Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Speaker A: Delight to be with you and to share. In this conference, I'm assigned the topic of miracles. I was grateful for that because miracles are at the very heart of Christianity, and there is no objection to Christianity that doesn't ultimately resolve itself to an objection to the supernatural. To give you a feel for that type of thing, let me give some quotations from some modern sources that will give us a feel of the attitude toward miracles.
The modern attitude toward miracles was summed up pretty well in science, technology and human values when they said, science is about unbroken natural regularity. It does not admit miracles.
That, I think, says what the modern scientist wants to say. And it's the reason that the Bible is so incredible to modern science, because science is about unbroken regularities and miracle is indeed that very thing. And therefore science cannot admit of a miracle. The Smithsonian not too long ago said, the central axiom of our epic is that the universe must have been formed by natural laws which are still discoverable today. It's at the heart of the scientific method. Scientists look for natural laws. They cannot put a no trespassing sign there saying, do not explore. No natural laws are possible.
Hence, a miracle is antithetical to the very nature of science.
The Chicago reader, Langland Gilke, a professor at University of Chicago, put it this way.
Science is atheistic because it is guided by natural law, must explain its conclusions by reference to natural law. Thus it cannot possibly have anything to do with God. Langland Gilke was one of the witnesses at the creation evolution trial, Scopes two in Little Rock, Arkansas, and testified that creation, which is a supernatural belief, ought not to be taught in the public schools. The same thing happened at that trial when the judge, William Overton, gave his ruling. He said, such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, thus cannot be scientific. In fact, that decision was quoted by the supreme court on the June 19, 1987 ruling which said that creation cannot be taught alongside of evolution in the public schools.
Another way to put it that was put by Smith, an atheist, in his book the Case Against God. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a supernatural explanation is a contradiction in terms with those quotations. I think we can get a feel as to why people believe the Bible is obsolete, why orthodox Christianity is considered outmoded. Medieval science, something that belongs back in the Dark ages.
Now, to say it the other way, from a Christian point of view, not only is the question of miracles absolutely essential from the standpoint of modern science, but notice how crucial the concept of miracles is to Christianity. If I were to give a simple apologetic summary of what we believe and why we believe it, it would go something like this. God exists.
There are a number of reasons normally given for that by Christians. One is called the teleological argument, that every design has a designer, that specified complexity always has an intelligent cause.
Living things manifest specified complexity, therefore they must have had an intelligent cause. Another reason given is sometimes called the cosmological argument that every effect has a cause. The universe is an effect. It does not explain its own existence, therefore it needs something to explain it. Everything that has a beginning has a beginner. The universe had a beginning, a la second law of thermodynamics and the radiation echo of Penz and Wilson and the expanding universe. Therefore the universe must have had a beginner.
Another reason often given is the one given by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity, called the moral argument. Every moral law has a moral law giver. There is a moral law in the universe that we didn't invent, that we don't like that's binding upon us. Nevertheless, therefore, there must have been a moral law giver. Putting these three together, Christians conclude that there must have been a powerful cosmological argument, intelligent teleological argument, moral, moral argument,
[00:04:51] Speaker B: creator of the universe.
[00:04:53] Speaker A: If that's true, then of course the second fact follows that miracles are possible. Because of course, creation is a miracle.
Creation is the biggest miracle of all. If God exists, miracles are possible.
And a miracle is a divine confirmation of a message. If some prophet of God comes along and says, I am a messenger of the God of this universe and presents some message that he expects people to believe, then those people can rightly expect some divine confirmation.
A message from God deserves a miracle from God. Every new revelation deserves a new confirmation, a new sermon, a new sign.
Christians also believe that the New Testament documents are historically reliable. We believe that when we look at the Bible simply from the standpoint of the historical evidence that is available for the New Testament, that we have every right to believe that the New Testament is reliable that can be schematized in a simple comparison with other books from the ancient world. For example, when you compare the other documents that come from the ancient world, the earliest copies that we have, the date they were written, and look at the last two and three columns, you can see why the New Testament is superior to to any other document from the ancient world. It's superior because, number one, we have more documents. We have 5,366 manuscripts, handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament compared to 643 is the closest second Homer's Iliad and usually about a dozen. 8, 7, 10. For most other books from antiquity, the New Testament is the most amply documented book from the ancient world.
Secondly, the time gap between the time it was written and the earliest known copy averages about a thousand years for most other books. But the earliest known manuscript of the New Testament comes from 114 AD and the New Testament was completed, say about 90 AD.
So within a generation we have a copy in another country, Egypt, as opposed to Asia Minor where it was written. And then we have whole books within 100 years, the Bodmer Papyri and then most of the New Testament, the Chester beatty papyri from 250 A.D. and the entire New Testament from 325, no matter which one you use, from 50 to 225. The New Testament has a much smaller time gap than any other book from the ancient world. And as to the degree of accuracy, we have comparisons on the hymn Do Mahabharata, which show that the present manuscripts in our hands are only about 90% accurate. Homer's Iliad about 95%. Most of them we have no idea, because with 12 manuscripts that are 1,000 years old, you have no idea how accurate it is. But in the case of the New Testament, the New Testament in our hands is over 99% accurate copy of what the original New Testament said.
