The Existence of the Universe is a Definitive Affirmation of the Existence of God

Looking at the awesomeness of Creation – how mindblowingly complex it is, how marvelously beautiful it is, how gloriously big it is – and, by extension, all the incredible creations and accomplishments that have come out of human imagination, creativity, intellect, resolve, and talent, I am deeply perplexed that some people can dare conclude that all of these “just happened.”  To me, with my daily encounters with reality and its wonders, it is very much apparent that there is Someone Bigger beyond all of these.  Yes, it is based on faith.  But it’s not an irrational faith.  In fact, as a Christian, is it with Spirit-driven faith that I was able to think more rationally – to sincerely seek truth.           

Pompous “enlightened people” pretend to have all the answers.  They believe they are superior because they aren’t a “superstitious bunch” that believe in a Supreme Being.  But upon meticulous scrutiny, you will see that they are hypocritical, that their presuppositions are also based on faith – and a faith working on a foundation something actually shakier than a faith in God at that!

For example, the strongest “evidences” out there for the Theory of Evolution are almost solely limited to “microevolution” – wherein an animal or plant develops an additional function in response to particular stimuli.  And that doesn’t prove Evolution at all.  An illustration of microevolution is a fish developing a camouflage in order to avoid predators; in that scenario, the fish’s nature as fish remains intact.   But a fish transforming into a bird is the kind of dramatic change that Evolution is claiming as possible – that’s “macroevolution” – and there are no empirical data to support such absurdity.  More so with Abiogenesis – wherein an inanimate object is supposed to dramatically transform into a living thing.  Macroevolution and Abiogenesis are ridiculous, proof-less claims; without these two, the Theory of Evolution falls apart.  And yet people will readily accept Evolution’s infallibility!  Most atheists I encounter that believes in Evolution or the Big Bang or any other theory that denies God creating life and the universe simply accepts these theories are true without really thoroughly understanding them (or they pretend that they do).  They embrace these as truths without any struggle, without further reflection or discernment, just because a famous scientist or philosopher said so.   In fact, if they choose to exert an effort in honestly examining these for themselves, they might discover that these presented ideas don’t really have airtight, empirical proofs.  Hence, they might not have faith in God, but the manner of how they strongly believe in the ideas of Evolution or Big Bang or Sagan or Dawkins or Darwin – without genuine comprehension of them and without finding definitive proofs to support them – is some kind of faith.    

 

Science is a great, great thing.  But it is not God.  Science should lead us to God.  And if more scientists are more honest with themselves, and not give in to peer pressure, and really apply objective thought, and get rid of prejudices and double standards, they would definitely see God in the wonders of the universe that they discover through Science.

When one truly fathomed the awesomeness of life and the universe, one won’t really be comfortable of accepting that all of these were brought about by random accidents.  The existence of life and the universe – Creation – is clearly a definite affirmation of the existence of God – the Creator (for, in fact, Creation is the physical manifestation of God’s glory).  The intrinsic beauty and complexity found in every detail of Creation are something that I can never rationally accept as things that “just happened.” 

The Law of Cause-and-Effect states that, for every effect, there should be an appropriate, reasonable cause that made it so.  And the only “appropriate, reasonable” cause there is for an “effect” of such magnitude as the universe is an infinite, intelligent God.  To think that the universe has been brought about by a “cause” lesser than that is ridiculous. 

If one denies an eternal Creator has made the universe, one has to embrace the belief of either: a.) the universe created itself; or b.) the universe originated from a finite cause – either a finite catalyst or a creator, who himself has been created by something or someone.  Both options are obviously absurd.  The first option is contradictory.  How can something create itself?  For the universe to be capable of creating itself, it should first have to be.  It would have to be before it was.  And that’s an impossibility.  Even God can’t create himself, because he wouldn’t be present to create himself in the first place.  God is – by essence and definition – infinite, un-created, and exists before time came to be.         

The second conclusion – that the universe originated from a finite creator/catalyst – is very problematic because, ultimately, it relies on the belief that an actual infinity of finite things is possible.  One would have to wrestle with the problem: if the universe is created by an A, what is the B that created A in the first place?  How was B created then?  By a C?  Then what created C?   And so on.  Ad infinitum.  And that is just plain nonsense.  If one subscribes to such thought that an infinite chain of finite causes is possible, one also has to subscribe to a belief that time has been running eternally since an infinity of finite causes would require infinite time to work on.  The problem however is that infinite yesterdays is unthinkable for it’s an impossibility to cross through eternity.  You won’t be able to go through an infinite number of yesterdays to get to today just as a negative infinity can’t “count down” towards zero.  If it has been going on forever, it can’t possibly get to today.                

So for this universe to exist, it should have been created by something eternal – something that existed before time even existed – and is infinite in essence.  It’s the only possible solution.   Furthermore, this infinite something can’t be something without awareness.  It should be something – someone – with intelligent consciousness – a supreme intelligent consciousness.    

When I was still a kid who had never even ridden in a plane yet, airplanes provoked awe in me.  I was curious of its engineering (or whatever term the concept of engineering represented in my mind then); my mind was asking things like “How something heavy was made to fly?”  I knew that the answers would be complicated and I probably had to get a bit older to understand.  However, I knew that this complex airplane couldn’t possibly have “just happened”; its complex, purposed design required a conscious, intelligent effort to be.   Now, life and the universe have much more complex engineering in it than an airplane.  It definitely couldn’t “just happened”!  Believing that is more ridiculous than believing that an airplane can be made out of an exploding junkyard.    

