Jesus is God

Well if Jesus was God, Then that is proof enough for God's existance because everyone knows that Jesus was a historical person, Unless you are backswarden, Of course. But, To indulge you I will try briefly to deal with God's existance. The Christian apologist, Of course, Does not make his case simply by demonstrating that God is a theistic God. He must also present evidence that this theistic God is the Christian God. While I don't want to make light of the importance of these proofs for God's existence of a theistic God, I doubt that abstract proofs for God's existence are going to lead many to the faith, Or even if they do, That I am the person to make that case persuasively. I can't imagine many people reasoning their way into believing in God's existance if they are predisposed against believing, Because I don't believethese skeptical predispositionso are primarily grounded in reason. I am not saying the predispositions are necessarily irrational, Only that they are ultimately based on something other than reason. Some argue that while proofs are rationally sound and even persuasive, The most you can expect from them is to show that there is nothing irrational about accepting the arguments. Even most thinkers who advance these arguments don't claim they constitute absolute proof for God's existance. As Dr. Geiger and Frank Turnkey explain, "As limited human beings, We do not possess the type of knowledge that will provide us with absolute proof of God's existence or nonexistence. Outside of the knowledge of our own existence (I know I exist because I have to exist in order to ponder the question), We deal in the realm of probability. Whatever we've concluded about the existence of God, It's always possible that the opposite is true. " Yet I believe, Along with Geisler and Turek, That the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist. Which I will explain when I get to Jesus. Though there are other proofs, Such as the ontological argument, I will focus on three of them: the cosmological, Teleological, And moral arguments. The cosmological argument is a law involving causation. Briefly stated it is: 1. Everything that begins had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, The universe had a cause. This invites a question: If God was the "first cause" of the universe, Who "caused" God? Let's examine that. The first premise is considered self-evident because something cannot come from nothing. Put differently, Being cannot come from nothing. Even a ten-year-old knows that, Right? We personally observe that everything in the physical universe was caused by something, E. G. A tree depends on seed from another tree, As well as water, Minerals, And sunshine. The second premise is now supported on scientific and philosophical grounds. Most scientists accept the Big Bang theory, Which tells us that the universe had a beginning. (Many Christians, Incidentally, Believe in the scientific evidence for the Big Bang, Which is consistent with the biblical account of creation, But reject the naturalistic speculations about how the bang occurred. ) Additionally, The Second Law of Thermodynamics informs us that the universe has a finite amount of energy and it is decreasing. Entropy is moving the universe toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy, Which means it cannot be eternal. Because maximum entropy has not yet been realized, The universe could not have been here forever. Moreover, The universe is expanding, Which means it had a beginning point when nothing existed. But again, Nothing cannot produce something. Dr. Norman Geisler sets out the philosophical basis for the second premise (the universe had a beginning): 1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed. 2. As such, Today could never have arrived if there were an infinite number of moments preceding today. 3. Today has in fact come. 4. Thus, There could only have been a infinite number of moments prior to today, Which means time had a beginning. Because everything with a beginning must have been caused, The temporal world had a Beginner. Stated another way, Unless a first cause (God) exists, The universe would have to be eternal because there would be an infinite series of causes and events that would never lead to a first cause or starting point. As evidence from science and philosophy demonstrate that the universe is not eternal, However, It is impossible that an infinite series of causes and effects preceded it. It had to have begun at some point in time. And because no contingent being can create itself, The first cause must have been uncaused or self-existent and must transcend the material universe. To explain the existence of a contingent, Temporally finite universe, There has to be a non-contingent being who is wholly independent of the physical universe and who created it. As one writer put it, "If God needed a cause then God is not God. " The teleological argument is based on the order and design we observe in nature. These cannot possibly have resulted from random processes and chance-an intelligent designer (Being) had to have caused them. The teleological argument maintains: 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, The universe had a Designer. There is abundant and various evidence of this argument involving things we've learned from astronomy and biology, Which we can talk about in another debate. The moral argument (the moral law) states: 1. Every law has a lawgiver. 2. There is a moral lae. 3. Therefore, There is a moral lawgiver. The first premise is self-evident: every law must have a lawgiver or it wouldn't be a law. The second premise assumes our experience teaches us that all people have a fundamental sense of right and wrong that corresponds to an objective moral standard beyond humanity. If there is a moral law, There surely must be a moral lawgiver. A prominent group of atheist intellectuals known as the "new atheists" strongly disputes that the existence of moral law necessarily implies a moral lawgiver. They seem to believe that morals somehow bootstrapped their way into possessing moral consciences. While people can certainly invent their own moral codes, Unless there is an objective standard beyond humanity, Then everything is just a matter of human opinion. Without God, There's no way to justify that Hitler was evil, Or that the behavior of Mother Teresa was better than Hitler's. One of the chief stumbling blocks to faith is the existence of evil and suffering in the world. Why would an all-powerful, All-loving God permit that? We can discuss that in another debate also, But for now note that this reason for doubt can be turned on itself. Human beings would arguably have no concept of evil, Especially in any kind of universal sense, Unless a moral standard exists apart from us-that is uncreated by us. "[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust, " writes C. S. Lewis, Who was an atheist before transforming into one of Christianity's most effective apologists. "But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? " Without a moral absolute that is independent of human consciousness, There would be no point of reference and no basis for determining right or wrong. All moral standards, If they existed at all, Would be relative, And there would be no authority behind our moral judgements. But anthropological and sociological research shows there is a universal standard of behavior and people that transcends cultures and races. There is a universal recognition of evil and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. This is not to say there are no variations and moral codes among peoples. The basics, However, Are often quite similar. Now I will try to fit what I can about Jesus being God. To understand the context, We must begin with the Old Testament account of God selecting Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Moses tells God he is an adequate to the task, Asking, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt? " (Exodus 3:11). After more objections, Moses asks God what he should say about God's identity if his people should challenge him. From a human perspective, We might consider Moses' hesitation to assume such a formidable task a humble reaction. But from God's perspective, It could be just the opposite, Because God is the one Who told him to do it. If God is directing Moses to do something-anything-who is Moses to challenge Him, Even if the challenge concerns Moses' own abilities? Omniscient Jehovah obviously knows Moses is up to the job or He wouldn't have tasked him with it. But something more significant is about to play out in this narrative. It's interesting that when Moses first demurely he asks God, "Who am I? " God essentially reverses this language after Moses asks Him how to respond if the Israelites ask who God is. God replies-in Hebrew-"Yahweh, " which is translated, "I Am Who I Am. " God says, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The Lord, The God of your fathers, The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, And the God of Jacob, Has sent me to you. ' Thus is my name forever, And thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations" (Exodus 3:14-15) God is making clear that His name-"I Am Who I Am"-is synonymous with "The Lord, The God of your fathers, The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, And the God of Jacob, " and by these names He shall be known forever. God isn't just selecting an arbitrary name for Himself. Reflect for a moment on the profundity of His self-identification: I Am Who I Am. How better to describe the indescribable? God is saying He is pure essence. Who but God could devise such a name? I will have to continue in the next round.