So we can conclude that if God exists, and there seem to be good reasons to believe so, and miracles are possible, and a miracle is a divine confirmation of a message that God may give through his messenger, and the New Testament documents are historically reliable, then we can ask, what do the New Testament documents say?
They say that a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, Nazareth, died on a cross north of Jerusalem, that he claimed to be God in human flesh, that he claimed to be the Yahweh of the Old Testament to be able to forgive sins, raise the dead, perform miracles, accepted worship from people that he indeed claimed to be the I am of Exodus 3:14. And when he said that people fell backwards from his very presence, the high priest ripped his garments. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of the living God and said, you blaspheme. When he said, I and the Father are one people stone pick up stones to stone him. Because he blasphemed. Jesus claim to be God was divinely confirmed by three unique sets of miracles. First of all, the fulfillment of prophecy made hundreds of years in advance, some of which he could not possibly have controlled like what city he would be born in.
Contrary to Schonfield's Passover plot, it's pretty difficult for him to nudge Mary in the womb and say, get down to
[00:09:29] Speaker B: Bethlehem, it's about time for me to be born.
[00:09:32] Speaker A: He couldn't control the tribe from which he would be born. Genesis chapter 49 couldn't control the manner in which he should be born of a Virgin. Isaiah chapter 7 could not control therefore the time of his death, which in Daniel 9 was predicted to be 483 years after 444 BC which is exactly what 33 AD is counting the difference in the lunar years, which only have 360 days a year, comes out exactly 33 AD.
So he supernaturally fulfilled prophecy showing that he was the promised Messiah. And the Old Testament said the Messiah would be Lord. Psalm 110 the Lord said to my Lord. The Old Testament said the Messiah would be God.
Psalm 45 Unto thy throne, O God.
The psalmist said it said that he would be the ancient of days. In the book of Daniel, Daniel 7 and 8 it says that he would be the mighty God, Prince of peace, everlasting Father in Isaiah chapter nine.
So he came, fulfilled prophecy and supernaturally confirmed his claim to be the Son of God. Furthermore, he lived a sinless and miraculous life.
According to these historically authentic New Testament documents. We're not saying they're inspired, we're simply saying that there's historical evidence that they report accurately what occurred. That Jesus not only claimed to be God, but fulfilled these prophecies, lived a sinless life, said, which of you accuses me of sin?
He said to them. Pilate said, I find no fault in this just man. The soldiers at the cross said, truly this was a righteous man. The crowd said, never any man spake like this. Jesus proved to live a sinless life and did miraculous things like heal people born blind, walk on water, multiply loaves, turn water into wine, resurrect the dead. Then he pulled off the biggie. He said, I will die and three days later I will rise from the dead.
One thing to claim, quite another thing to do.
Jesus rose from the dead. Over 500 people saw him over a 40 day period of time. On 12 different occasions, he turned scared, scattered, skeptical disciples into the world's greatest missionary society. Overnight, as a result of his resurrection appearances, the tomb was permanently vacated and Jesus gave the third miraculous confirmation of who he was. Therefore, we can conclude Jesus is is God.
Because if God exists, miracles are possible and a miracle is an act of God. To confirm the Word of God to
[00:12:15] Speaker B: the people of God.
[00:12:17] Speaker A: And the New Testament is historically reliable and he claimed to be God and he performed these miracles, then he must be the God he claimed to be.
Now, if he's God, whatever he teaches is true. God can't teach what is false.
Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.
He confirmed the Old Testament, saying that
[00:12:38] Speaker B: was the word of God, not a
[00:12:40] Speaker A: jot or tittle, will pass away. It's infallible or unbreakable. John 10:35, Matthew 5, 17 and 18. Heaven and earth will pass away, but His Word will not pass away. It's without err.
[00:12:52] Speaker B: You do err.
[00:12:52] Speaker A: He said in Matthew 22:29, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. He said, it's exalted above all human tradition. Matthew chapter 15 and you've made the Word of God void with your tradition. Said, if you don't believe me when I speak of earthly things, how can
[00:13:08] Speaker B: you believe me when I speak of heavenly things?
[00:13:10] Speaker A: My Word will condemn you in the last day. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. He promised the New Testament would be inspired because he said, the Holy Spirit will lead you, his disciples, into all truth.
John 14:26 and John 16:13.
And that was claimed by the apostles and confirmed by the writing of the 27 books of the New Testament.
Therefore, the Bible is the word of God. Furthermore, Jesus said, he is the only way to God. He said, I am the way, the
[00:13:43] Speaker B: truth and the life.
[00:13:44] Speaker A: Now, other than these unusual credentials for these unusual claims, this would be an absolutely preposterous claim.
