and hear; open your eyes, O Lord, and see; listen to the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God. It is true, O Lord, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste these nations and their lands. They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men's hands. Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O Lord, are God.'...
Psalm 18:30-31: "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.... For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?"
Psalm 83:18: "Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord — that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.": "Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord — that you alone are the Most High over all the earth."
Isaiah 43:10, 13: "`You are my witnesses,' declares the Lord, `and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.... Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?'"
Isaiah 44:6-8: "This is what the Lord says — Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come — yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.": "This is what the Lord says — Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come — yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Isaiah 44:24: "This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.": "This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."
Isaiah 45:5-6: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other."
Isaiah 45:18: "For this is what the Lord says — he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited — he says: `I am the Lord, and there is no other.'": "For this is what the Lord says — he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited — he says: `I am the Lord, and there is no other.'"
Isaiah 45:21-22: "Declare what is to be, present it — let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.": "Declare what is to be, present it — let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."
Isaiah 46:9: "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."
Hosea 13:4: "But I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior but me."
Malachi 2:10: "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?"
Matthew 4:9-10: "`All this I will give you,' he said, `if you will bow down and worship me.' Jesus said to him, `Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
Matthew 19:17: "`Why do you ask me about what is good?' Jesus replied. `There is only One who is good.'"
Matthew 23:8: "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers."
Mark 10:18: "`Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. `No one is good — except God alone.'": "`Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. `No one is good — except God alone.'"
Mark 12:32-34: "`Well said, teacher,' the man replied. `You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.' When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, `You are not far from the kingdom of God.'"
Luke 1:49: "For the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is his name.": "For the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is his name."
John 5:42-44: "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me: but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?"
John 17:3: "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Romans 3:29-30: "Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God."
Romans 16:27: "To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen."
1 Corinthians 8:4-6: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many `gods' and many `lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
Galatians 3:19-20: "The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one."
Ephesians 4:6: "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
1 Timothy 1:17: "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."
1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
1 Timothy 6:13-16: "In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this commandment without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time — God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."
James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.": "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder."
James 4:12: "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy."
Jude 25: "To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen."

[Stu]

If we believe that the Bible is the revealed word of G-d, then you won't have a problem defending the "one true G-d." If not, then you will need to take it by faith alone."

What's up with G-d, rather than God?

[Canuckster1127]

Some people prefer to use G-d instead of God as a throwback to Hebrew where Yhwh was written without vowels as a sign of respect toward God's name.

Interesting fact .... Jehovah is taking the consonents from Yhwh and placing the vowels from Elohim and combining them. Also, Yhwh is a form of the Hebrew verb for being or existing, so when God says to Moses, "I am that I am" he's actually giving His name.

[Stu]

Some people prefer to use G-d instead of God as a throwback to Hebrew where Yhwh was written without vowels as a sign of respect toward God's name.

Interesting fact .... Jehovah is taking the consonents from Yhwh and placing the vowels from Elohim and combining them. Also, Yhwh is a form of the Hebrew verb for being or existing, so when God says to Moses, "I am that I am" he's actually giving His name.

Ah thanks for that.

[Ukranianlys]

I greatly appreciate the extreme list, as it suits my needs when re-enforcing someone's faith, thank you very much, but my dear friend is unconvinced, perhaps a more scientific way of finding out the answer?

[Ukranianlys]

I greatly appreciate the extreme list, as it suits my needs when re-enforcing someone's faith, thank you very much, but my dear friend is unconvinced, perhaps a more scientific way of finding out the answer? As you know most atheists will not take the word of the bible, I believe we have all had that
Experience

[Gman]

If we believe that the Bible is the revealed word of G-d, then you won't have a problem defending the "one true G-d." If not, then you will need to take it by faith alone."

What's up with G-d, rather than God?

Just a way to respect the name...

[Gman]

I greatly appreciate the extreme list, as it suits my needs when re-enforcing someone's faith, thank you very much, but my dear friend is unconvinced, perhaps a more scientific way of finding out the answer? As you know most atheists will not take the word of the bible, I believe we have all had that
Experience

That is what you call a greek way of thinking.. Putting it in a "science box" to try and explain it all away.. It doesn't work that way. On top of that, no one could ever use science to negate the existence of G-d either.

[Ukranianlys]

Thank you yet again sir, as always you answer my questions, I will return with more questions, you are all very knowledgeable.

