Following Jesus is never easy, especially in a world where our love for technology and information makes it easier and easier to sin. The internet, social networking, and the various media outlets consistently provide opportunity to sin, because they are constant and can be accessed anywhere, including in the privacy of our bedrooms.
Rather than take a hammer to our computers and cell phones, God has provided us a better way to honor Him and remain connected to the world He has called us to reach. Numerous Christian software developers have gotten together to create a variety of "Accountability Software Systems" that allow a third-party of your choosing to monitor your web traffic and even your IM/Text messaging.
There are many different options out there, but here are my personal favorites:
X3 Watch
CovenantEyes.com
Please let me know if you have any questions, or are in need of accountability partner. The truth is that we all need one.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
UnAshamed
UnAshamed takes place every Tuesday night, inside the FHCC Campus at 8pm.
The course is a primer on theology. The course will cover topics like the inspiration of Scripture, the person and work of Christ, the role of the church, etc.
We are thrilled for how well this course is being received and implemented by those in our church. It has already served as a tremendous help to those seeking a deeper understanding of who God is and how to relate to him.
If you're interested, you can click here for the syllabus.
The course is a primer on theology. The course will cover topics like the inspiration of Scripture, the person and work of Christ, the role of the church, etc.
We are thrilled for how well this course is being received and implemented by those in our church. It has already served as a tremendous help to those seeking a deeper understanding of who God is and how to relate to him.
If you're interested, you can click here for the syllabus.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Universe Has a Beginning Part 2
To recap, the argument is
1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
Therefore,
3. The universe has a cause.
In previous posts I have discussed the notions of validity and soundness. I have defended (1), and I have begun to defend (2). I leave it to the reader to go back and review these posts. I will continue my defense of (2).
If the universe did not have a beginning, then it must extend infinitely into the past. There are several reasons to think that this could not be the case. First, the required notion of infinity is implausible once applied to the physical world. To see this, we must distinguish between two competing concepts of infinity, and we need set theory to do that.
Set theory is the logic of sets, classes, or groups of things. Sets can range over anything. For example, there is the set of even numbers, the set of people that attend Forest Hills Community Church, the set of dogs, etc. Some sets are large, e.g., the set of all humans. Some sets are empty, e.g., the set of unicorns. Sets are entirely defined in terms of their members. The set of dogs is defined in terms of all dogs. And, since the set of unicorns and the set of griffins have exactly the same members (both sets are empty), there is really only one set: the empty set. To get at the distinction between types of infinity, we will be concerned primarily with sets of numbers.
The first type of infinity is a “potential infinity.” Potential infinites are what we are most familiar with. Think about starting at 1 and counting to the very last number. You can’t because there is no last number. You could count forever. Nevertheless, your counting has a definite beginning, the number 1, and regardless of how high you count, you’ll have only counted a finite range of numbers (e.g., from 1 to 10, 1 to 143,532, etc.). The key is to remember that potentially infinite series are always finite but could be extended indefinitely into the future.
Potential infinites are not actual infinites.
Actual infinites are another matter entirely, and we’ve got to go back to set theory.
Let’s define the sets A and B and C as:
A = {1, 2, 5}
B = {43, 3, 8}
C = {2, 5}
First, note that A, B, and C do not have exactly the same members, so they are not identical sets. However, A and B have the same number of terms. A and B have three members each. Since they share the same number of terms, A and B can be put in one-to-one correspondence. Each term from each set can be paired together.
1/43, 2/3, 5/8
However, B and C cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence because there are more terms in B than there are in C.
43/2, 3/5, 8/-.
Beyond the notion of one-to-one correspondence, we need to understand the notion of “proper subset.” Take some set X and some set Y. X is a proper subset of Y if Y shares all of X’s members, but X does not share all of Y’s members.
By this definition, we can see that C is a proper subset of A. A shares all of C’s members (2 and 5), but C does not share all of A’s members (C does not include 1).
We are now ready for the definition of an actual infinite. An actually infinite set is one that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of Natural Numbers (N) and with a proper subset of itself. For example, the set of even numbers (E) is an actually infinite set.
Take the set of Natural Numbers, the set of even numbers, and a proper subset of the even numbers (F):
N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
E = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, ...}
F = {4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, ...}
N, E, and F all share the same number of terms so they can all be put in one-to-one correspondence with each other. See also that F is a proper subset of E. E and F differ only with respect to one member of E, the number 2. Since every member of F is a member of E, and one member of E is not a member of F, then, by definition, F is a proper subset of E. Therefore, since E can be put into one-to-one correspondence with both N and F, E is an actually infinite set.