For example, if I were to say to you tonight, I am the only way to God, you wouldn't take me seriously, probably wouldn't listen to the rest of what I have to say. But if someone who lived a perfect life could heal people born blind, walk on water, multiply loaves and turn water into wine, said that after fulfilling supernaturally prophecies made hundreds of years in advance, over which he had no control, you have a right to take the claim seriously. If he is, if he did make that claim. Therefore we can conclude that the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus is the only way to God.
The Bible is the Word of God because Christ is the Son of God, confirmed by acts of God by a God who can act, namely, who can create the universe. If God exists, miracles are possible. Christ claimed to be the Son of God. Miracles confirmed him to be the Son of God. And he confirmed the Bible to be
[00:14:42] Speaker B: the Word of God.
[00:14:43] Speaker A: Now that in brief is a summary of all of Christian apologetics.
[00:14:47] Speaker B: That's the whole story.
[00:14:49] Speaker A: Now I go through it rapidly, not because I expect that in, in the five minute survey of that, that that will be an adequate presentation of apologetics.
[00:14:57] Speaker B: I go through it so that we can see that the belief in miracles
[00:15:02] Speaker A: is absolutely crucial to our apologetic. If what the scientists said and I quoted a few moments ago is correct, then all of this is false.
If this is correct, then what they are saying is false.
[00:15:16] Speaker B: I mean, we're at a head on
[00:15:17] Speaker A: collision with, with modern science as represented by those quotations. And we must go back to the roots of this modern attitude and expound the reasons they give for it. Because if we're not able to answer the modern scientific criticisms against Christianity that miracles are incredible, all of Christianity crumbles because it shows that miracles are not credible. And if miracles aren't credible, they, there is no way for us to establish the fact that Jesus was the son of God because his whole life is filled with miracles. None of which have any credibility if they're right. So let us go back then to the beginning of this modern attitude and take a look at the arguments. It begins in 1670.
Spinoza. One of the most important books that was ever written was written by Benedict Spinoza, Dutch Jewish lens grinder, who was excommunicated from the synagogue for teaching pantheism that God is extended, who wrote a book called the Theological Tractatus, one of the hottest books in Europe. Between 1670 and 1700, this book went through 12 pseudonymous editions and was the book that Richard Simone, who became the father of modern biblical criticism, read and used to do his biblical criticism. In this book, Spinoza argues as follows. Miracles are violations of natural laws. Natural laws are immutable.
It is impossible for the immutable law to be violated. Therefore miracles are impossible, QED which was to be proven and in the geometric fashion.
Spinoza believed that he had destroyed once and for all the credibility of miracles. He went on to say that the Old Testament could not have been written by the people claimed to be the authors that Ezra put together the Old Testament. Not a single miracle anywhere in the Bible, including Old and New Testament ever happened. It could not possibly have happened. And he did the first systematic higher criticism on the Bible in 1670. Now that's 200 years before Wellhausen and the so called QED and higher criticism and began and this book literally influenced the intellectuals of Europe and ultimately America. And Spinoza's argument was considered to them the foundation of the modern Enlightenment.
[00:17:43] Speaker B: Quote, unquote.
[00:17:45] Speaker A: How shall we respond?
I would respond by saying that Spinoza is not accepted in terms of his definition of science by any credible modern scientist. Natural laws are not immutable. They're only rare, regular general principles, statistical averages that admit of exceptions. According to modern physics, there is a small possibility that if you threw a brick, it would go right through that wall. It's just highly improbable. The statistical averages are loaded against it. But it's not impossible. Spinoza was operating in a Newtonian universe. He was a contemporary of Newton's. He and the law of gravity was thought to be absolutely universal and unbreakable.
Today, scientists think of natural laws as descriptions, not prescriptions, as statistical averages, not universally true. And therefore they do admit of exceptions. And a miracle as an exception to a natural law may occur. Another way to say it is Spinoza was living in a closed universe. We now live in an open universe. In an open universe, you cannot rule out a priori in advance philosophically the possibility of the unusual occurring.
If that's the case, then why is it that if Spinoza was the fountainhead of modern anti supernaturalism and Spinoza's argument is no longer accepted, that is the major premise of his argument, that natural laws are immutable is no longer accepted. Why is it that people still reject miracles?
Because if he was the foundation for the move against miracles, and science has now come to the conclusion that that concept of natural law is invalid, why didn't they reopen the question of miracles? And the answer to that is David Hume.
100 years later, in 1776, David Hume died.
And not long before that, he wrote a very famous book entitled An Inquiry Concerning Human understanding. In book 10 of Hume's inquiry, he set down an argument that to this day is still used by modern scientists, philosophers and skeptics to disprove the credibility of miracles. Notice, however, it has shifted from the impossibility of miracles hard anti supernaturalism to the incredibility of miracles soft anti supernaturalism. Hume is not saying miracles can't happen. He's saying that a wise man shouldn't believe that they happened. And his argument goes like this. Natural laws by definition are a description of a regular occurrence.
[00:20:31] Speaker B: See, that's a much softer form.