Even if, let’s say, experiments using the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland supposedly proved the Big Bang Theory or how matter exploded out of energy, it doesn’t necessarily is a point against Creationism and a point for Anti-Creationism theories.  What was done to simulate the supposedly beginning of the universe hasn’t been something random, undirected, or unsupervised.  There were scientists who had consciously worked, assembled, and directed the factors to bring the creation of matter about.  It didn’t really happen chaotically.  There was a conscious, intelligent effort behind it.   It’s not the same thing as what atheists believe in – that the universe just “exploded” into being without conscious guidance.   

The universe exists because an infinite and intelligent and living God created it.   It’s the only logical conclusion.  The Apostle Paul revealed in the first chapter of Romans that men have no excuse in denying the existence of God because the universe clearly manifests His being and glory.  The existence of the universe should be a sufficient – no, overwhelming – objective proof for the affirmation of God’s existence. 

But why are there atheists?  Why aren’t everyone compelled to believe in God if the universe compellingly proves his existence?  Well, it’s because humans are sinners, and our sinful and depraved nature won’t allow us to be persuaded by the overwhelming proof.   We are blinded (or prefer to be blinded).  The truth never really mattered to us.  We prefer to deny the existence of the Creator since we don’t want to acknowledge our accountability to our Creator. 

But through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the stubbornness and pride brought by our depraved nature will be shattered.  We will be able to humbly embrace truth and instruction.  And it is only by this time that our reasoning won’t be hindered when we argue or encounter arguments for truth.  When proof of the existence of God is brought forth by the universe, we can now allow ourselves to be persuaded.  From the point where we can wholeheartedly acknowledge God’s existence, then we can proceed to the next step of wholeheartedly acknowledging His lordship over us, and decide to live – to exist – solely for declaring His glory – just as what He has always intended for His Creation to be.

Read More

Savoring the Glory of God By Means of Man-Made Pleasures

This essay is somewhat of a sequel to an essay I wrote about two years ago entitled “The Purpose of the World’s Pleasures” (I encourage you to read that one first before proceeding).  These are basically the important points of that particular essay: 

• There are, of course, sinful pleasures – things that God has explicitly commanded us to avoid.  And even innocent pleasures can tempt us to idolatry.  But the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures by itself is not automatically sinful.
• God has designed us to have desires.  And God is the Author of the world’s pleasures.  God intended for us to enjoy them.  God intended for us to be thankful for them.
• The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  The purpose of the world’s pleasures is the same as the purpose of the world’s pains: it should lead us to God.  The world’s pleasures should eventually bring us to the realization that God is the only source of Ultimate Pleasure; the world’s pleasures should help direct our innate desires to Him.  The delight found in Him is incomparable, unspeakable, and full of glory.  Pleasures given up for it and pains endured for it are all going to be infinitely worth it. 
• If we fail to seek the Pleasure beyond the world’s pleasures – settling with and prioritizing these lesser pleasures – then we dishonor God.  We pathetically give up the greatest glory for something preposterously lesser.  We are like, as the great C.S. Lewis puts it, “half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”       
• Not all aspects of the world’s pleasures are good or helpful.  Our faith, our understanding for the purpose of pleasure, and our desire to glorify God will serve as “filters” when we are in the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures – retaining the positive, and discarding the negative.   

Now in this new essay, I will be expanding a bit more about the topic, but I will be focusing more on – as the title has made obvious – man-made pleasures. 

“Man-made pleasures”, for a better term escapes me at the moment, are all the products of human arts and mass media that we derive enjoyment from.  This includes pop culture, music, literature, gadgetries, movies, TV shows, games, etc.  In this essay, I will be arguing that God can and will use these “lesser pleasures” in revealing His infinite glory to us.  (Of course, it’s always a possibility that I err with my understanding and, thus, also err with my arguments.  I welcome correction from those wiser than me.) 

HOW TO ENJOY THE WORLD’S PLEASURES WITHOUT BEING “WORLDLY”

I have already tackled this in the previous essay.  But let me elaborate.  Let us start with what 1 Timothy 4:4-5 says:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

The passage provided these important points:

1. God’s Creation – which includes the world’s pleasures – is good. 
2. These are God’s gifts.  And we should receive them with thankfulness.
3. These gifts – these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy – are sanctified.  

To be “sanctified” means setting something apart or transforming something into a means or state that can and will be used to glorify God.  This applies to everything (as stated by 1 Timothy 4:4) created by God – which includes, by extension, the creations of His creatures (I’ll get to this later).  Sanctification applies to people (John 17:17, 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); sanctification applies on other things as well: food, money, property, practices (like what early Christians did with Christmas Day, December 25, which was formerly a date for a pagan festival), etc. 

So how are these things – particularly the world’s pleasures – sanctified?  In two ways, according to 1 Timothy 4:5: God’s Word and prayer. 

Firstly, God’s Word provides us with parameters on how to enjoy the world’s pleasures (no love for money, no sex outside of marriage, no drunkenness, no idolatry, etc.) as well as the revelation that God’s glory is manifested in the physical world and that the delight we derive from them must bring us to the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, Psalm 148:1-6, Colossians 1:16, Psalm 108:5, etc.).  So our adherence to God’s standards and willingness to learn about what He has to say about these pleasures brings sanctification to our enjoyment of the world’s pleasures. 

Secondly, through prayer, we are able to acknowledge that these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy are His gifts, and thank Him sincerely for we are able to freely enjoy His blessings because Christ already paid for them (Romans 8:32).  But aside from a means to say “thank you” to God, most importantly, prayer is the way we can ask His blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in being able to really see the glory of God through the world’s pleasures.  By our own, we will easily fall to temptation and idolatry.  Only God can truly prepare our hearts to enjoy the world’s pleasures in the way He intended.  Only God can truly sanctify.   

