In my previous post I outlined the trinity in as basic and succinct fashion as possible. At the end of that post, however, I explained that I would tackle the big question—why is the trinity such a big deal? When one looks at the history of the Christian church, this is one of the subjects which have caused considerable debate and division among the ranks of Christendom. So why is everyone so vehement about their position concerning the trinity? It is important for a couple of reasons.

It is how God revealed himself
This may seem to be an understatement at first glance. This couldn’t be further from the truth though. It strikes at the very core of who God is—his very being. God is the creator of all things and made us with a purpose. He made us to be in relationship to him. So understanding God is not unimportant. When getting to know another person, it would be rather offensive to them for us to say, “Oh, I don’t need to know whether you are white, blue-eyed, or male.” These are all facts of who that person is—their very being. God has revealed his very nature to humanity and the picture with which one draws is important to how they will interact with him.

It serves as an example to us
There is a perfect love that exists between the members of the trinity, which is the example of how our relationships should be characterized between one another. Jesus speaks to this very point in John 15:9—“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.” Several other Scriptures address this as well. 1 John 4:21 reads, “And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” Similarly, John 17:22-23explains that we are to be exhibiting the unity and love that exists among the Father, the Son, and (implicit in the passage) the Spirit—“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

What if any of these points are neglected or denied?
While some would attempt to state their agreement with one or two points, one cannot be a quasi-trinitarian. It is a doctrine where one must agree with all three points or else they come away with a greatly distorted image. For example, if someone denies the first point (there is one God), then they become polytheistic, pluralistic, or the like. It would be denying one of the foundational tenants of Christianity. It would be leaving the realm of monotheism and entering another.

The second point also must be maintained. When this is denied, it puts got in an awkward position as it then forces him to take on different “roles.” There are clearly three main characters when speaking to God in the Scriptures. When one denies that God is three persons, it follows that there is one person fulfilling three different roles. Does this mean that God left the throne room unattended while in the physical person of Jesus Christ? Was he performing one big magic trick at the baptism of Christ in order to make us think there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? Lastly, what would God truly gain in having three different roles to fulfill? It seems that this only serves to complicate things. Would it not be easier for God to simply be God? Trying to balance three different “hats” unquestionably muddles up the picture God is trying to paint of himself to humanity. I imagine it would be like trying to have a relationship with someone who has a multiple personality disorder; you would constantly have to ask yourself with which personality you are currently relating before being able to proceed forward.

When denying the third point, it leads to having a hierarchy and essentially denies deity to one or members of the trinity. What do I mean by that? Viewing the members of the trinity as not being equal in deity inevitably leads to one member of the trinity being exalted over another. This is actually all too common among Christians. While they do not overtly or explicitly promote this position, they inadvertently advocate it by their actions. For example, the salvific work of Christ on the cross is certainly an important part of our daily life as Christians. However, this usually leads us to making all of our prayers about him, to him, and through him even though Romans 8:26 makes it clear that it is the Holy Spirit who intercedes for us and makes our prayers effective (especially when we are spiritually week). Likewise, there are groups who focus on being “led by the Spirit” and end up neglecting the very work which the Holy Spirit helped produce to guide men—it’s called the Bible.

All three points regarding the doctrine of the trinity are essential to the complete understanding of God and how we relate to him in our faith, both daily and for eternity. While I hope that I have been able to bring some clarity about this doctrine, I also want to remind you that it is a subject which is beyond our complete comprehension. So even after reading this post and even if you began an exhaustive theological study concerning this doctrine, you will always find yourself coming away confused and not concrete in your understanding.

• There is one God
• God is three persons
• Each person is fully God

In the next post, I will begin to tackle the question of why the trinity is such a big deal? What does it truly matter? And what happens if any of these three points are neglected?

This will be my final post of this series. I have covered three major points of interest with regard to the existence of God—the universe, evolution, and the resurrection of Christ. I have briefly presented you the evidence concerning these three points; now it is time to answer the question of whether or not the evidence is in favor or opposition to God.