[bippy123]

I greatly appreciate the extreme list, as it suits my needs when re-enforcing someone's faith, thank you very much, but my dear friend is unconvinced, perhaps a more scientific way of finding out the answer?

If your friend is a touchey feeley kind of person then I would suggest the Shroud of Turin as quite a few people that were sitting on the fence with God came to believe in him on this relic alone. It is the most scientifically researched relic in history and your friend can check out the research on shroud.com or watch the dvd with the latest research on it by checking youtube and veoh for The Fabric of Time. Almost all scientific research points towards the shroud being authentic.


There is also the first cause argument. This is the most logical and easiest argument for God to understand.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The most famous of all arguments for the existence of God are the "five ways" of Saint Thomas Aquinas. One of the five ways, the fifth, is the argument from design, which we looked at in the last essay. The other four are versions of the first-cause argument, which we explore here.

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.



If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.



Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.



If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.



In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.
Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.
There is a single common logical structure to all four proofs. Instead of proving God directly, they prove him indirectly, by refuting atheism. Either there is a first cause or not. The proofs look at "not" and refute it, leaving the only other possibility, that God is.

Each of the four ways makes the same point for four different kinds of cause: first, cause of motion; second, cause of a beginning to existence; third, cause of present existence; and fourth, cause of goodness or value. The common point is that if there were no first cause, there could be no second causes, and there are second causes (moved movers, caused causers, dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.

How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic? Here are four ways in which different philosophers try.

First, many say the proofs don't prove God but only some vague first cause or other. "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars", cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God's existence. It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. That certainly sounds more like God than like Superman! It's a pretty thick slice of God, at any rate—much too much for any atheist to digest.
Second, some philosophers, like Hume, say that the concept of cause is ambiguous and not applicable beyond the physical universe to God. How dare we use the same term for what clouds do to rain, what parents do to children, what authors do to books, and what God does to the universe? The answer is that the concept of cause is analogical—that is, it differs somewhat but not completely from one example to another. Human fatherhood is like divine fatherhood, and physical causality is like divine causality. The way an author conceives a book in his mind is not exactly the same as the way a woman conceives a baby in her body either, but we call both causes. (In fact, we also call both conceptions.) The objection is right to point out that we do not fully understand how God causes the universe, as we understand how parents cause children or clouds cause rain. But the term remains meaningful. A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. If no creator, no creation; if no God, no universe.
Third, it is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks "Who made God?" is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.
Fourth, it is often asked why there can't be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can't time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and so on. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.
If this argument is getting too tricky, the thing to do is to return to what is sure and clear: the intuitive point we began with. Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stu]

I like the chain analogy, simple yet very effective. Think I'll use that
From the site:

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.

[bippy123]

Yea Stu, William lane Craig also uses the first cause argument and even though Craig is a powerhouse who has taken on and defeated almost every atheist philosopher in his path, I found kreeft much easier for me to understand as far as this analogy is concerned.

There must logically be a first cause or everything came from nonbeing, and everyone knows that out of nonbeing comes nonbeing (literal nothingness).

[Stu]

Yea Stu, William lane Craig also uses the first cause argument and even though Craig is a powerhouse who has taken on and defeated almost every atheist philosopher in his path, I found kreeft much easier for me to understand as far as this analogy is concerned.

There must logically be a first cause or everything came from nonbeing, and everyone knows that out of nonbeing comes nonbeing (literal nothingness).

Well the basics of WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument are fairly easy to understand:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

To be fair to WLC, most of his debates are with highly learned opponents, so one would expect things to get a little intellectually "involved"

[bippy123]

Yea Stu, William lane Craig also uses the first cause argument and even though Craig is a powerhouse who has taken on and defeated almost every atheist philosopher in his path, I found kreeft much easier for me to understand as far as this analogy is concerned.

There must logically be a first cause or everything came from nonbeing, and everyone knows that out of nonbeing comes nonbeing (literal nothingness).

Well the basics of WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument are fairly easy to understand:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

To be fair to WLC, most of his debates are with highly learned opponents, so one would expect things to get a little intellectually "involved"

Good point Stu, the premises are pretty easily grasped. I call WLC "braino" cause he always seems to be 2 steps ahead of his opponents, but I sure am glad he's on our side cause he sure makes those atheists squirm hehe.