DON’T JUST “LOOK AT THE BEAM”, BUT “LOOK ALONG THE BEAM”

The Bible has made it apparent that the majesty of the physical realm – Creation – serves as “appetizers” or “signposts” that should direct us to the glory of the Creator.  As what Psalm 19:1 says of the wonders of the heavens, they “declare” the glory of God.  C.S. Lewis shared this anecdote to wonderfully illustrate how the majesty and pleasures of this world are merely pointing us to the Source of supreme majesty and pleasure:

I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place.  Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it. Then I moved so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

“Looking at the beams” is settling with the world’s beauty and pleasures – hence, idolatry.  “Looking along the beams” is tracing back the “beams” of the world’s pleasures towards its Source, which is God, where supreme beauty and pleasure lie. 

BUT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE WORLD IN POINTING TO THE GLORY OF GOD ALSO EXTEND TO MAN-MADE PLEASURES?

Absolutely. 

We are created by God in His image.  God designed us to have innate creativity, intellect, and capability of making beautiful creations in our own limited attempt to physically express or represent God’s glory, just as what the Creator did with His Creation.  Whenever we create – making the most of our God-given talents and abilities – we also “declare” the glory of God as much as what the heavens do in Psalm 19:1.  Therefore, man-made creations, are still, by extension, part of God’s Creation wherein he reveals His glory. 

Even the artistic outputs of non-believers – people who create without God consciously in mind – can still “declare” the glory of God.  Art is art, and beauty is beauty, regardless of who made it – a Christian or a non-believer.  Art and beauty are concepts invented by God, hence, ultimately, art and beauty comes from God.  Every human being – Christian or non-believer, consciously or unconsciously – deeply aches for God’s glory and is always compelled by the intuitive sense – whether he or she admits to it or not, realizes it or not – that there is Something beyond, Something bigger than what he or she can physically perceive.  Thus, human efforts and artistic outputs are still governed by a sovereign God that directs everything so that His intention of displaying His glory through physical representations – which includes man-made pleasures – comes through, regardless of the creators’ personal motivations.  A non-believing creator might have not honored God with his purpose, but, unbeknownst to him, he was nonetheless used by God to declare His glory when he exercised his creative impulses.    

The danger of a man-made pleasure is not necessarily because of the non-believer that created it.  Enjoying man-made pleasures created by non-believers is never an issue.  In this world, we always come into contact with services, products, and goods handled or built by unbelievers.  Your lunch might have been the cumulative contribution of an unbelieving farmer, an unbelieving fisherman, an unbelieving proprietor, and an unbelieving cook, and yet you still eat it.  The doctor that you have consulted about your health might be an unbeliever.  The mechanic that you went to to fix your car might be an unbeliever.  Your employer – the man providing your income – might be an unbeliever.  And so on.  It’s basically the same principle with enjoying a man-made pleasure created by an unbeliever.  God is sovereign over this world and everything we receive ultimately comes from God by using people – Christians or non-believers.           

Man-made pleasures, even those created by non-believers, are permissible to a Christian to enjoy (1 Cor. 6:12) because they are ultimately from God, and everything from God is good (1 Timothy 4:4), and God can sanctify them (1 Timothy 4:5) and make use of them to reveal His glory.  So for a Christian, someone who knows the truthful connection between the world’s pleasures and God’s glory, there is really no such thing as “secular.”  When he’s enjoying something secular by itself, like a Michael Jackson concert, it becomes sanctified when he is enjoying it with the holy purpose of seeking God’s glory – “looking along the beam” of MJ’s amazing talent. 

FICTION IS THE DEEPER REVELATION OF REALITY BY LIKENING IT TO WHAT IT IS NOT

The world’s pleasures, by stirring our sensations and emotions, arouse our deeper, inherent yearnings for greater awesome things than what we see in this world.  And, personally, outside of the complexity and loveliness of natural Creation, no other pleasure of this world is able to match fiction on blowing my mind away and awakening the desire in me for something bigger beyond my perceived reality.  That’s why I’m extremely fond of fiction. 

Some think that fiction is merely a “distraction” or an “escape” from reality.  Nothing can be more wrong.  Fiction “awakens” us to reality.  Kevin Vanhoozer wrote:

The sad truth is that many of us are, at best, only half awake. We think we’re engaged with the real world—you know, the world of stock markets, stock-car racing, and stockpiles of chemical weapons—but in fact we’re living in what [C.S.] Lewis calls the “shadowlands.” We think we’re awake, but we’re really only daydreaming. We’re sleepwalking our way through life—asleep at the wheel of existence—only semi-conscious of the eternal, those things that are truly solid that bear the weight of glory.

The world is full of wonders.  When we first come in contact with them, we probably had been awed.  But, over time, we got used to these wonders, taking them for granted, and our sense of awe is replaced with boredom and apathy – we “fall asleep.” And one of the best ways for us to “wake up” is through fiction.  For fiction articulates reality in a new light, providing for us an enhanced focus on the actual marvels found in things we had dismissed as ordinary.  As what G.K. Chesterton has perfectly analyzed:

When we are very young children we don’t need fairy tales: we only need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales— because they find them romantic… This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement. These tales say that apples are golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.

Once our sense of awe on the world’s wonders and miracles are rekindled, fiction could then further reveal to us what reality really is.  Often it is not enough to just describe reality for what it is.  When the Source of the deepest meaning of reality lies beyond it, then likening reality to what it is not actually reveals more deeply what it is (it’s another C.S. Lewis-ian concept).  Fiction does this. 

