2014: Looking to the Year Ahead (I Need Your Help)

So, in 2013 I did not get accomplished a lot of things that I wanted to. I did however get to spend time with my family and that really took priority in 2013. In 2014 my family is still a priority, but there are goals that need to be met. I am not sure if I should outline the final goals or how I plan on reaching them, so I will do a little of both. My primary goal is to continue dealing hope to the people I come in contact with better than I did this year and to continue advancing Better Life in Recovery (BLiR).

This year I made some progress and accomplished some pretty neat things in my mission to share recovery, my faith and deal hope to all I could. I wrote 77 blogs for Spiritual Spackle on various topics that were viewed over 42,000 times. I had several blogs published by The Poached Egg as well as Global University. Better Life in Recovery is now recognized in the state of Missouri as Better Life in Recovery, Inc. I was the closing speaker for the Missouri Association of Drug Court Professional's state conference. I also did two 6 hour presentations teaching co-occurring disorders to the MRSS-P (Missouri Recovery Support Specialist-Peer) program.

Better Life in Recovery partnered with Alternative Opportunities Treatment Services, the Carol Jones Alumni Organization, the Missouri Recovery Network and various other organizations to do Recovery in the Park for National Recovery Month attended by over 100 people. Better Life in Recovery also partnered with New Life Church, Incredible Pizza, Roma Foods, Coca Cola and Henry's with entertainment by Kelsey Snapp, Kayleigh Amstutz and the Legacy featuring speakers Ellie Hagen and Darrin Mendez to put on the Spring Break BLiR Bash that was attended by over 100 people. Alternative Opportunities Treatment Services also partnered with Greene County Men's Drug Court to do a river clean up on the James River for National Recovery month.

GOALS

1. Speak at least once a month with churches, groups, colleges, community events and seminars. I currently have a couple of Celebrate Recovery groups I will be sharing my testimony with as well as a Victim Impact Panel in Greene County.
2. Get an article published in a magazine
3. Complete writing my book, Spiritual Spackle: From Dealing Dope to Dealing Hope and get it published
4. Sit on the board of at least two organizations
5. Have the finished version of the Better Life in Recovery website go live
6. Get Better Life in Recovery, Inc. non-profit status
7. Complete interviews for the Better Life in Recovery documentary
8. Have 4 major events for National Recovery month in September
9. Have a BLiR event
10. Get grief and loss certified
11. Get EMDR certified
12. Get below 200 pounds
13. Set up a Kickstarter project to self-publish Spiritual Spackle
14. Set up a Kickstarter project for the documentary Better Life in Recovery

 

What I Can Do

 

1. Talk to people, places and organizations that might be interested in me speaking or teaching
2. Send blogs and articles to various magazines and organizations that might be interested in publishing them
3. Set aside 2 hours a week just to focus on writing my book
4. Look further into the Victim Impact Panel and The Missouri Recovery Network to see the requirements of sitting on their boards and then apply
5. Put together meetings of people and organizations that will be interested in helping with the National Recovery month and the BLiR event
6. Reach out to find people who are willing to share their story of recovery as well as a couple of parents who have had children in addiction and possibly lost them to their addictions
7. Already paid to go to the St Louis grief and loss training for certification
8. Begin putting together packages and videos to promote Spiritual Spackle and Better Life in Recovery Kickstarter projects
9. Begin following a better diet, stop stress/comfort eating and get into the gym at least 4 times a week
10. Continue publishing at least one blog a week on Spiritual Spackle

What You Can Do

 

1. If you are a professor, teacher, counselor, pastor, sit on a board or are part of a group or organization that I could speak at contact me. I speak and teach on topics ranging from addiction/recovery to mental heath to grief and loss to PTSD/Trauma to Christianity/building a better foundation for your faith.
2. If you would be interested in helping me with the non-profit Better Life in Recovery by either sitting on the board, hosting an event, donating time/money or helping at an event contact me
3. If you would be interested in either donating time, goods or money for our Recovery Month events that are promoted to reduce the stigma of addiction contact me
4. If you would be interested in sharing your story of recovery or are a parent of a child who struggled with addiction, especially if you are an ethnicity other than Caucasian and/or between the ages of 18-25 (under 18 with parent's permission) or know of somebody who is please contact me
5. If you know of any organizations or groups that I could partner with, put us into contact with each other
6. If you are interested in helping me get Spiritual Spackle published and/or the documentary Better Life in Recovery completed, contact me and we can talk about the things that will be required for the Kickstarter projects to be successful and to further the message of recovery and hope to all that we can reach

I had high hopes for 2013 and some of them were met. The 3 biggest I did not accomplish were competing the book Spiritual Spackle, finishing filming on the documentary Better Life in Recovery and BLiR becoming a non-profit organization. These are still at the top of my list, as is spreading the message of recovery and dealing hope and faith to all I come in contact with.

