Send
Close Add comments:
(status displays here)
Got it! This site "creationpie.com" uses cookies. You consent to this by clicking on "Got it!" or by continuing to use this website. Note: This appears on each machine/browser from which this site is accessed.
Book: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
1. Book: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
This content is being developed. These notes are based on getting through chapter 3 of the book.
... more to be added ...
2. Book: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Title: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Author: William Lane Craig
Publisher: Crossway; 3rd edition (June 9, 2008)
ISBN: 978-1433501159
Description:
His approach-that of positive apologetics-gives careful attention to crucial questions and concerns, including: the relationship of faith and reason, the existence of God, the problems of historical knowledge and miracles, the personal claims of Christ, and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He shows that there is good reason to think Christianity is true. As Craig says, "If you have a sound and persuasive case for Christianity, you don't have to become an expert in comparative religions and Christian cults. A positive justification of the Christian faith automatically overwhelms all competing world views lacking an equally strong case." Amazon.com (as of 2025-03-13)
3. William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University. He and his wife Jan have two grown children. Amazon.com (as of 2025-03-13)
What follows are some initial impressions through chapter 3. There are many interesting parts of the book if one wants a somewhat exhaustive detailing of ideas and philosophies over time.
Notes: (not addressed elsewhere)
Evil is not defined but left to the imagination of the reader.
4. Books and words and definitions
During many years teaching as a professor, I taught many courses and reviewed some textbooks in the fields of computer science, software engineering, marketing, etc.
One beginning computer literacy textbook had an incorrect definition of a computer (i.e., limited computers to electronic digital computers).
One beginning computer literacy textbook was missing a way in which one could obtain software (i.e., one could write software).
One graduate textbook on software engineering project management did not define what software engineering consisted of (i.e., developing software on time and on budget that meets the needs of the customer).
One textbook on Internet marketing had an incorrect definition of marketing (i.e., it does not always satisfy the desires of the customer).
5. Truth of definitions
 |
 |
My model of truth based on Aristotle.
|
Book cover.
|
Book title:
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. This book is about the Christian "
truth" and "
apologetics". The word "
apologetics" is defined but I cannot find a definition of "
truth" in this 415 page book.
Importantly,
truth is
not defined in the book but talked about in a round-about way. Even
Pilate raised that question with Jesus. The distinction between opinion truth, reality truth and logical truth is not mentioned when talking about truth. The reader is left to determine which truth is being used based on context (and sometimes guessing).
6. Some truthful impressions
John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? … [kjv]
The
logic used tends to be that of hand-waving logic and
not formal logic (i.e., propositional, predicate, etc.).
Reality truth: inductive, probabilities.
Logical truth: deductive, symbol manipulation, interpretation dependent.
8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [kjv]
Aristotle says that one starts to address deceptions by defining meanings for words used. This idea is present in modern computer science.
7. Defining a definition
The ancient Greek word (
rough breathing)
"ὅρος" ≈ "boundary, definition" and is the source of the English word
"horizon".
Aristotle often emphasizes the importance of
"definitions" in identifying bad logic. Of course, Aristotle then defines what he means by a
"definition".
English: A definition is a phrase indicating the essence of something. (Loeb#391, p. 281)
Greek: Ἔστι δ´ ὅρος μὲν λόγος ὁ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι σημαίνων, [Topica, 101b-102a]
"λόγος" ≈ "rational explanation, word".
"σημαίνω" ≈ "to indicate" and is the source, through French, of the English word "semantics".
The aspirated rough breathing comes through in Latin and into English in the sound of the letter "
h". Aristotle used this word for "
definition" many times. This was only used for a while in the first century BC and discontinued but persists in ancient Greek notations to this day.
8. Beginning analysis
Here are notes and (brief) analysis/remarks on
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.
Coded information (i.e., DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), books, messages) vs. Quantum information (i.e., atoms and molecules).
Thermodynamics as the easiest to understand (hot coffee cools, cold drinks warm, etc.) and most well established limit on the requirement for a beginning to the universe. This is hidden in the middle of complicated physics and philosophical explanations and arguments.