Besides, God himself opted to display His Reality through representation, making Creation – our reality – as means of revealing His glory to us.  In the same way, fiction serves as representation of our reality.  Of course, I’m not implying that we are merely God’s “computer simulations” in a The Thirteenth Floor sort of way (it’s a cool, underrated movie by the way) – that our existence lacked no real substance.  It’s just that God’s Reality is so grand, that our physical reality is much of a “figment” of God’s Reality as fiction a “figment” of our physical reality.                  

Simply, we are creatures that often require metaphors and analogies and illustrations and such to thoroughly grasp concepts and aspects of reality.  It’s simply the way we are designed by our Creator.  There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables.  God has always intended fiction to serve as a means of intensifying our appreciation, understanding, and perspective of reality – and beyond! 

THE DANGER OF MAN-MADE PLEASURES

Of course, the fact that God reveals His glory through man-made pleasures is no excuse for us to consume every piece of it just because.  What do I mean by that?  We still have responsibility of choosing wisely the kind and amount of man-made pleasures that we choose to enjoy.  Seeking God’s glory is the chief reason for everything we Christians do in this world, including our choice of man-made pleasures.  Thus, if it’s already apparent that God’s glory is absent from a particular man-made pleasure, or it’s failing to bring us towards Christ, but, on the contrary, is actually leading us away, then there’s no reason to continue consuming it. 

We all have to constantly remember that the greatest danger of enjoying the world’s pleasures is how easily the Devil can use them to tempt us to idolatry.  If we are just immersing ourselves to banal entertainment – failing to “look along the beam” – we are vulnerable to the Devil’s attack.  Just like with idle hands, idle minds are also the Devil’s playground.  Man-made pleasures, whether enjoying them properly or not, will always arouse our desires.  When we fail to direct these aroused desires towards God, the Devil always jumps at the opportunity to exploit and redirect our desires towards idols.  Looked at how the Serpent tempted Adam and Even to eat the Forbidden Fruit when their imaginations and desires (“You will be like God!”) were aroused. 

Hence, we have to be honest with ourselves if a particular man-made pleasure is truly aiding us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or if it’s turning out to be a genuine unhelpful distraction.  Are we more engrossed during prayer than watching a movie?  Are we spending more time reading our Bibles than novels?  Are we more thrilled with God than Stephen Amell?

If we discover upon reflection that enjoying a particular man-made pleasure is not really helping us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or, worse, it’s actually leading us to sin, then we should completely abstain from it.  The Bible calls for radical cutting off of things that tempt us to sin.  Matthew 18:6-9 tells us:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

Jesus means business.  If you’re always being lured towards pornographic sites, then cut off your Internet service.   If you’re spending more time and delighting more in watching TV than praying and reading the Bible, then sell or give it away.  If you’re always succumbing into drunkenness whenever you taste alcohol, then completely abstain from alcoholic beverages.

Take in mind that God doesn’t exclusively reveal His glory through man-made pleasures.  He can use other kinds of innocent pleasures as well.  He can even use suffering.  Abstaining from a man-made pleasure when necessary is not a loss at all.  Don’t think of it that you’re missing out on something.  Ultimate Pleasure is found in God anyway, and God has continually guaranteed that giving up something for Him is infinitely worth it. 

USING CREATION AND MAN-MADE PLEASURES TO DELIGHT IN GOD

In conclusion: if God chooses to display his glory through something, whether through the natural facets and elements of Creation or through man-made pleasures, then we should proceed to enjoy them.  God designed us to have physical desires and sensations so that we can perceive God’s glory through physical manifestations.  And through them, we will realize that there is more to it than these, that there is a Delight that transcends the pleasures of the world.  The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  They are merely the means to sharpen our longings for something – Someone – greater than physical pleasures.  The ultimate objective has always been about finding our complete, supreme joy in God alone.  

Read More

Be. Still.

Whenever there are storms in my life,
God responds with two words:

"Be. Still."

Either He addresses those words to the storm
Or He addresses them to me.

Either He calms the tempest -
preventing that threatening external stimuli from continuing.
Or He calms my restless heart in turmoil -
giving me internal peace despite the raging storm around me.

Either way, His message to me is the same:
"I. Am. God."

To question Him, I dare not.
He is always in control.
And everything happens in accordance to His perfect, wise will.

Every storm is an opportunity to be awed by God.
His supremacy and goodness always reign.

Read More

The Superhero of Superheroes (A Sunday School Sermon)

Sunday, October 6, 2013, was the first time I ever delivered a Sunday School sermon for all children belonging in the intermediate department.   Below is my sermon’s rough draft.  Of course, it was not the actual words I used during actual delivery; I was mostly speaking in Tagalog (so that the children can understand it better).  Also, I didn’t use this as guide at all during my actual sermon (forgot to bring it), but the flow and content of the sermon has been parallel to this rough draft below.  Additional note: in the draft, I put the expected responses of the children on my questions (these are the italized words in parentheses).  And, essentially, during the actual, the expected responses have been spot on).    

Can you name who is this?

(Wolveriiiiiiiiine!)

Right.  That’s Wolverine.  How about this next one, can you name him?

 

(Huuuuulk!)

Right again!  That’s the Hulk.  Next…

(Captain America!)

Yes.  Captain America.  And the last one…

(Spider-Man!!!)

Correct! Spider-Man. 

Now, what is the common thing about Wolverine, Hulk, Captain America, and Spider-Man? 

(They are superheroes!)

Yes.  They are all superheroes.  They have superpowers, and they use them to save other people’s lives and fight evil.  Pretty cool of them, right?   