[00:20:33] Speaker A: And incidentally, it's a form that is still acceptable to scientists today. A natural law describe something that happens over and over and over again. You stick somebody's head under water five minutes, they drown. You try somebody else and they drown after five minutes.
[00:20:48] Speaker B: After about three or four people, you
[00:20:50] Speaker A: Assume there's a connection between sticking their head under the water and drowning. And if you're still out of jail and continue your experiment for some length of time, you will discover that everybody drowns after five minutes, their head under the water.
A miracle, by definition is a rare occurrence.
Virgin births don't happen regularly among human beings. Once in a while a judge hears that story, but the guy pays anyway.
Virgin births are very rare occurrences. Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin.
If indeed he was, that would qualify as a miracle, because that is exceedingly rare to happened among human beings. Thirdly, the evidence for the regular is always greater than the evidence for the rare. You see that every time you watch an instant replay on a football or basketball game. The referee sees it once in natural speed, you see it two or three times in slow speed from different angles. Who's in a better position to say what happened? Obviously we are, because the evidence for the regular is always greater than the
[00:21:56] Speaker B: evidence for the rare.
[00:21:58] Speaker A: A wise man, said Hume, scientific man, critical man, intelligent man, fill in the blank. A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence. For instance, when I leave National Airport tomorrow to fly to Tampa, if the airplane that I'm approaching has a broken wing on one side and smoke coming out the tail, I will not get on it. The reason, it doesn't have very good probability of getting off the Runway, let
[00:22:23] Speaker B: alone to take Tampa.
[00:22:25] Speaker A: The wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence. And so what happens over and over, you always have greater evidence for. Therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles for the simple reason that miracles by nature don't happen over and over. You can't say, would you do an instant replay on that virgin birth?
[00:22:43] Speaker B: Run it through again.
[00:22:43] Speaker A: Let me, let me test it scientifically.
Would you walk on water again? Let me see that. See if there are any stones under the water. You got little boards under the water there, so I can verify this. Since you can't run a miracle through again, since a miracle is a one time event, it's a singularity by its very nature. And a wise man should never believe in miracles.
Now let me repeat. Hume did not say miracles don't happen. He simply said a wise man shouldn't believe in them, which in itself is kind of interesting thing when you think about it. Suppose a miracle did happen. According to this argument, even if it did happen, you shouldn't believe in it. Which ought to give you a tip off that something's wrong with the argument. Because an intelligent man, if it really happened, ought to believe it really happened. So any argument that can convince you there's something that really happened you shouldn't
[00:23:31] Speaker B: believe in, there's got to be something wrong with the argument, even if you
[00:23:34] Speaker A: don't know what's wrong with it.
Suppose, for example, that Christ did rise from the dead.
And Hume can't rule it out because he, he has no a priori way in advance of ruling out the possibility of a miracle. Suppose Christ did rise from the dead. Then according to David Hume, if you were there and you saw it, you still shouldn't believe in it.
Something wrong with that? What's wrong with it? Well, I think we can see what's wrong with it if we analyze the argument.
The evidence for the regular event is not always greater than the evidence for the rare. And I think we can prove this from the very scientists who are objecting to miracles, because there are at least three, I would say maybe four singularities, things that don't happen over and over again that they accept as having happened and that they believe the evidence is stronger for.
Let's take one for example. According to most modern scientists. In fact, last week's U.S. news World Report had a good layman's summary of it.
Most modern scientists believe that the universe, the space time universe, all of the material universe as we think of it, came into existence some 10, 20 billion years ago.
It's called the Big Bang theory.
If you take the universe as it is now expanding, put the camera in reverse, it contracts logically and mathematically. It contracts to the point of nothing, where you have no space, no time, no matter, you have absolutely nothing. And the universe popped into existence out of nothing some 20 million years ago.
Now, if that's some 10 to 20 billion years ago, if that's true, and it hasn't happened since then, we have a singularity that has not been repeated since then. You can speculate about how many times it may have banged before that, but the truth of the matter is we don't have any evidence that it banged. It's not the Big Bang. Bang, Bang, Bang Bang theory is the Big Bang theory. And so far as we know, the evidence is it banged into existence, has never banged out and banged back in since then. This is a singularity. It's a singularity that if you read Dr. Robert Jastrow in his book God and the Astronomer, he has to end his book this way. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He scaled them out of ignorance and pulled himself over the final rock, greeted by a band of theologians who've been sitting there for centuries, no doubt reading Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. So the Big Bang is a singularity. All of the evidence points to it. Second law of thermodynamics in a closed isolated system, such as the whole universe is if you admit energy beyond the universe, beyond the natural universe, you're already admitting some supranatural force. In a closed isolated system, the amount of usable, not actual energy is decreasing. If it's decreasing, it must have had a beginning. It had a beginning, came into existence some 20 billion years ago. This is a singularity, has not been repeated. And yet all of the evidence, the expanding universe, the radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson, all seem to point to this rare unique singularity at the beginning of things. If that's true, then David Hume's argument is wrong.