Why all the tedious theory? I need to draw out an important point. There is a HUGE difference between potentially infinite series and actually infinite sets. Remember, sets are defined by their members, and that means that they have all of their members all at once. Potentially infinite series can always be extended, but the actual number of terms in the series at any one time will always constitute a finite set. Potential infinites are not infinite sets at all.
If the universe had a first moment, then there would be a finite number of moments between that first moment and the present moment. But if the universe extends backward into the infinite past, then it has no first moment. But this means that there must be an infinite number of moments that have actually transpired up to this very moment. And that means that we have to use the notion of the actually infinite set and not that of the potentially infinite series when dealing with a universe without a beginning.
But does this even make sense? No it does not!
You get all kinds of crazy things happening once you admit actually infinite sets being real in the physical world. I’ll give just one of a number of possible examples.
Imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Half of the books are red; half are black. Now, how many black books are there? Well, there are an infinite number of black books. How about the number of red books? Same thing right? Sure. But surely, when you add the number of black books with the number of red books you get a bigger number, right? No, the total number is identical to the number of books in each half: infinity.
Is your head spinning yet?
Now, if we have an infinite number of books in the library, and somebody checks a book in, how many books are there now? That’s right! There’s still an infinite number. What about if someone checks a book out? Still infinite.
Sigh...
If you don’t get the example, that’s good. You’re not supposed to. The point is that physically realized actually infinites don’t make any sense in the real world. If it won’t work for books, it won’t work the universe. But if we can’t use the notion of actually infinite sets, then we’re back to using potentially infinite series. But potentially infinite series have first members. So the universe would have to have a first member. That means the universe would have to have a beginning.
There is more to be said, but it’ll have to wait until next time.
I’m certainly available for discussion. These are complex issues, and I want you to understand. Leave comments, send emails, etc.
1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
Therefore,
3. The universe has a cause.
In previous posts I have discussed the notions of validity and soundness. I have defended (1), and I have begun to defend (2). I leave it to the reader to go back and review these posts. I will continue my defense of (2).
If the universe did not have a beginning, then it must extend infinitely into the past. There are several reasons to think that this could not be the case. First, the required notion of infinity is implausible once applied to the physical world. To see this, we must distinguish between two competing concepts of infinity, and we need set theory to do that.
Set theory is the logic of sets, classes, or groups of things. Sets can range over anything. For example, there is the set of even numbers, the set of people that attend Forest Hills Community Church, the set of dogs, etc. Some sets are large, e.g., the set of all humans. Some sets are empty, e.g., the set of unicorns. Sets are entirely defined in terms of their members. The set of dogs is defined in terms of all dogs. And, since the set of unicorns and the set of griffins have exactly the same members (both sets are empty), there is really only one set: the empty set. To get at the distinction between types of infinity, we will be concerned primarily with sets of numbers.
The first type of infinity is a “potential infinity.” Potential infinites are what we are most familiar with. Think about starting at 1 and counting to the very last number. You can’t because there is no last number. You could count forever. Nevertheless, your counting has a definite beginning, the number 1, and regardless of how high you count, you’ll have only counted a finite range of numbers (e.g., from 1 to 10, 1 to 143,532, etc.). The key is to remember that potentially infinite series are always finite but could be extended indefinitely into the future.
Potential infinites are not actual infinites.
Actual infinites are another matter entirely, and we’ve got to go back to set theory.
Let’s define the sets A and B and C as:
A = {1, 2, 5}
B = {43, 3, 8}
C = {2, 5}
First, note that A, B, and C do not have exactly the same members, so they are not identical sets. However, A and B have the same number of terms. A and B have three members each. Since they share the same number of terms, A and B can be put in one-to-one correspondence. Each term from each set can be paired together.
1/43, 2/3, 5/8
However, B and C cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence because there are more terms in B than there are in C.
43/2, 3/5, 8/-.
Beyond the notion of one-to-one correspondence, we need to understand the notion of “proper subset.” Take some set X and some set Y. X is a proper subset of Y if Y shares all of X’s members, but X does not share all of Y’s members.
By this definition, we can see that C is a proper subset of A. A shares all of C’s members (2 and 5), but C does not share all of A’s members (C does not include 1).
We are now ready for the definition of an actual infinite. An actually infinite set is one that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of Natural Numbers (N) and with a proper subset of itself. For example, the set of even numbers (E) is an actually infinite set.