However, these superheroes – Wolverine, Hulk, Captain America, and Spider-Man – are fictional.  They do not exist in real life. 

Moreover, even IF they are real, they are only merely Men.  And though they have used their superpowers to save lives, those same superpowers can’t save them from the greatest danger that all of humanity faces: the curse of sin and death.  They will need a Superhero themselves to save them from this.

In real life, there is only one true Superhero.  Do you know who he is?

(JESUS!)

You are right, the ONLY real-life Superhero is Jesus!  And unlike Spider-Man and Captain America, Jesus actually exists in real life.  And best of all?  He can save us from sin and death!  Wow.  Hulk, incredibly super-strong as he may be, can’t do that.  Only Jesus can.   

 JESUS IS THE ONLY SAVIOR

According to 1 John 4:14: “…the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”     

Superheroes have saved the world, but only in fiction.  Moreover, the extent of their “saving of the world” is so miniscule compared to the magnitude of Jesus’ “saving the world.” Jesus is the only one who has literally saved the world from Hell.

Jesus is the only Savior of the world. Salvation from death and sin can be found in no one else but in him alone (John 14:6).     

THE LORD PROTECTS ME ALWAYS

In fiction, superheroes use their superpowers to protect people and fight evil.  In real life, only the Lord has true superpowers and the only one that can protect us from evil.  Once you make Jesus your personal Superhero and Savior, he promises to protect you from the evils and dangers that surround you.   He promises to fight for you.  It is said in Exodus 14:14: “The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” 

Moreover, Romans 8:31b states, “If God is with us, who can be against us.”  Jesus is the only real-life Superhero.  He is more powerful than Superman.  He is bigger than all of the “supervillains” – fear, temptation, bullies, tests, etc. – you face in your life.  And if he’s your Superhero, then you have nothing to fear.      

THE LORD IS MY AVENGER

Who here knows of the superhero team, Avengers?  Who here have seen the movie? 

Now, do you know what is the meaning of “avenger”?   It means someone who takes vengeance or the one committing revenge.  Take note of this: the Lord said in Deuteronomy 32:35: “Vengeance is Mine.”  What does that mean?  It means only the Lord has the right to take vengeance on someone!  Remember that the Lord will fight for you.  Thus, He will surely be the one who will avenge you from those who have done evil to you. 

If we take vengeance on our own, instead of letting God, then it means we do not trust Him.  Not only that, but we insult Him.  It means we don’t think of him as a just and powerful Superhero, that he is incapable of giving us justice.  So if we truly trust Him as our Superhero, we will not be vengeful – doing revenge on our own – but will rather surrender to God the offense on us and let him be our Avenger. 

Jesus will surely be happy if we let him be our Avenger. 

So always remember:

1.) JESUS IS THE ONLY SAVIOR

2.) THE LORD PROTECTS ME ALWAYS

3.) THE LORD IS MY AVENGER

   

Let us be thankful for these truths.  And let us be thankful that Jesus is our Superhero!

Read More

A Short (but Meaty) Reflection This Holy Week

“Nails didn’t hold God to the cross. Love did.” – Max Lucado (When God Whispers Your Name)

This Holy Week, it’s that time of year again that we significantly commemorate Jesus Christ’s death on the cross (and his eventual resurrection, of course).  Whenever I think deeply of the awesomeness of God’s love and grace, it overwhelms me.  

Ponder this:  this great and glorious God – the Creator who doesn’t owe anything to his Creation – would choose to humble himself, incarnate himself to become human, to endure extreme humiliation and suffering and death, so that He can ensure the salvation of His children.  

His being God won’t be lessened if he doesn’t do it; God will remain a glorious and happy God no matter what.  He wasn’t obliged to do it.  But, still, he did it.  That’s how deep God’s love is.         

How much of a big deal is that? That God would bother to go through all of this to save a wretched, pathetic, unlovable, unworthy sinner like me?  That’s extremely outrageous!  But that’s the truth.  

If that fact won’t blow you away, nothing can.  

And for this, I’m eternally grateful to Jesus Christ.  

Read More

Hedonist's Desire

In my life…

I want to get a lot of things…

I want to experience a lot of things…

I want to enjoy a lot of things…

But even if I get them, I know I will desire upgrades of these wants

Still going to lack satisfaction

All things will pass…

Any pleasure in this world is temporary

Thus, I long for the day I would finally see You face to face

My heart bursting with complete ecstasy of joy and love forever and ever

Until that day, throughout my life, like St. Augustine, I say…

My heart is restless until I find my rest in Thee

Read More

Analysis of Christianity Part 2 - "Believing in God is Only Logical"

(Previous: Part 1 – “Introduction: The Logic Behind Faith”)

In the Introduction (Part 1), I discussed about how a Christian’s faith is actually based on logic.  And the reason why those who dismiss faith can’t see how the logic of it all works is that they do not agree with two basic premises: that God exists and that the Bible is God’s Word.  In this essay, I would have to make the case that the premise of God existing is appropriate and valid.  Or to put it simply, to make the case that God exists.   I will also be writing in the future a section exclusively for the Bible, but I don’t need to defend it as a premise.  I already made the case on why the Bible is an appropriate premise for this series of analysis of Christianity in Part 1.

Let me start this part with a quote from a legendary movie franchise, the Matrix Trilogy, and a thesis from a brilliant French mathematician, to whom a law about pressure was named after.

MORPHEUS’ WAGER

"Then tomorrow we may all be dead, but how would that be different from any other day? This is a war, and we are soldiers. Death can come for us at any time, in any place. Now consider the alternative. What if I am right? What if the prophecy is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over? Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for?"