If one logically proves X and there is a tight interpretation of proof X to reality, there is not a compelling reason to go in-depth into why all other opinions and conjectures, even with quasi mathematical support, are not valid. It is as if when one knocks down all other opinions and conjectures, yours is then valid.
Whenever talking about causes, one should include Aristotle's presentation of four causes and reasons and not make up and present your own two ideas of cause.
9. John 1:1-5 Four causes in a design and implementation model
The ancient Greek word
"αἰτία" ≈ "cause, reason". Aristotle often used this word as
"explanation". Each
"cause" is a "
why" question. These are briefly summarized here using the Aristotle's example of a "
table". The more formal Latin and the less formal English words describing the Greek words are provided.
| αίτια |
cause |
Latin |
Informal |
table |
cooking |
computer |
| ὕλη |
matter |
material |
substance |
wood |
ingredients |
data |
| εἶδος |
form |
formal |
pattern |
design |
recipe |
code |
| κινοῦν |
movement |
efficient |
agent |
carpentry |
making |
run |
| τέλος |
end |
final |
purpose |
dining |
eating |
result |
Paul appears to use the four causes in writing to the Philippians. John appears to think in a top-down backward-chaining manner (much as a modern computer scientist). A top-down view of the four causes appears to fit John 1:1-5.
10. Common cause argument
Here is a common cause argument.
1. Everything has a cause.
2. There must be a first cause.
3. Then who caused God (or that first cause)?
There have been attempts to get around this argument. A somewhat clever attempt is called the
Kalam Cosmological Argument by attempting to not include a creator God in the first premise so that one can attempt a somewhat logical argument that leaves open the possibility of a creator God.
One then tries to knock down every other explanation in the hopes that your argument will be the one left standing and be taken, by popular or unpopular opinion, to be the true explanation (for whatever true means).
11. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The
Kalam Cosmological Argument is named for the medieval Islamic method refereed to as
Kalam. The book
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is from 1979. The argument goes as follows (p. 112 of the book
Reasonable Faith).
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Important definitions needed:
universe,
beginning,
cause. Notes:
Point 1 includes the word "begin" to allow a creator God to not begin. When does something "begin"? Does this require "time" to exist?
The "cause" is left unspecified so that one can have natural causes in addition to a creator God.
How does one define a "
change"? What is the domain of "
everything", "
anything", etc.
12. Universal quantification
Universal quantification involves "
for all" within a certain domain set. The symbol "
∀" is read as "
for all". The important question is the
domain, as in "
for all" what? What is included in the "
for all".
An example is as follows.
∀ x ∈ { 1 , 3 , 5 } : x is an odd number
This is read as "
for all x in the set 1, 3, 5, x is an odd number"
The symbol "∈" is read as "in" which is short for "is an element of" (the domain set that follows).
The symbol ":" (colon) can be thought of as saying "such that" or "it is true that" (what follows).
13. Change and the beginning of existence
There is a saying that "
the only constant is change".
This is often attributed to
Heraclitus of Ephesus (Ancient Greek philosopher) (from Plato) as "
everything changes and nothing remains stil,2l; and you cannot step twice into the same stream."Saying:
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
When, exactly, are two things "equal"?
When did something begin to "exist"?
What caused that something to begin to "exist"?
Example paradox: ship of Theseus
What about digital copies? What about military units and soldiers, naval ships and crews, sports teams and players, etc.? How about the universe?
14. Sorites paradox - a heap of ideas
A paradox is something that is, literally, "
beyond expectation". A paradox involving
"heaps" is the
"Sorites" paradox. The name comes from the Greek word for
"heap".
Sorites paradox (little by little): When does a
"heap" of sand become
not a
"heap" as one grain at a time are removed from the
"heap"? When did the
"heap" begin to exist? What is the "
cause" of the
"heap"?
The original paradox is attributed to
"Εὐβουλίδης" ≈ "Eubulides" of
"Μῑ́λητος" ≈ "Miletus" on what is today the east coast of Turkey.