So, can we reasonably conclude that God exists? Looking collectively at the evidence, and after our somewhat brief examination, the absence of contradictory or dissenting evidence validates the hypothesis that God does exist as true according to scientific standards. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the evidence as proving that God exists.

If one is still unsure of what to conclude, consider this wager. Imagine a loved one lying on their deathbed. About this time someone approached and offers you a new “wonder drug” that will give the dying person a 50% chance of living. The other option is to do nothing and let the person die. What would you choose? Any reasonable person would choose to try the wonder drug because the chances of surviving are greater than without the drug. This is known as Pascal’s Wager. God either exists or he does not. If he exists and you choose to believe in him, then one only stands to gain if correct and lose nothing if wrong. However, if one chooses to believe that God does not exist, one stands to suffer eternally if the choice is wrong. Based on these options, the rational choice is to believe he exists.

I hope that many of you have found and will continue to find this series of posts helpful. If there is anyway to make this series more useful, please leave a comment or email me and let me know what would make this series more helpful. Please remember that I wasn’t writing a book, but a series of blog posts so there is a lot of information that I simply had to leave out concerning the universe, evolution, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because I had to leave so much information out, if anyone has a question about something in any of the posts, please ask me and I will answer in a supplemental post if necessary. As always, if anyone would like to discuss these points further, I am more than happy to do so. Likewise, I didn’t cite any of my sources in the posts, but I will happily supply them upon request.

Links to other posts in this series:

• Part 1: Three possibilities about God's existence
• Part 2: What is acceptable evidence?
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?

We have now covered the two of the three points—the universe and evolution. Finding that the evidence was not able to falsify the existence of God, we now turn to the third line of falsification—the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is currently a subject of debate, and the debate has raged since the occurrence of the event around 2,000 years ago. This is important because of what is at stake. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and therefore, his prediction of his death, burial, and resurrection is necessary to substantiate his claim to Deity.

The first subject of debate about the circumstances of the resurrection is whether or not he actually died on the cross. His death is a necessary prerequisite to the resurrection because if he did not die then he did not come back to life. It is prudent then to discuss the evidence that supports the actuality of Jesus’ death on the cross. Many, especially the Roman soldiers who conducted the crucifixion and were familiar with death, witnessed his death and concluded that he, in fact, died. His side was pierced to ensure that he was dead and Pilate double-checked to make sure he was dead after receiving Joseph’s request. Based upon this it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus in fact died physically and that he did not faint, pass out, or go into a comatose state.

The events after his death also ensure that he was dead. Upon receiving the body, Joseph, with the help of Nicodemus, wrapped it in about one hundred pounds of spices and linen cloth. After they completed this task, the tomb was officially sealed and placed under guard at the request of the Jewish authorities to ensure no one tampered with or stole the body. The stone would have required several men to remove it from the entrance and so rules out the possible accusation that the disciples stole the body because the commotion would have alerted the guards. Furthermore, the inability of the authorities to produce the body, which would have effectively ended the Christian movement, indicates that the tomb truly was empty; no one could dispute that fact.

The credibility of the New Testament documents is also raised as an objection to the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. The accounts of the New Testament documents, however, are substantiated by many extra-biblical sources. These sources include: Polycarp, Ignatius, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonis, Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Tertullian, Thallus (The Samaritan-born Historian), Phlegon (A First Century Historian), Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, Justin Martyr, the Jewish Talmuds, Julius Africanus, Emperor Trajan, Hadrian, and Toledoth Jesu. All of these confirm the biblical account that Jesus lived, was crucified, died, and was buried. Not all confirm that he was raised to life, but all confirm the notion.

Yet this is not enough credible evidence to convince some of the resurrection of Christ. Even the credibility of the extra-biblical sources is called into question. The basis of this questioning is that historians of that time period were not concerned with getting the facts of historical events correct and often times skewed them to support their personal bias. This is not supported by what is known of the ancient historians. They often criticized one another for producing inaccurate accounts or accounts that could not be verified by witness testimony. It can reasonably be assumed that if the New Testament accounts of the events of Christ’s death were inaccurate that they would have incurred such criticism.