That was a quote by Morpheus in a Matrix movie (from “Reloaded”, if I got it right).  I consider it as the ultimate epitomic quote of life scenarios in which the "you got nothing to lose anyway, therefore go all in" philosophy applies (I had talked about an application of this philosophy in the story on how I won a quiz bowl medal in college).      

(You know where this is going… ) The logic of this can be applied on the belief in God.  We will all end up dead anyway.  But what if God does exist?  What if there’s an afterlife?  What if it’s all true?  Isn’t it worth it?

This was Blaise Pascal’s point when he coined his Pascal’s Wager.  The main point (or one of the main points) of the thesis is summarized in this matrix:

So in a hypothetical scenario in which God does not exist, humanity – both Christians and non-Christians - will have the same end: no afterlife, just death – existence ceases.   However, in the scenario in which God does exist, there are two different ends: A Christian “gains all” (heaven) and a non-Christian gets “misery” (hell). 

Therefore, actually believing in God is only logical.  “Wagering” for God’s existence logically dominates “wagering” against God’s existence.  If God does not exist, the one who “wagered” for God’s existence will earn the same result (status quo) as with the one who “won the wager” – the one who “wagered” against God’s existence.  But if God does exist, then the one who “wagered” for God’s existence will earn a reward, while the one who “wagered” against God’s existence gets a punishment.          

HOWEVER, Pascal’s wager is incomplete and in some ways flawed.  This is because of three reasons: a) the format of the logic is actually applicable to arguing for faith in a God or gods in general and not actually exclusively applicable to argue for a Christian God (though, that was the intention of Pascal), b) belief in an existence of God is not enough to get the “reward”, that is not how Christianity works, and c) a Christian does not “wager” for God’s existence just because it’s the practical option even if he does not actually believe that God exists.  No.  A Christian believes and knows that his God exists.

But I start with this because this is something basic.  That in this context and perspective, when a Christian believes that God that can't be seen exists, it is not actually illogical as the world perceives. 

Moreover, since a Christian really believes in God and already knows the outcome of the battle, they, then, know that “it’s all worth fighting and dying for.” 

But, let us move on.  This time, we interrogate the “star witness” of God’s existence: Creation.

THERE’S A CREATOR BECAUSE THERE'S A CREATION

God’s fingerprints are left in his Creation.  Still, some (or most?) Men of Science deny it.   They say that it’s “illogical and ridiculous” to have just mere faith to believe that Someone that can’t be seen by the eye created the universe.  However, these people are the ones who have an illogical and ridiculous faith in their beliefs.  They have no empirical proof for their beliefs of the universe being created in a span of billions of years (contrary to the Biblical 6 days) or their concept of evolution.

“But we have mathematics,” they say, “By equation, we had arrived in a rational conclusion that the universe had expanded in billions of years.”  Unless they have empirical and testable proof of that, they really can’t validate anything.  It’s all theory.  And theory based on math does not mean it is always true to reality (see “Achilles and the Tortoise” paradox or Zeno’s paradoxes).  There are actually plenty of logical and scientific arguments that point the flaws of this “just happened” theory (in which, Big Bang is the most popular form), but, really, to claim that the universe “just happened” without cause or design defies common sense.  In the law of this universe, there has still nothing that had been observed that proves what “just happened” theory claims: that something from a chaotic bang can create an eventual purposeful order without being directed.

And it’s also what transpires in the evolution debate.  Abiogenesis (life existing from inanimate matter) or macroevolution (man descended from ape-like ancestors) has no empirical or testable evidences in any form.   Any “decent” arguments or points for evolution are all based on microevolution.  And microevolution can’t be associated at all with abiogenesis or macroevolution.  In microevolution, a living thing may “evolve” to adapt to environmental conditions, but it still has its nature intact – the toad might had become larger or had changed color, but the toad remains a toad, it did not evolve to become a lizard (which is macroevolution concept).            

Logically, these scientists that think that believing in a God that created everything is ridiculous are functioning with unsound premises.  Their premises or evidences are all based on “circle of information.”  It means that the books or articles arguing their point have references almost limited to each other.   They just source each other out.  Any first-hand or first tier evidences are just assumptions that their theory is the only workable model.      

But still, even if the arguments on an anti-Creationism perspective are incomplete and flawed, they are still considered “scientific” which puzzles me.  At least they should teach the Biblical point of view –which has some scientific evidences – with the same exposure as Theory of Evolution or Big Bang – which has a case that is as comparable to the “faith” on unseen data as proposed by Creationism.  Though, these scientific evidences for the Bible-point of view of Creation is not really that strong.  But that’s the point.  Why is anti-Creationism theories more accepted “scientifically” in our academic circles when its case is as strong or as weak as Creationism?  It is only fair for Creationism to get equal exposure as anti-Creationism.    

These scientists that deny the existence of God and insist that Creation just happened by cumulative chances and accidents of circumstance and situations are actually dwelling on ridiculous odds of clear impossibility.  Their point of view is comparable to – in the words of Ian Malcolm (protagonist of Michael Crichton’s “The Lost World) – “imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747.”  Ridiculous compared to believing God created the universe.  In the dictum of Sherlock Holmes which say “if you eliminate the impossible (the odds of creation “just happening”), whatever remains, whether improbable (a Creator creating Creation), must be the truth,” this time, “wagering” for the existence of God begins to make more and more sense.  For something that appears to be a chaotic event to have a result of order, there must be an Engineer that planned and designed all the details.         

But these “science guys” will not at all surrender.  They are likely to point out…

HOW DOES THE BIBLE EXPLAIN DINOSAURS?
          

    

“What of dinosaurs?” they ask, “The evidences of existence of dinosaurs destroy the idea of Creationism.”  My reply is, “How?”