Part of the paradox has to do with how one defines a
"heap". A similar paradox involves
hair and
baldness.
15. Beginning of the universe
Thoughts:
Time is inferred/defined by an increase over entropy (disorder) over time.
Going back in time, the entropy would decrease to some minimum.
What is to keep the universe from being at that minimum for an infinite time in the past?
Then, the beginning would be when the entropy started to increase.
Thus, the universe would never have a beginning.
Instead, the beginning would have been from the continual steady-state minimum of entropy to a change to a trend towards maximum entropy
16. Formal logic
The logic in the book tends to be that of hand-waving logic and not formal logic (i.e., propositional, predicate, etc.). Let us attempt to be more formal. First, the universe and anything that has a beginning needs to be defined in a model that can be used to make an interpretation to formal logic. Let us assume the existence of time and matter (particles) in space.
17. Formal logic
The known universe has about 2270 or 2**270 small particles (i.e., pieces of matter) or 2n or 2**n where n is 270.
The known time of the universe, assuming 15 billion years, at one million samples per second, is about 280 or 2**80 or 2m or 2**m where m is 80.
The particle-time space of the universe is of size 2n*2m = 2n+m or 2**(n+m)
Anything that begins to exist, anything that could exist is a subset of the particle time space of the universe or one of 2**(2**(n+m)) objects (a very large number). One of these is the universe itself.
The number of ways of arranging these items in an order (assuming distinguishable items) is (2**(2**(n+m)))! using the factorial function for permutations of objects.
[many worlds - subsets vs. permutations of subsets]
18. Questions and conjectures
The obvious question of
beginning to
exist is the
universe itself which is the biggest of the set of subsets. Another beginning to exist object is that of
DNA and life itself (plants, animals, humans, etc.).
One could make the (somewhat) plausible conjecture that
everything in the
universe is
caused by the
universe (e.g., naturally, by a creator/designer God), etc. How would that fit reality?
19. Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a famous mathematician and humanist/socialist. The Russell Paradox (1901), a fundamental paradox in logic. is named after him. The Russell Paradox appears in reality in many forms.
This statement is false.
You must hate all forms of hate.
You must not tolerate intolerance.
It is interesting when people are pressed to reconcile, say, the toleration paradox, with ideas such as, say, inclusiveness, they fall back on the type system of Russell that did not resolve the logical issue. The only solution appears to be to give up on actual logic but pretend to be using logic.
20. Short forms
Some short forms of the Russell Paradox are the following.
This statement is false.
I am lying.
Is no your answer to this question?
Pinocchio: My nose will grow now.
There is no resolution of the Russell paradox in logic, computability or information within the system under consideration.
Gödel (mathematics): Incompletness (must go outside the system)
Turing (computation): Incomputability (must go outside the system).
Chaiten (information): Randomness (must go outside the system).
Gödel told Chaiten (by phone, Gödel avoided meeting people) that it does not matter which paradox one uses.
21. Russel paradox: list paradox
A
catalog is a
list. What about the "
list of all lists"? If the "
List of all lists that do not contain themselves" contains itself, then it does not belong to itself and should be removed. However, if it does not list itself, then it should be added to itself.
22. Russel paradox: barber paradox
The
barber paradox was used by Bertrand Russell to illustrate the Russell Paradox.
Consider only men: The barber paradox supposes a barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves and only men who do not shave themselves. Should the barber shave himself?
Here is a mathematical statement of the
barber paradox. Let
x and
y be men.
Aside: Everyone is assumed to need shaving. If you look in the mirror, and see that you really need shaved (saved), remember, you cannot shave yourself. You are shaved by (through) grace.
23. Kalam barber paradox
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Barber paradox: The
barber shaves all those, and those only, who do not
shave themselves. Who
shaves the
barber?
Noun: Let barber be the universe.
Verb: Let shaves be causes.
Kalam paradox: The
universe causes all those, and only those, who do not
cause themselves. Who
caused the
universe?