If Jesus’ resurrection is not sufficiently confirmed by the empty tomb, his post‑resurrection appearances supply this much-needed confirmation of the reality of his resurrection. There are twelve distinct recorded instances occurring over a forty-day time period in which Jesus collectively appeared to more than 500 people.

This collective evidence still causes problems for some atheists. This is demonstrated by Dawkins when he wrote, “Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity.” This is following the absurd assertion that historical evidence is minimal that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status. The problem with the statement that Jesus never claimed to be God is directly opposed by Jesus and by his enemies. Both his enemies and his disciples understood him to be claiming deity. Likewise, no one ever produced Jesus body. Think about that for just a second. Don’t you know that the Jewish authorities would love to have produced Jesus body to prove that he was dead and, therefore, he was not “God” as he had claimed.

The current evidence supports the biblical account that Jesus was resurrected back to life. Jesus’ prediction about his death, burial, and resurrection was proved correct by the evidence. Therefore, this possible point of falsification also fails. In my next post I will summarize the evidence we have discussed and conclude this series.

Links to other posts in this series:

• Part 1: Three possibilities about God's existence
• Part 2: What is acceptable evidence?
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

The last post in this series discussed the universe. Particularly, whether the universe is eternal or if it had a beginning. The evidence led to the conclusion that the universe did have a beginning. That left us with only two possible explanations as to what brought about that beginning: (1) It brought itself about and developed into what we see today, which is evolution or (2) it was created, which is intelligent design. It is to this point we turn in this post. Does the evidence support evolution or intelligent design?

Evolution is the theory that the origin of life and the progressive change of that life arrived through purely naturalistic means. The first and earliest requirement placed upon Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was by his colleagues. They deemed it necessary to provide empirical evidence to support the sequential pattern of nature proposed by Darwin. Even with all of the evolutionary work that has persisted since the nineteenth century, the hierarchal pattern of nature persists regardless of the infusion of the spirit of sequence and continuity. The argument has, therefore, come about that the hierarchal pattern of nature supports the evolutionary view. This simply is not the case. It is much easier to argue for organic evolution if nature presented itself in sequential patterns.

Another foundational evidence Darwin cited as support for his theory was homologous structures. Darwin defines this term in The Origin to avoid any confusion. The definition he gave is as follows: “The relationship between parts which results from their development from corresponding embryonic parts.” Genetic and embryological research has demonstrated that homologous structures arrive at the end result through different routes as discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer. This demonstrates that homologous structures are not what Darwin defined them to be. This deals a swift blow to the theory because the lack of homologous structures deems descent by modification unnecessary.

Darwin recognized one major area of weakness in his theory. This area of weakness was the fossil record. It could not be ignored that the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record was a flaw to evolution. However, Darwin and those that followed after him believed that the fossil record was not complete enough and that in the future it would bear out the evidence to support the theory. This is such an important area because it is the only physical evidence that will either lend support to the theory or provide evidence that it is indeed false.

A few considerations will reveal that the fossil record does not lend support to evolution currently or in the foreseeable future. First, looking at the total number of fossil species compared to the scarce number of morphological sequences (intermediates) contained therein reveals the lack of any convincing evidence of major transformations in the fossil record. Secondly, the fossil record is nearly complete. When one realizes that 261 of the 329 living terrestrial vertebrates occur as fossils, which yields 79.1% completeness of the fossil record, it becomes apparent that there is not a great disparity in the state of the fossil record. Furthermore, when birds are excluded from the above numbers, since they are poorly fossilized, the percentage rises to 87.8% completion of the fossil record. The argument that the fossil record is not complete enough to conclusively determine whether or not it supports evolution is merely wishful thinking.