Anti-Creationism theories dwell on the premise that the universe existed for billions of years, while the Christian point of view of Creation (or Creationism) estimate existence of Creation to mere 6,000 years.  Now, since the fact that dinosaurs existed in the past is true, this is used as an argument against Creationism because evolutionists estimated that dinosaurs lived 235 millions of years ago and became extinct 65 million of years ago.  However, the dating methods on how they estimated the time are flawed (look it up!  Do not assume that carbon dating is perfect).  These methods rely on untestable assumptions as its factors to estimate the time.   Thus, different assumptions result to different results.  They are inconsistent, thus unreliable. 

In both carbon 14 dating and radiometric dating, the first step is to ESTIMATE – and when I mean estimate, it means just picking a random number you like – the age of time before running the test.  Then they will run the test.  You see the absurdity?  They operate in an unscientific manner of biasing the result by determining the desired result before starting.  It’s like using their conclusion to validate the premises of the logic instead of the other way around.    So, evolutionists would give the parameters of millions of years as parameters, and the method’s result would be something in that parameter.  Thus, they estimated dinosaurs to had lived hundreds of millions of years ago because they want to believe that dinosaurs had lived hundreds of millions of years ago.      

In the Bible, it is mentioned that all land animals have been created in the 6^th day – this would include dinosaurs (note: the "dinosaurs" like Pterodactyl [“flying dinosaur”] or Ichthyosaur [“sea dinosaur”] are technically not dinosaurs at all.  Only the land giant reptiles are considered dinosaurs.).  Thus, contrary to evolutionist view, humans did walk with dinosaurs.  In fact, what appears to be human footprints were found in limestone along with dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas.  In the Bible, we can find creatures like “behemoth” and “leviathan” having the same descriptions with dinosaurs.  “Dragons” were also mentioned in the Bible, as well as ancient traditions and accounts.  Wouldn’t it be possible that these were references to dinosaurs?  Many of these descriptions would fit dinosaurs nicely

The idea of this earth existing for billions of years is already contradictory to the fact that our moon is a young moon.  If 14,300,000 tons of meteoric dust falls on the Earth each year, the same amount of dust will also fall on the moon each year.  In 5 billion years, it should be 137 feet deep.  But Neil Armstrong’s footprint only went 1/8 inch of dust.  Unless the Moon Landings are indeed a hoax, as conspiracy theorists point out, then this fact should destroy the idea that the Earth existed for billions of years.   Another fact: it would take 14 million years for erosion to wash away the continents, thus, if the Earth is at least one billion years old, it should had been eroded away at least 70 times over.

Now, let’s go to the question on how dinosaurs became extinct.  Meteors, volcanoes, etc. are all speculations.  Now consider a Biblical event called the Flood.  This could explain the fossils we find.  The swift burial in mud would ensure that most of the animals would be preserved into fossils.  But, still, the Bible said that God sent two – seven on some kinds – of every kind of animals into Noah’s Ark.  These include dinosaurs.  “But they are too large,” the evolutionist may point, “Not all kinds of dinosaurs can fit in the Ark along with the other kinds of animals.”  There are hundreds of dinosaur names, but in reality, there are probably about only 50 kinds of dinosaurs.  Many of those dinosaur names are just attributed to bones found which could be of the same kind of dinosaur.  This is like the fact that there are many breeds of dogs but they are all the same kind of animal - dog.  Take that all into consideration and it is very possible for dinosaurs to fit in the Ark.  Some dinosaurs still existed after the Flood (again, the reference of “behemoth” and “dragons” in the Bible and ancient accounts).   Extinction might had happened – not only to dinosaurs, but to other kinds of animals as well – because of difference in post-Flood climatic conditions and pre-Flood climatic conditions that they were not able to adapt to.   Consider also the other factors on documented extinction of animals: lack of food, diseases, and human activity.  Extinction had always been a part of the ecosystem.  Animals die out.  Why should the dinosaurs’ be a special mystery?

CREATIONISM VS. ANTI-CREATIONISM

I am not saying that Creationism has more scientific evidences than anti-Creationism theories like Big Bang and Theory of Evolution (but it is definitely logically sounder!).  But Creationism is as scientific – or as less scientific – as anti-Creationism.  My point is that the arguments brought by anti-Creationism are weak and not credible to use to deny God’s existence since it dwells on a “faith” itself. Creationism is operating in a premise of faith in an invisible God.  Anti-Creationism is operating in a premise of faith in unempirical and untestable assumptions  

GOD IS NOT FINITE

If they can’t win through Science, they will use Philosophy to dismiss God’s existence.  One clever argument to “disprove” the existence of God is the Omnipotence Paradox, which I had already explained as invalid in my essay on some manipulation techniques.  Same with science, those who deny God’s existence through philosophical logic use invalid premises which are inapplicable for God.  

Here is a very popular Internet anecdote (that is falsely attributed to Einstein’s experience as a student).  There are many versions of this story (and it has also been used to argue for other faiths like Hare Krishna).  It is purely fictional but we can derive valuable points from it.  The aim of Omnipotence Paradox is to argue that God can’t exist because an omnipotent God is logically impossible.  In this story, the professor follows the same clever (but flawed) line of thought as Omnipotence Paradox’s logical structure: that a God can’t exist since if he does, then he is evil. 

So, here’s one of its version (I combined ideas of two different variation of the anecdote to make it comprehensive for discussion):

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God. He asks one of his new students – a Christian – to stand.

Professor: “You are a Christian, aren't you, son?”

Student: “Yes, sir.”

Prof: “So you believe in God?”