If his argument is right, then no scientist should believe in the Big Bang. And yet most astrophysicists today believe in some form of the Big Bang theory. And that's the direction to which the evidence points. Second singularity that most modern scientists believe in is that life originated on Earth or somewhere else in space and was transported here. It doesn't really matter.
Life originated out of non life, and so far as we know, it hasn't happened over and over again. There is no observable evidence that it did. Many scientists believe that in the primeval sea life emerged, say for example, the basic gases in the air, lightning striking forming amino acids of which proteins are built. And proteins are the building blocks of life. And with Urian Miller's experiment, experiments in the laboratory able to reproduce those basic amino acids, hope is given that man will ultimately be able to create life from purely nonliving chemicals.
[00:27:57] Speaker B: Now, most scientists believe in some such
[00:27:59] Speaker A: scenario that life spontaneously originated in a self organizing fashion out of non living things. And it does not repeat over. It's not happening in sardine cans, for example, on the shelves in the store.
It does not happen under your bed, in the dust there. And Pascal's beakers are still there to prove that if you sterilize it, life doesn't emerge there. In fact, there isn't a scientist alive who believes that spontaneous generation of life from non life is occurring today.
And yet they believe that in some
[00:28:34] Speaker B: remote distant past on Earth or somewhere
[00:28:37] Speaker A: else, it happened, perhaps has not been repeated, at least is not something you can repeat over and over today. And therefore they have a singularity which they ought not Accept if Hume is right, because Hume said, if it can't be repeated over and over, if it's not a regular process, then you shouldn't believe in it. And yet they do.
We might add to this a third one, and that is the modern naturalistic theory of evolution. Call it C on your chart.
Evolution, macro evolution, from atom to Adam,
[00:29:13] Speaker B: from fish to Gish, as someone said.
Someone wrote a poem recently, said, once I was a tadpole when I did begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey swinging a tree. Now I'm a professor of the PhD.
That whole process of evolution that covered millions and millions of years has happened only once so far as we know, has not been repeated. There is no evidence that it is occurring over and over. Microevolution occurs today, but macroevolution is not occurring. It's a singularity. It's a process that happened. It's unusual, it's unique and has not been repeated. And yet most modern naturalistic scientists believe it. In fact, all naturalistic scientists believe in some form of it.
CS Lewis gives a fourth example in his book Miracles, which is the finest book ever written on this topic. He said, if Hume was right, then no one should believe in the history of the universe, because the history of the universe only happened once and has not been repeated.
So if you reject singularities, you must reject the singularity of the history of the universe, which happened only once. One of my favorite books was written by Richard Whateley, entitled Historical Doubts concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. And Richard Whateley did a satire on David Hume's argument.
[00:30:38] Speaker A: And he showed that on Hume's basis,
[00:30:41] Speaker B: you can prove that Napoleon never existed, because look how unique he was in his military exploits. And they haven't been repeated. They're unprecedented. His whole army is wiped out several times he got another army out of virtually nowhere and went on to conquer another country in the rest of the world.
Well, what can we conclude if the evidence for the regular is not always greater than the evidence for the rare. And a miracle is a rare event, therefore the evidence against miracles is not always greater.
Hume did not disprove the credibility of miracles because the central premise in his argument is wrong. Now you stop to think about it.
You can think of everyday examples of the same thing. There are a lot of things that are quite rare. One of my favorite illustrations but nevertheless have happened is a guy by name of Smoke. He was an Air Force pilot at the time. He's now a Wycliffe pilot. And you'll See why? His name was rather unlikely name, but it's true. He was flying his Air force jet about 10,000ft over Little Rock, Arkansas, a number of years ago, and it exploded.
And he was trapped in there, and he was quite badly burned, and he was locked in. And being a Christian, he ushered a quick prayer up to heaven, like, help. You don't pray for the missionaries and the president and the Supreme Court. You just usher a quick one up. And kind of miraculously, his seat was ejected from the airplane and he was out of the fire. And he breathed a sigh of relief and said something like, thank you, Lord, too quickly, because when he looked up, his chute was burned out. And so he's plummeting to earth at about 130 miles per hour, which makes a sudden stop when you hit on the other end. And the high percentage is that you're going to die. In fact, very, very few people have ever survived that kind of fall at that kind of speed. And he was coming right at a home in Little Rock, Arkansas. In fact, I've been at that home, and. And a lady who was a Christian lived in that house. And by this time, the explosion was heard by people in Little Rock, and there were just all kinds of people out watching smoke come right down to earth without the advantage of a parachute.
That lady in the yard began to pray.
Lord, help him.
He fell in her yard upright without breaking a leg and is alive today.
Now, according to David Hume, no wise man should believe that.
Why not? Unless Moe could repeat it. You know, maybe.
[00:33:16] Speaker A: How about five times, six times?
[00:33:19] Speaker B: How many times would you like him to repeat it? But the truth of the matter is, he landed vertically without breaking a leg in that lady's yard and is alive today. And is a Wycliffe pilot.