Another area often used to support evolution’s claims is vestigial organs. This is the claim that there are organs in the human body that serve no function and can be removed without harm to the body. This argument fails at several points. To simply assume that the lack of harm from the removal of an organ indicates that it is useless neglects the possibility that other organs may compensate for the removal of that organ and that it simply is not feasible to measure any loss of function. Consider the kidneys. A person can have a kidney removed and not suffer serious loss, but they serve a function. In fact, one could actually argue that the loss of function of organs indicates devolving of life, which is the opposite of evolution.

Modern genetics research and the discovery of DNA pose another problem for evolution. Take this along with problems associated with abiogenesis (spontaneous generation), and evolution virtually becomes impossible to argue as a viable hypothesis. The prebiotic soup so often referred to as fact actually has no evidence to support it and in reality has much evidence opposing it. The conditions of earth’s early atmosphere did not consist of the correct elements to produce life and had several factors which led to a “catch 22” situation because if life did happen to arise spontaneously it would have almost immediately been destroyed. Furthermore, the laws of nature clearly define that life arises from life, not that living things arise from nonliving things going against the laws of nature and universal.

The DNA problem has actually caused one atheist to purport that “life in bacterial form may have been transmitted to this planet in a missile from some other part of space.” This does not solve the problem because it still begs the question: “Where did that life come from?” Evolution attempted to show how proteins, the building blocks of the cell and therefore life, arise from purely natural reactions. However, with the discovery of the role of DNA in producing those proteins in the cell, it is more necessary to determine the origin of the information contained in DNA than to determine the natural processes the DNA controls. This presents a conundrum to the evolutionists.

Evolutionists, in general, make the mistake of letting preconceived theories shape the evidence rather than letting the evidence shape the theory. In other words, they are like a fisherman who upon catching a large fish returned the fish to the pond. After watching this happen several times, an onlooker asked the man, “Why do you only keep the small fish and return the larger fish to the pond?” The man responded to the onlooker, “I only have an eight-inch frying pan, and so the larger ones won’t fit!” Simply put, the evidence that proponents of evolution cite does not support the conclusions that are drawn by the evolutionist, or the atheist for that matter.

The evidence does not necessarily prove intelligent design, but it does demonstrate that it better fits the evidence that we currently have about the beginning of the universe and the current state-of-affairs today. The only point left to discuss in this series is that of Jesus’ resurrection. The next post will tackle this topic.

Links to other posts in this series:

• Part 1: Three possibilities about God's existence
• Part 2: What is acceptable evidence?
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

The first post in this series introduced the theme and possible positions regarding the existence of God. The second post then determined what would be considered as acceptable scientific evidence. Through that process we discovered that to scientifically prove God’s existence one cannot necessarily give positive evidence because there must always exist the possibility of being proved incorrect. In other words, scientific proof is actually never 100% sure. Rather than fall into the trap of giving an endless list of evidence in support of the existence of God, it is more prudent to take up the task of looking at those things which would demonstrate that God could not exist. The first of these is the universe.

Turning to the universe, the first question to answer is whether or not the universe has always existed or if it had a beginning? There is no middle ground because the universe exists, so it either had a beginning or it does not have a beginning. The atheists does not typically view the universe as coming from nothing but that it is self-evident and eternally exists. The theists argues this is not possible, as it would create an infinite regress of causalities. Dawkins argues in his book, The God Delusion, that invoking God to terminate an infinite regress is “at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.” The problem is not Dawkins’ statement but his explanation of why it is the case that it is unhelpful or misleading. He explains if one were to cut gold into its smallest possible pieces, then one could only slice it to the atomic level. Anything smaller than this and it ceases to be gold. The atom, therefore, acts as a “natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress.” Dawkins’ argument is flawed however, because the regress that he cites does not explain an infinite regress. Furthermore, it deals with division of matter and not causal events so his explanation is not sufficient to do away with the need for a first cause, and he offers no explanation of how it is possible to have an infinite regress of causalities.

Infinities are not a problem when one speaks of them as possibilities or potentials only. The problem arises from following an actual infinity to its logical conclusion. Without a beginning, then there must necessarily exist an actual infinite number of events in the past. Problems abound when one begins to apply this with reason to reality.