24. Kalam barber paradox choices
Barber paradox: The
barber shaves all those, and those only, who do not
shave themselves. Who
shaves the
barber?
Kalam paradox: The
universe causes all those, and only those, who do not
cause themselves. Who
caused the
universe?
Some choices:
The universe causes itself as in "This statement is true". No logical issues. Does this fit reality?
The Russell paradox results as in "This statement is false". No solution within the system. One must go outside the system. What does "outside the system" mean?
It appears that step 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument may be "
begging the question" or "
assuming the conclusion".
If the universe did not create itself (assumed by step 2), then one must go outside the system.
25. Beginning of life
When was the "
beginning" of
DNA that forms
life?
Would that "
beginning" need a creator God?
Could it be from "
natural" "
causes"? (e.g., biological evolution).
Can we prove this?
Since it is not clear how to put the
Kalam Argument into formal "
logic" (e.g., symbol manipulation, numbers with probabilities, etc.), it has a sense of being a clever case of "
begging the question" or "
assuming the conclusion". Aristotle includes this as a logical fallacy in his
Sophistic Refutations.
26. Show convincingly vs. prove
His wife tells someone the following.
... Oh, you should read Bill's doctoral dissertation. He uses physics to prove God exists. ... (p. 191).
One cannot "
prove" things in
physics which relates to "
reality". One can use
probability arguments and a "
model" to "
show convincingly".
To "
prove" something, one needs to use a
valid "
logic" and
symbol manipulation with an
interpretation that connects the "
logic" to "
reality".
27. Proofs and hand-waving opinion
... We needn't claim that we can prove to the unbeliever that God exists. In the minds of most people the word prove or proof connotes a mathematical demonstration. There is no reason to set the bar so unrealistically high. It's a better strategy to set the bar low and then really exceed all expectations. So we should simply claim that "There are good arguments for the existence of God" or "In light of the evidence it's more probable than not that God exits" or even more modestly, "The arguments make it rational to believe that God exits." (p. 189)
28. Science and coded information
Science: One cannot prove things in reality or physics or science. One can only show convincingly using probability. This does not work well with one-time or rare events (e.g. catastrophe theory). Science is inside space and time (as we know it).
Coded information: One can prove things in terms of coded information to a probability approaching 1.0 or 0.0 (depending on the logic used) provided a tight interpretation is made between logic and reality (e.g., picking all right-handed or all left-handed amino acids). Coded information can go outside of space and time (as we know it).
Coded information can go outside of space and time.
Science allows (does not forbid) this idea.
29. Science and coded information
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [kjv]
ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσεται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν [gnt]
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. [kjv]
ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου παρελευσονται [gnt]
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. [kjv]
ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελευσονται [gnt]
The "
heaven" and "
earth" are "
reality" as we know it and are associated with traditional "
science". The ancient Greek word
"λόγος" ≈ "rational explanation, reasoning, word" as in
"logic",
"reasoning", etc. The Greek word is the source of the English word
"logic" and English words ending in
"ology".
30. Matthew 24:35
KJV: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Greek: ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται παρελευσεται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν
31. Mark 13:31
KJV: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Greek: ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν παρελευσονται
32. Luke 21:33
KJV: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Greek: ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν παρελευσονται
33. Proofs and hand-waving opinion
Some developments over time.
1953: DNA digital code discovered (Watson and Crick). Research into the code of life explodes in this area.
1972: First proof (Hoyle) that a creator God exists (with probability approaching 1.0) from the existence of coded information. Many follow-on and simpler proofs follow.
Since then: explosion in understanding of information/computer science in the information age.
1984: First edition of Reasonable Faith published.
Why is the simple coded information proof not used or mentioned? (I am into chapter 4 of the 2008 edition).
Why not present the simple proof rather than hundreds of pages of technical terms, hand-waving arguments, imprecise (and sometimes invalid) logic based on science rather than coded information (with simple interpretation mapping to reality)?
34. Bible truth, God and the universe
How can one show that the Bible is true? That it reflects reality? And in a logical way?