You say how did it happen? Well, there were two trees in the yard at exactly the right angle, and his chute caught on the trees and broke his fall. And so he landed dangling just above the ground from that tree. Now, he was burned from the airplane, and he broke an arm coming through the limbs on the tree, but he didn't break a leg. In fact, I know the two doctors who treated him, one at the scene and one later at the hospital. And I've been by the home, so I have verified this for myself.
[00:33:59] Speaker A: It's not just a story that I
[00:34:01] Speaker B: heard, but it's rare. It doesn't happen over and over. According to Hume, the wise man shouldn't believe that. He should believe only the ones that happen over and over.
According to Hume, you should believe that smoke is dead even though he's alive. You should believe that smoke is dead. And you can multiply illustrations like this in order to see the point ad infinitum. Well, if that's the case, if the modern argument against miracles has not been disproven, if miracles are not incredible, then
[00:34:33] Speaker A: the door is open.
[00:34:35] Speaker B: The door is open for what? The door is open for a rational belief in miracles. It's open for rational belief for someone to come along and to show that God exists. And if God exists, the first miracle has occurred, the biggest miracle of all. And therefore any other miracle is possible. And therefore, as Christians, we have every right to believe that the Christian apologetic, the kingpin in our apologetic, is not contrary to science. It's not contrary to reason. In fact, it follows logically from the first point.
[00:35:11] Speaker A: You see, if you can believe the
[00:35:12] Speaker B: first verse in the Bible, every other verse is believable. I didn't say it's true. I said it's believable. Because there's nothing harder than the first verse in the Bible. In the beginning, God made something out of nothing. It's called ex nihilo creation.
How can you make something out of nothing? I mean, nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. And the atheist has said that's absolutely incredible to believe that you can believe
[00:35:41] Speaker A: the first verse of the Bible.
[00:35:43] Speaker B: Everything else is believable. Well, what's harder to believe? That God made something out of nothing or that Jesus took something water and made something else wine out of it? It's a whole lot easier to make wine out of water than it is to make water out of nothing.
It's a whole lot easier to take some bread and make more bread than it is to make bread out of nothing.
And of course, the skeptics and atheists used to laugh at Christians for that belief. But now, in the light of the Big Bang theory, listen to what Isaac Asimov says. In the light of the Big Bang theory. He said, well, you had a state of nothing and then you had a state of something. But just think about it. In the state of nothing, you have two possibilities. Nothing can either remain nothing or it can become something. So you had a 5050 chance and nothing became something.
Well, I like the way Isaac Asimov
[00:36:34] Speaker A: has a way with words.
[00:36:36] Speaker B: But Anthony Kinney, the British atheist, said it succinctly in his book five Ways. He said, well, for modern atheist who is a proponent of the Big Bang theory, he must believe that the universe came into existence from nothing. And by nothing, now you got two Choices.
Someone made something out of nothing, or nothing made something out of nothing.
Which is more rational?
I find a whole lot easier to believe that someone made something out of nothing, then nothing made something out of nothing, because nothing can't make nothing.
Bad English, but good philosophy.
Nothing doesn't produce anything. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.
Someone, God, Infinite God can make something else besides himself where there was nothing else beside himself.
But for nothing to produce something is the ultimate incredibility.
Often I debate atheists, as I did two weeks ago at the University of Wisconsin, and often use this parable in debate to show the first point of our argument. An atheist and a theist went for a walk in the woods.
They came upon a translucent ball 8ft in diameter, and they said, one to the other, I wonder where that came from. They both agreed, I don't know, but someone must have put it there. Glass balls 8ft in diameter just don't pop into existence out of nowhere in the middle of the woods. They didn't have any problem with grain. And the Christian said, well, that's interesting. What if that ball were, let's say, 16ft in diameter? Would you still say it has to have a cause? If you said, of course, if small balls need causes, then bigger balls need causes, too.
Is that so? Said the Christian. Let's suppose we make the ball about,
[00:38:25] Speaker A: say, 8,000 miles in diameter and about
[00:38:28] Speaker B: 20, 25,000 miles around.
Suppose we were floating through the universe and we came on what Ed Sullivan would have called a really, really big ball, 8,000ft in diameter. Would it still need a cause? The atheist thought for a moment. He said, yeah, little balls need causes and bigger balls need causes. And really, really big balls need causes, too.
Is that so? Said the Christian, Suppose you make the ball as big as the hole universe.
Does it still need a cause? Of course not. Snap the atheist. The universe is just there.
See, that's what's wrong with atheism. Doesn't carry logic far enough, doesn't carry reason all the way through. If little balls need causes and bigger balls need causes, then the biggest ball of all needs a cause. It's like the head of the philosophy department, University of Miami, I was debating
[00:39:19] Speaker A: a couple years ago.
[00:39:20] Speaker B: He's a Harvard PhD, means phenomenally dumb.
And we were debating on, is Christianity rational? And we got to ask each other a series of questions. And one of the questions I asked him is, if there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?