Take the set of Natural Numbers, the set of even numbers, and a proper subset of the even numbers (F):
N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
E = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, ...}
F = {4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, ...}
N, E, and F all share the same number of terms so they can all be put in one-to-one correspondence with each other. See also that F is a proper subset of E. E and F differ only with respect to one member of E, the number 2. Since every member of F is a member of E, and one member of E is not a member of F, then, by definition, F is a proper subset of E. Therefore, since E can be put into one-to-one correspondence with both N and F, E is an actually infinite set.
Why all the tedious theory? I need to draw out an important point. There is a HUGE difference between potentially infinite series and actually infinite sets. Remember, sets are defined by their members, and that means that they have all of their members all at once. Potentially infinite series can always be extended, but the actual number of terms in the series at any one time will always constitute a finite set. Potential infinites are not infinite sets at all.
If the universe had a first moment, then there would be a finite number of moments between that first moment and the present moment. But if the universe extends backward into the infinite past, then it has no first moment. But this means that there must be an infinite number of moments that have actually transpired up to this very moment. And that means that we have to use the notion of the actually infinite set and not that of the potentially infinite series when dealing with a universe without a beginning.
But does this even make sense? No it does not!
You get all kinds of crazy things happening once you admit actually infinite sets being real in the physical world. I’ll give just one of a number of possible examples.
Imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Half of the books are red; half are black. Now, how many black books are there? Well, there are an infinite number of black books. How about the number of red books? Same thing right? Sure. But surely, when you add the number of black books with the number of red books you get a bigger number, right? No, the total number is identical to the number of books in each half: infinity.
Is your head spinning yet?
Now, if we have an infinite number of books in the library, and somebody checks a book in, how many books are there now? That’s right! There’s still an infinite number. What about if someone checks a book out? Still infinite.
Sigh...
If you don’t get the example, that’s good. You’re not supposed to. The point is that physically realized actually infinites don’t make any sense in the real world. If it won’t work for books, it won’t work the universe. But if we can’t use the notion of actually infinite sets, then we’re back to using potentially infinite series. But potentially infinite series have first members. So the universe would have to have a first member. That means the universe would have to have a beginning.
There is more to be said, but it’ll have to wait until next time.
I’m certainly available for discussion. These are complex issues, and I want you to understand. Leave comments, send emails, etc.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday Night Church...Coming this Fall
As you know, we have a great storefront location at the corner of Yellowstone and Ingram Street in Forest Hills. This inviting and stimulating environment has always been a phenomenal place to hold studies and sessions , but we've always felt called to use it for something even greater...
Beginning this September, FHCC will begin holding full-fledged church services at this location. Service times have yet to be determined, so please feel free to EMAIL your feedback now. Our desire is to see even more people come to know Jesus, and offering another service gives more opportunity for this to happen.
Common Questions Answered:
1 - Will we still meet in the Midway Theater?
YES! Sunday morning services will remain at 10am inside the Midway.
2 - Will there be childcare at the evening service?
No. Sadly, the location does not allow for childcare. Please come to our 10am service at the Midway for such.
3 - Will it be the same message as the Sunday AM message?
Yes. These will be identical services, only the time and location will be different.
4 - What will make this service different from the Sunday AM service?
A lot. While the message will be the same, worship will take place, and offering & Communion served; there will be aspects of this service that will make it unique from Sunday AM.
a - the atmosphere of the FHCC storefront - it's very intimate and engaging
b - no time limits - there will be no feeling of "rushing" to get out or go home
c - different crowd - the evening hour will appear to a different genre of people from that of Sunday AM, resulting in more people coming to know Jesus
Beginning this September, FHCC will begin holding full-fledged church services at this location. Service times have yet to be determined, so please feel free to EMAIL your feedback now. Our desire is to see even more people come to know Jesus, and offering another service gives more opportunity for this to happen.
Common Questions Answered:
1 - Will we still meet in the Midway Theater?
YES! Sunday morning services will remain at 10am inside the Midway.
2 - Will there be childcare at the evening service?
No. Sadly, the location does not allow for childcare. Please come to our 10am service at the Midway for such.
3 - Will it be the same message as the Sunday AM message?
Yes. These will be identical services, only the time and location will be different.
4 - What will make this service different from the Sunday AM service?
A lot. While the message will be the same, worship will take place, and offering & Communion served; there will be aspects of this service that will make it unique from Sunday AM.
a - the atmosphere of the FHCC storefront - it's very intimate and engaging
b - no time limits - there will be no feeling of "rushing" to get out or go home
c - different crowd - the evening hour will appear to a different genre of people from that of Sunday AM, resulting in more people coming to know Jesus
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Universe had a Beginning Part 1
To recap, here is the argument we have been analyzing and evaluating:
(1) Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
(2) The universe has a beginning.
