When Stephen Hawking wrote his best-selling “A Brief History of Time” in his quest to do away with God, the renowned Cambridge mathematician had to invent a second kind of time, which he called “imaginary” time.
The imaginary time was a necessary posit because Hawking knew that if there is the time we know of as part, present and future, then there must be a beginning of time and that means in turn there must be a creator of time. But that creator is exactly what Hawking wanted to do away with.
Dr. Hugh Ross is an astro-physicist, not a mathematician, but he and Hawking both wrote best-sellers on multiple aspects of the God question. Ross also is the founder of Reasons To Believe (RTB), an excellent apologetics think tank with an emphasis on relating faith and science.
“That God created the time dimension of the universe implies that he could create other time dimensions. Therefore, God could operate within as many time dimensions as he chooses,” Ross writes today on the RTB web site. If you have time — no, not a joke — I heartily encourage you to give a read to Ross on God and time.
If you work on the Hill, then you know Artificial Intelligence (AI), machine learning and 5G are all “next-big-things” in technology, and, when they are combined in the near future, computers will rule our world by functioning in ways that seem almost human. Well, just not quite human.
That little bit of “just not quite” is the critical difference between a strictly material world in which there are only objective measures and processes, and one with time, space and matter, plus subjective characteristics like will and choice among alternatives. And in an ultimate sense, it points to the existence of God.
The reason is simple: Computers simply can’t be as smart as human beings.
There was a time more than a century ago when it was not uncommon to hear religion scholars argue that early Christians borrowed from common Middle Eastern pagan resurrection myths of their day to explain away Jesus’ death on the cross and the fact of His missing body.
But about the only place that claim is made today is on the Internet. That’s why, at least on a popular culture level, the claim is enjoying something of a revival among skeptics looking for reasons to reject Christianity. There are reasons, however, why reputable scholars stopped making the argument a long time ago.
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’
“That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
“You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.” — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Christianity is either established or destroyed by whether or not a single historical event actually happened, as claimed in the four Gospels concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
If Jesus was indeed resurrected three days after being crucified dead and buried, then was seen and heard by a multitude of witnesses in the 40 days thereafter, as claimed by the Gospel authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then every human being who ever has or ever will live must decide whether to accept or reject His claim to be God Incarnate and the only way to Heaven.
If Jesus was not physically resurrected as claimed by the Gospels, then, as Paul writes in I Corinthians 15:17-19, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile … and we are of all people most to be pitied.”
Christian apologists like J. Warner Wallace, the famous NBC “Dateline” cold-case detective, speak to lots of college and high school groups and they often get the most penetrating questions from the students.
Such was the case at the recent Grounded Youth Apologetics Conference hosted by the Donelson Fellowship in Nashville. A student noted that Wallace had spoken of how he believes Christianity “fits” science better than religions like Islam and Hindu and asked him why the others don’t.