You ever think about that? Why is there something rather than nothing at all? Doesn't have to be anything. Why is there something rather than nothing at all if there is no God? You know, his answer to that question was Harvard PhD, head of the philosophy department.
He said, that's a damn good question.
That was his total answer, Total answer. They had a follow up meeting. They had a follow up meeting after that. And 50 kids came to the follow up meeting. 14 became Christians. And he got up in the meeting and said, you know, I'm not even sure what I was saying the other night debate. He wasn't even sure of his own atheism. Seems to me that it's far more rational to believe that the evidence points to a beginning of the universe. There must have been a beginner because every event has an adequate cause.
And some event as big as the whole universe coming into existence certainly must have had an adequate cause for it. And therefore anyone to say, like Thomas Jefferson and the deist, that miracles are credible when they accept the fact that there is a creator, as Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the unalienable rights of the Creator and nature's law and nature is God. To accept that there is a creator of the universe, you've already accepted the biggest miracle. Every other miracle is Penny. Any other miracle is trivial after that one. And for Jefferson to cut all the miracles out of the Bible and to say that the virgin birth will someday be believed in the Christian churches like Jupiter springing from the brains of Minerva, which is what he said is absolutely incredible. When you accept the fact that God is, you've accepted the fact that acts of God are possible. Because if a God who can act exist, then acts of God are possible. And for someone to deny miracles on the basis that they're not possible, they have to deny the existence of God. And for someone to deny miracles on the basis of historical evidence, they have
[00:41:35] Speaker A: to show the evidence for it.
[00:41:37] Speaker B: They can't simply have a blick, I've got my mind made up. Don't confuse me with the facts, as indeed is the case often. Because no matter what you show people, some of them still won't believe. That's a precognitive disposition to reject, not an open minded seeking after the evidence. Let me give you an illustration.
Psychotic patient went to the psychiatrist and said, doc, I have a problem.
So what's your problem? Psychotic patient said, I'm dead.
Well, you do have a problem, said the psychiatrist.
What makes you think you're dead? Oh, he said, I died some time ago. He said, I know I'm dead. So how do you Know you're dead. He said, can dead people smell things? He said, yeah, I can.
He smelled the flowers on the table. He said, yeah, I'm dead and I can smell those flowers.
Psyche said, hmm, how am I going to do this?
He said, do dead people feel things? And the psychotic patient went like this. He said, yeah, said I'm dead and I can feel things.
Well, did dead people bleed?
He thought of only said, well, they've been embalmed and the blood's been taken out of the body, embalming fluid put in. He said, no, dead people don't believe.
Psychiatrist said, aha. Took a pin and stuck the man's finger and squeezed it and blood came out. And the psychotic patient looked at his finger and said, my God, dead people do bleed.
Of course. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
If you're going to say no matter what happens it's not a miracle, then you've decided in advance, then you have a precognitive disposition to reject it out of hand. If on the other hand, you're going to be open minded and look at the evidence, there might indeed be good evidence, and we'll look at that tomorrow for the resurrection of Christ, for miracles. And all the evidence that points to the beginning of the universe is indeed good evidence that the big miracle occurred some billions of years ago and makes the ground the reasonable grounds for believing in other miracles.
Well, let me stop there and see if there are any questions that you may have. We got a couple minutes here, we'll take a few questions and then we'll proceed to the next part of our evening. Any questions or comments on the credibility possibility of miracles, the arguments pro or con. Incidentally, tomorrow there'll be a book table and I believe on the book table will be some books on miracles. I hope CS Lewis book is there. We have one entitled Miracles in Modern Thought that hopefully is there as well. Yes, I think the way you do that is you show them the evidence, the evidence for the fact that the universe had a beginning like the second law of thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory, evidence, the expanding universe, radiation echo, all of that evidence points to a beginning.
These are called cosmological arguments.
We have a book with several of those detailed in and there'll be other books on the table with those in as well. Or part one of C.S. lewis. Mere Christianity is the moral argument.
[00:44:42] Speaker A: There is a moral law.
[00:44:43] Speaker B: I've never met anybody who thinks that it's right to do anything anytime anyway, to anyone you want, that Hitler was right, that you can kill all the Jews that you want. Genocide is perfectly good. Everybody has some sort of moral law they believe in. But a moral law implies a moral lawgiver can't have a prescription without a prescription or the other evidence. And I recommend a very good scientific book entitled the Mystery of Life's Origin, where three scientists, Bradley, Thaxton and Olson looked at the evidence for the origin of life and concluded that the only known factor to the mind of man that can produce specified complexity, such as in a living cell, is intelligence. And yet the first living cell had enough specified complexity in it to fill one volume of encyclopedia. If you take a one cell animal that allegedly arose by spontaneous generation of the primeval sea, the only thing known to man, no natural force ever produces specified complexity. Produces order, but never specified complexity such as in the DNA code, the four letter Alphabet. If you came to your breakfast table tomorrow morning and you saw the Alphabet
[00:45:53] Speaker A: cereal tipped over and right in the
[00:45:55] Speaker B: middle it said take the garbage out mom, would you assume the cat knocked it over, a fan blew on it all night, or you had an earthquake? None of those. Why natural laws never spell out messages. That's called specified complexity. If you're lying on the beach, you look up in the sky and in the clouds it says drink Coke.