Student: “Absolutely, sir.”

Prof: “Is God good?”

Student: “Sure.”

Prof: “Is God all-powerful?

Student: “Yes.”

Prof: “My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then?”

(The student was silent.)

Prof: “You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?”

Student: “Yes.”

Prof: “Is Satan good?”

Student: “No.”

Prof: “Where does Satan come from?”

Student: “From...God...”

Prof: “That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?”

Student: “Yes.”

Prof: “Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?”

Student: “Yes.”

Prof: “So who created evil?”

(The Christian student does not answer.)

Prof: “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?”

Student: “Yes, sir.”

Prof: “So, who created them?”

(Christian student still has no answer.)

Prof: “Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen God?”

Student: “No, sir.”

Prof: “Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?”

Student: “No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.”

Prof: “Yet you still believe in Him?”

Student: “Yes.”

Prof: “According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?”

Student: “Nothing. I only have my faith.”

Prof: “Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has with God.”

Student: “Professor, is there such a thing as heat?”

Prof: “Yes.”

Student: “And is there such a thing as cold?”

Prof: “Yes.”

Student: “No sir. There isn't.”

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: “In fact, sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.”

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: “What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?”

Prof: “Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?”

Student: “Once again you are wrong, sir, darkness does not exist, either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wave lengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.  Darkness can’t be measured.  If it can be, you would be able to make darkness darker.”

Prof: “So what is the point you are making, young man?”

Student: “Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.”

Prof: “Flawed? Can you explain how?”

Student: “Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, does evil exist, then?”

Prof: “Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

Student: “Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

(The professor was, this time, the one silent)

Student:  “Do you teach your students that they evolved from apes?”

Prof: “If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.”

Student: “Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

(The Professor shakes his head, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: “Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?”

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?”

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. Therefore, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?”

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: “I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.”

Student: “That is it sir. The link between man and God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving and alive.”

The professor made the error of logical arguing against God’s existence by using an invalid premise that God is something finite and measurable.  God transcends creation and time, and he alone has the wisdom to know what the ends of things are.   Man can only grasp as much as what the present condition is, he can only state it as it is, but he can’t really judge it as a good thing or a bad thing.  So, men’s concept of good or bad might not be the same as what God thinks as good or bad.  The professor’s concept of good is (physical) life and bad is (physical) death.  However, death is not an actual opposite of life as a substantial thing by itself, since it’s actually the absence – not opposite – of life.  Then, branding life as good and death is bad crumbles in its logic.  Can the professor really determine if his brother’s death by cancer is a bad thing?  If there is an afterlife, his brother could have now escaped suffering and now experience eternal peace in the hands of his Maker – and that would be a good thing.  Thus, the professor can only state the event as it is: that his brother died of cancer, nothing more and nothing less.  He can’t really judge it as good or bad.  His concept of “good or bad” is not the same as God’s concept of “good and bad.”

The second idea of bad or evil – as presented by the professor (The first is his brother’s death) – is of it being the manifestation of immorality, crime, hatred, violence, etc. exercised by mankind in this world.  Now, the student had already presented the idea of an infinite and immeasurable God by invalidating his professor’s line of argument of using a premise of duality.  The student already established that some ideas or terms exist because it is the state of absence of something.  The student now used this established standing to dismiss evil as a concrete form by itself as an opposite of good when it is actually the absence of good.  Now since there is evil, then there is a God.  Evil existed in mankind because of God’s absence in their hearts.  Very much the idea of what the Fall brought in the nutshell.             

    

Thirdly, the student destroyed the professor’s argument that only something empirical is actual truth by applying it to the latter’s belief in evolution (I had already argued earlier that belief in evolution is just as a faith as a belief in an invisible God) and the existence of his brain.  His conclusion: faith in the existence of God is not ridiculous, then.    

Every philosophy that argues that God does not exist operates like Omnipotence Paradox and the professor’s arguments.  They operate in premises that are contradictory to their ideas or the premises they use are inappropriate.

CONCLUSION: GOD EXISTS

By all the arguments I presented above, to believe in God’s existence is only logical.  And nobody can have the credibility nor has the right idea to dismiss that believing in God is something silly.  For them to dismiss God’s existence, they should have a concrete explanation or idea about a non-existence of God to prove things –which they do not have.  They also have “faith” in untestable premises to use in their arguments. 

Atheism – or unbelief of God’s existence – is just ridiculous.  Atheists ridicule faith when they themselves also operate with faith.  Atheism actually needs faith itself to believe that a God does not exist.   In fact, an atheist requires a greater amount of faith to believe that a God does not exist than a Christian who believes that God exists.  It takes more faith to believe in Nothing rather than Something.  Christians’ belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God serves as a concrete “Deus Ex Machina” answer to every difficult question of life existence and purpose.  Atheists, however, have to believe in… nothing, thus, the answer to life questions is: life has no purpose.  Atheists have to believe that order can rise from chaos without someone ever directing it with purpose, that uniqueness of individuals can come from disorder, and that a design can happen without a designer.

Just judge for yourself what do you think is the more ridiculous kind of faith.  Christians have faith on a God that created and designed everything.  Atheists have faith that Creation existed from nothing and, without direction, developed as we know it today.  Thus, atheists believe that "a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747” (which is something proven to be impossible in reality).

God exists.  The evidences are overwhelming. The argument that God exists is better than the argument that a God does not exists.  Anybody who thinks otherwise are fools (Psalm 14:1-2).

   

(Technically, this essay is like an extension to the Introduction [Part 1] since it still does not deal much on Christianity’s beliefs itself.  But Part 3’ll do it, starting with the basics: Part 3 – “Basics”)                 

Read More