The following commonly cited reasons are important but not logically valid.
inerrancy (assumed), infallibility (assumed)
preserved manuscripts
eye witness testimony
changed lives
if not liar or lunatic then Lord (C. S. Lewis, used later by Josh McDowell on college campuses)
These all leave something lacking.
35. Isaiah 46:9-10 End from the beginning
36. Isaiah 57:15 God and eternity
37. Information argument
0a. We exist.
0b. Infinite time (in reality) does not exist. [thermodynamics]
0c. Infinite space (in reality) does not exist. [observations]
1. Coded information exists. Billions of bits on each set of DNA.
2. Coded information cannot arise by chance. Hundreds of bits in the time and space of the known universe. Each bit doubles the time or space needed. [infinity needed, monkeys typing, osculating universe, many worlds]
3a. The random creating of coded information by evolution could not have happened.
3b. The only alternative proposed is creation by a creator God.
4. The creator God cannot be in time and space. [infinite regress, space aliens].
The Bible is the leading candidate for the Creator God.
How to prove the Bible is true? [what is truth]. Authentication codes needed.
38. Chance reasons
Science
cannot prove God.
Science
cannot disprove God.
Information transcends science.
Coded information: book,
DNA, etc.
The
DNA code has
64 (6 bit) instructions that each code for an amino acid, start or stop code, etc. An average human has about
1,000,000,000,000 copies (cells) each with about
6,000,000,000 bits of coded information of
DNA.
1. Life requires huge amounts of coded information.
2. Coded information cannot arise by chance.
This proves a creator outside of time and space with probability approaching
1.0 (certainty).
39. The complete problem
The kalam argument is also a natural bridge to sharing with Muslims, ... I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I've been told by Muslim apologists how much they've appreciated my work because they use my arguments all the time in debates with atheists! That made me realize all the more how important it is that Christians be trained to share these arguments, lest they be co-opted by Muslims. ... (p. 193)
This passage shows a key misunderstanding in problem identification. In any problem solving method, identifying the proper problem is both important and difficult.
Through chapter 3 (as of 2025-03-24), part 2 has not been mentioned nor addressed.
Note that creation science groups make the same logical error and it is related to the implication problem.
40. The complete problem
There are (at least) two parts to the full problem identification.
1. There is a creator God (outside of time and space as we know it). This book attempts to address this in a hand-waving and imprecise manner. The information argument is much more brief and precise and simple. The ID (Intelligent Design) movement is limited to this part of the problem.
2. The creator God could send us a message. How do we recognize this message and know this that message is the true message from the creator God? The Bible is the leading candidate for this message, but there are others.
Part 1 requires coded information theory and a simple reality binding to
DNA, amino acids, or something similar.
Part 2 requires linguistic study, valid logical analysis, etc., and is much more involved and difficult.
Through chapter 3 (as of 2025-03-24), part 2 has not been mentioned nor addressed.
41. End of page
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, [kjv]
και μνησθητε τα προτερα απο του αιωνος οτι εγω ειμι ο θεος και ουκ εστιν ετι πλην εμου [lxx]
46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, … [kjv]
αναγγελλων προτερον τα εσχατα πριν αυτα γενεσθαι και αμα συνετελεσθη και ειπα πασα μου η βουλη στησεται και παντα οσα βεβουλευμαι ποιησω [lxx]
telling beforehand the latter events before they come to pass, and they are accomplished together: and I said, all my counsel shall stand, and I will do all things that I have planned: [bs3]
Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. [kjv]
ταδε λεγει κυριος ο υψιστος ο εν υψηλοις κατοικων τον αιωνα αγιος εν αγιοις ονομα αυτω κυριος υψιστος εν αγιοις αναπαυομενος και ολιγοψυχοις διδους μακροθυμιαν και διδους ζωην τοις συντετριμμενοις την καρδιαν [lxx]
Is God outside the universe? To see this, one must think outside the box. Can the universe disappear? What might transcend the universe (and science)?