What do you assume? Unusual cloud formation, Wind is blowing from the other direction. No, specified complexity only comes from intelligent being. Now the first cell didn't have just drink Coke or take the garbage out mom had enough information, if spelled out in English would fill a book as big as this Bible. Now to believe that life started from a non intelligent natural source is like believing that Webster's unabridged dictionary resulted from an explosion in a printing shop.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
I believe that miracles are possible anytime God exists and God exists today. So therefore miracles are possible today.
If you ask me do I believe that the gift of miracles exists today, I would say I do not believe that the gift of miracles exists today. I distinguish between the fact of miracles which could happen at any time and the gift of miracles. Those special powers that were called signs of an apostles, they were unique to the first century that only apostles could do or those to whom they gave those gifts. And I would develop it something like this two column chart does to say so. And I've looked at it and I have a whole book written on it entitled Signs and Wonders in which I argue that what is going on today is either one fakery. Peter Popoff with an earphone in his ear and Amazing Randy exposing him on a Johnny Carson program.
[00:47:48] Speaker A: 2 Psychosomatic we know that 85% of
[00:47:51] Speaker B: sicknesses are stress related.
3 Things that are just unusual events. Anomalies scientists would call anomalies. Four things that are providential. God through his providence, working through natural laws, performing things that we'd normally consider unusual. But I have yet personally to actually see anything that I'm absolutely convinced was a miracle. I think it's possible. I think God may do it on occasion. I certainly can't lock him out of his universe. I'm not a deist, but on the other hand I have me doots everything I've seen.
Wimber, for example, claims that he prayed and the lady's toe grew back on instantaneously as he was praying. If that happened, I would accept it as a miracle. Only problem is a friend of mine, Danny Coram, who wrote the book the Fakers, another book, the Powers, who debunks those type of things, followed up. The woman looked at, asked her to take her shoe off and her socks. She doesn't have a toe. Wimber says, I saw it grew back on. It didn't grow back on. Either Wimber is lying or he's being deceived. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say I think he thinks he saw it grow back on. But it didn't grow back on.
Oral Roberts claimed to resurrect 50 people from the dead. The reporters asked him for names and addresses. He could only think of one. That was a mistake. He should have forgotten all of them. They followed her up. They found out she fainted in the service.
And so they asked Oral Robert, how did you know she was dead? He said, well, I thought she was dead. Her mother thought she was dead and her body felt cold. Well, then my wife has been dead for 35 years because her body feels cold all the time.
Yes.
A counter example to show that even on a naturalistic basis, you don't reject everything simply because it doesn't happen over and over.
Yes.
All we're saying there is that if you compare the manuscripts we have, which are 5,366 manuscripts, somewhat like this oversimplified example. Suppose I read all of you a paragraph and said copy it down.
Then I take a match and I burn the original from which I read it and I collect all of your paragraphs and I try and reconstruct the original. How do I know what the original was? Because where you deviate from each other, that's where you made mistakes, where you agreed. That's what I said. And the original can be reconstructed in the case of the Bible with 99 plus percent accuracy because we have enough manuscripts to do.
Suppose only one of you copied it down. How would I know?
[00:50:26] Speaker A: Suppose I only had two or three
[00:50:27] Speaker B: manuscripts and it was all the worst copiers here, people don't know how to copy. You can't tell. But if you have a good cross section, a lot of it, you can weed out the errors that way.
Yes.
Well, I'll just give a quick answer and you'll get a better answer from our physicists when they speak on topic, but usually they're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. There's that you cannot predict the course of a particle.
The problem with that is the uncertainty principle is not the uncausality principle. It's not saying there was no cause for that, saying you can't predict the course of it. One, two.
Every time, no matter whether you can predict that course or not, always comes out in the same regular pattern. There's always a regular pattern.
[00:51:10] Speaker A: So they're forgetting about the regularity of
[00:51:12] Speaker B: the pattern and talking about the unpredictability of a given particle.
[00:51:16] Speaker A: Or 3.
[00:51:16] Speaker B: To give a common sense illustration, when I go like this, what is happening physically?
Carbon dioxide. Almost said carbon monoxide. Hopefully not. You'd all be dead. Carbon dioxide is coming out of my mouth now. What if those particles weren't randomly quote, unquote being mixed in the air? Then all of that stuff I breathe out would be right back here. I breathe it back in. So what appears to be random, those
[00:51:41] Speaker A: particles going in every direction and every
[00:51:43] Speaker B: way, causes it all to mix. So that when I breathe back in, I'm getting oxygen and only a little bit of that. So what it seems to be random, has a very wise purpose to it and an overall order.
[00:51:56] Speaker A: That's all the time we have.
[00:51:57] Speaker B: We'll talk some more tomorrow.