One popular example is known as Hilbert’s Hotel. Suppose that there exists a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and all of the rooms are full. Whenever a new guest arrives and requests a room, the desk clerk happily supplies a room because there are an infinite number of rooms. Now after the guest checks in, there are no more people in the rooms than before he checked in the hotel—there are still an infinite number. Assume that all of the guests in the odd numbered rooms decide to check out and leave the hotel. After they all leave, there will still be an infinite number of rooms people in those rooms. One asks, “How can that be when half of them checked out?” Because there still exists the same number of rooms and people—that is an infinite number of people and rooms.

Another example is that of the eternal counter. Imagine there is a person who counts from infinity past to infinity future, starting in the past. He counts each individual day as a single integer. Now if one were to go to him today and he reached zero, the most likely question that person would ask is “Why did the counter reach zero today? Why not yesterday? Why not tomorrow?” The answer is because for an actual infinite number of past events to exist there has to equally be an infinite number of possible future events, so the counter always reaches zero.

Therefore, at any given point in time, the counter will reach zero. Even if one goes tomorrow, the next day, or in a hundred years, the counter will reach zero. Why is this? It is because of the nature of infinity and not because of the amount of time given to the counter. These absurdities demonstrate the problems associated with an eternal universe.

Science provides evidence that the universe had a beginning and it is, therefore, not eternal. The first source of evidence that the universe had a beginning was in 1929 when Hubble discovered redshifting in the light from other galaxies, which indicated that the universe is expanding. The natural inference was then made that if the universe is expanding, it was together at some point. This gave way to the theory commonly known as the Big Bang, which is the theory that the universe exploded from an extremely dense volume.

Another popular alternative is that the universe is eternally oscillating, that it goes through a cyclical series of explosion, expansion, contraction, explosion, etc. The second law of thermodynamics makes this alternative unreasonable because it explains things in a system move toward disorder or entropy rather than order. Some will counter that the second law does not apply to the universe, as it is not a closed system. However, this is not the case because the universe consists of all energy and so it is not receiving energy from any external source and energy cannot be created. An external source or the creation of energy would be necessary for an oscillating universe. Another problem arises if by chance the universe did collapse, it would not expand once again due to the extreme gravitational forces that it would have to overcome.

The beginning of the universe has posed somewhat of a problem to the atheist stance. Carl Sagan expressed it so succinctly it deserves quoting in full.

In the previous post, I discussed the possible stances regarding belief about the existence of God. The three possibilities were agnosticism, atheism, and theism. Agnosticism was ruled out as a truly viable option leaving only atheism (there is no God) and theism (there is a God) as tenable positions on the existence of God. That led us to the next obvious question, is the evidence in favor of God’s existence or is it the opposite?

Before one can answer whether there is sufficient supporting evidence or not, some details must be determined. For starters, who has the burden of proof concerning God’s existence, is it the atheist or the theist? In discussing this, it is important to first understand the nature of scientific proof. In order for evidence to be submitted as scientific proof, the one making the hypothesis moves forward under the assumption that the hypothesis is correct. Before a theory or hypothesis is deemed reasonably proven, a succession of tests or evidence that agrees with the hypothesis must be present. There must always exist, however, the possible falsification of the hypothesis by a subsequent test or evidence. Without the ability to disprove the hypothesis, it does not meet the criterion to be truly scientific, according to Karl Popper. When there is an absence of contradictory evidence or evidence that proves the hypothesis false, this validates the hypothesis as true since one could theoretically run an infinite number of confirming tests.

The theists argue there is much evidence to support the case for God’s existence. In court proceedings after the one making the claim has provided sufficient evidence in support of that claim, it is then left to the opposition to disprove the evidence and subsequently the claim. The theists have brought forth evidence to support the claim that God exists, and the burden of proof has, therefore, been shifted to the atheists.