Therefore,
(3) The universe has a cause.
We've already noted that the argument is valid. If the premises are true, that is, if (1) and (2) are true, then the conclusion, (3), must be true. We've now moved on to evaluating the argument for soundness. If it is sound, then (1) and (2) are actually true. That would mean that (3) would in fact be true.
One must defend the premises if soundness is to be established. In the last post, I defended (1). I leave it to the reader to review that post. I will move on to defend (2).
It seems nearly trivial to say that the universe had a beginning. From a theological standpoint, Genesis 1:1 is clear that God created the physical universe out of nothing. Therefore, it must have had a beginning. From a contemporary scientific standpoint, we are all children of the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory supposes that the universe came into existence in the distant past as all that is exploded from an initial singularity ("singularity" is code for "infinitesimal black hole"--talk about coming into existence out of nothing!).
However, it was not too long ago that the universe was thought to be infinite in size and sempiternal, or extending into the infinite past. If this were the case, then there would be no sense to claiming that the universe had a beginning. There is an obvious inconsistency between older physical theories that posit an infinite and sempiternal universe and contemporary theories (and the Bible) that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning in time. Are there any reasons to chose the newer theories over the old ones? Why think that the universe really did have a beginning?
Here's one answer many Christians might give: because the newer theories posit a creation out of nothing just like the Bible, and Bible is right. I would advise against this answer. It may be, and is, true, but giving it would be a poor tactical decision. Imagine this exchange:
Harry: "We should be more inclined to accept newer physical theories that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning because they are more inline with the Bible, and the Bible is true."
Sally: "Why do you think the Bible is true?"
There are many answers to Sally's question, some better than others, but look at what happened. The discussion has moved away from the beginning of the universe. Instead, Harry is going to have to switch gears and give an argument for the veracity of the Bible. There are really good arguments available to give, but few know them. It usually ends up that Harry will say that the Bible is true because it's God's Word. But then:
Sally: "How do you know it's God's Word? After all, wasn't it written by humans?"
Harry: "Well, look in 2 Timothy 3:16. It says that all Scripture, that is the Hebrew and Greek texts, are God-breathed."
Sally: "So you are saying the the Bible is God's Word because it says it is?"
Harry: "Yes."
Sally: "But doesn't the Koran make the same claim? And doesn't the Book of Mormon claim to trump the New Testament? Are these also the Word of God?"
Harry: "No, they are not."
Sally: "Why not?"
At this point, Harry has a decision to make. He can continue to make the circular claim that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is, and therefore the others can't be. On the other hand, he could give arguments that support the Bible's being the Word of God without depending on the Bible itself in any kind of circular way. For example:
Harry: "Well, let's look at the Koran. It claims to be the Word of God; you're right about that, Sally. And the Bible and the Koran can't both be the Word of God because they make incompatible claims about the way the world is. Here is one good example: In Genesis 1:26ff, we see that God created humans in his image. In the Koran, humans are not created in the image of Allah. In Genesis, Adam and Eve sin, and they become fallen. In the Koran, there is no fall. Allah forgives them. Here's the upshot: without the fall, humans are not inherently bound to sin. We could live righteously if we tried hard enough. But the very fact that we are enslaved by sin, the fact that we are fallen, means we can be righteous. It is only because we can't be righteous that Jesus came. If, as the Koran claims, we can save ourselves, the we don't need Jesus. But, if we can't do good, then the Koran is wrong, and we do need Jesus--desperately. The cornerstone of Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. However, the Koran denies that Jesus actually died. Rather, Allah brought him into heaven prior to his death. But is Christ did not die, then he could not be resurrected. If he was not resurrected, then Christianity is false--completely false. But if he was resurrected, then Jesus is God, which the Koran denies. So if Jesus was raised and is God, then the Koran is false. Now, here are some reasons why there is good reason to think the Bible is true..."
Two things to sum up this post: (1) Punting to the Bible is the Word because it says it is, will get you off track. Stay focussed on the argument at hand. (2) If you do ever get into a discussion on the veracity of the Bible, there are good arguments out there that don't require the circular punt above.
In the next part, I'll give you the first sufficient answer to why we should prefer the newer theories and the Bible over the older ones. WARNING: it involves some concepts from math, e.g., set theory. It's not difficult, but I thought you might want to buckle up. We'll be talking a lot about different kinds of infinites.
J Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)