I will now take up the case of the atheist rather than simply state or provide an endless supply of evidence that proves God’s existence; it is more convincing if the only available sources of falsification are shown to be without substance. Three sources of falsification of God’s existence are: the universe, evolution, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Concerning the universe, Victor Stenger wrote:



links to other posts in this series:

• Part 1: Three possibilities about God's existence
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

Links to other posts in this series:

• Part 2: What is acceptable evidence?
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

There is something about the human psyche that makes us ask for a sign or wonder when it comes to the supernatural. In some form or another, I have heard many atheists and antagonists to the Christian faith say something along these lines: If God would give me a sure sign then I would believe. There are many variations to this statement, but they all drive at the same point—mainly that belief will follow some tangible proof of God’s existence. Is this a fair request? Is this an honest claim?

Whether or not this is a fair request depends upon some things. If the one making this statement has seen much and/or convincing evidence that would indicate God does exist (for this evidence, see my series on "Proving the Existence of God"), then this is not a fair request. Here’s a simple illustration to show what I mean. Mind you it is not perfect, but it makes the point.

The vast majority of American’s will never personally meet the President of the United States. However, I don’t think that there is anyone in America right now that would say our current President Barack Obama doesn’t exist. Why? Because we can see and hear him on television, we can read things he has written, we can speak to people who have personally met him. If I proclaimed to anyone that I didn’t believe President Barack Obama existed, they would probably think I was crazy and then ask me why I thought that? They may even follow it up by pointing out that he appears on television regularly and thousands of people know him personally and so forth. How silly it would be for me to then say, “I don’t believe that is really him that appears on television and all those people’s personal testimonies mean nothing because they have never actually met him—I won’t believe he exists unless he gives me a clear sign (or if I personally met him).”

This is the same criteria the request puts forth when one has seen reasonable evidence for God’s existence and yet says, “I won’t believe unless God does [X], then I will believe he exists.”

Most of the time, when this request is made I think it is made in a dishonest fashion. It has been my experience that this “give me a sign” notion is made simply because the person already believes it is an impossibility. In other words, they have already decided that God does not exist and, therefore, it is impossible for God to even give a sign to them making this a dishonest request. They do not even allow for the possibility of the request to be answered. Continuing the illustration from above will help demonstrate my point here. After making the statement “I won’t believe he exists unless he gives me a clear sign (or if I personally met him)” and then don’t even allow for the possibility of actually meeting President Obama personally, it is a dishonest request.

The last question I would like to address is whether or not God should acquiesce to this? I think we are foolish to think that God must do this. Let’s assume that President Obama was informed that I didn’t believe he actually existed and that the only way I would believe he existed is if I personally met him. Wouldn’t you agree that he could care less if I believed he exists? He is not going to stop everything he is doing to come and personally meet with me—who would actually expect him to do so?

I am not saying that God doesn’t care whether or not we believe in him, but what is it that makes us think we have the right to demand that God meet our requests. Even more so, that if he doesn’t then we have the right to pass judgment upon his actions (either condemning or condoning).

I also believe that even if God submitted himself to every one of these requests that many people would still not believe that he exists, they would find something that would prove the encounter unreliable. In fact, I think Jesus addressed this very issue in the gospel of Luke. Jesus was telling a parable about a rich man and a poor man. In the parable, the rich man refused to help the poor man who was starving and suffering from sores (possibly leprosy). After both men had died, the rich man ended up in hell and the poor man in heaven. The rich man makes several requests, one of which was to send messengers to his family to inform them of the fate that awaited them if they didn’t change their lives. The response given him was, “They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them.” This referred to what we now know as the Old Testament.

He was told that no special sign would be given to his family. They had the same evidence available to them as everyone else. This also addresses the notion that God must somehow give a special sign to one person. It is somewhat unfair and selfish for one to ask God to give them a special sign above and beyond the evidence available to everyone else. Furthermore, Jesus pointed to his miracles as confirmation many times in the Bible and many still refused to believe in him even though they witnessed them (John 12:37).