 

I look forward to meeting my goals above, but it can only be done with your help and assistance so if you can help me with any of the above goals contact me at david.stoecker@gmail.com Thanks for reading and praying for me and my calling. I look forward to the coming year and all that we can do together.





Holman's Quicksource Guide to Apologetics Chapter 6: Where Did the New Testament Come From?

Today we will look at the 27 books that make up the New Testament. They are the bedrock that Christianity is built upon, and knowing more about them allows us to better defend our faith. We need to have answers to questions that are often raised when people have doubts: Who wrote the books? Are the authors trustworthy? Are the books of the Bible historically accurate? Why were these 27 chosen? Why were there some books that were rejected?

Who Chose the Books

The councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 fixed the list of books the New Testament contains. There were certain criteria that  needed to be met in order for them to be included. They had to have apostolic origin, meaning they were either written by apostles or an associate who kpet the apostle's teachings. Exceptions were made for Jude and James because they were brothers to Jesus.

They had to be written during the apostolic age, meaning while the disciples were still alive. They had to have been accepted and in use by the church. They also had to agree with accepted Scripture. Last and most important, they had to have been inspired by God  and have the power to transform lives. That last part is the hardest part to define.

As early as 115 AD Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, referred to "The Gospel." Marcion created a canon that contained 10 of Paul's Letters and the Gospel of Luke in 135 AD. The oldest known list of the New Testament  canon books was compiled around 180 to 200 AD. It contained 23 books. Tertullian, who lived from 120-220 AD quotes from 23 of the 27 canonical books. The reason these books were used was because they preserved the teaching of the disciples, who were comimissioned by Jesus to spread His teaching.

Who Wrote the Books

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John. The bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, was a student of Polycarp. Irenaeus passed on the following in AD 180, which was directly given to him by Polycarp who had been told by John himself. He said that Matthew published his gospel, Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, Mark wrote what Peter had preached and Luke recorded what Paul had declared. John the disciple of the Lord published his own Gospel in Ephesus.

Clement wrote a  letter to the Corinthians that quoted from 10 different New Testament books in 95 AD and recorded how the book of Mark was written. It is thought by some scholars that Matthew was written relying on Mark. If this is true, than Mark myst have accurately preserved the teachings of Christ or why would it have been copied.

The best explanation for the names given the four Gospels is that those men were the authors. Otherwise, why affix Matthew to one since he was seldom mentioned in the Gospels? Even more so with Mark and Luke since they were not apostles at all. Peter knew about Mark's writing and gave it his blessing, and Paul was known to refer to Luke's writing as "my Gospel" in Eusebius church history.

Dating the Gospels

According to Clement, John wrote his Gospel after the other 3 were written. In his writing he talks about the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem as if it still existed. It was razed in 70 AD, which would put his works as well as the other gospels pre-70 AD. Also the ommission of the destruction of Jerusalem in all of the gospels further supports the books being written before 70 AD.

Acts ends with Paul in a Roman prison. His beheading is not mentioned, so that puts the writing of Acts a nd Luke at the latest in the 60s.The other gospels also have landmarks and customs that would not have existed after  the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dating Paul's Writings

Since Paul died during the persecution of Nero around 64-67 AD, his works had to have been written earlier than that. Acts 18:12 is used to date the book. It mentions Gallis as the proconsul of Achiai, who was discovered through a letter found in 1905 that was dated to 52 AD. There is also a famine mentioned  that was dated by the historian Josephys to 45-46 AD. Using this information, Paul's conversion is dated to 32-35 AD with his letters written after that.

What About the Books That Were Left Out?

The Acts of Paul were written by an elder at Carthage while the Didache was of unlikely authorship.The epistle of Barnabas was believed to have been written by an early church father and not Barnabas. The Sheperd of Hermas was also likely written by an early church father. The Apocalypse of Peter was written in the first half of the second century, far to late to have a connection to Peter himself.

Although there are dozens of other books bearing names such as "the Gospel of Peter" and "the Acts of Pilate" they did not meet the criteria for inclusion. Most of these were writtten beyong the apostolic age and some as late as the Middle Ages.

To close, it is curious that the New Testament standards made it more likely to exclude authentic Scripture than to include false writings. Therefore, we see that the New Testament has a very strong case for the information it contains to have been events recorded by those who could reliably document them. Join us next month when we look at the reliability of the New Testament.

Happy 2nd Birthday Spiritual Spackle

The first Spiritual Spackle blog was published on May 10th, 2011. It was created to be a forum to share my thoughts and feelings on recovery, various addictions (food, drugs, alcohol, anger), living with mental illness, surviving child hood abuse, parenting, faith, apologetics and various other things to either inspire or make people think while sharing hope and faith with them. It has been a lot of fun so far.

Spiritual Spackle has my soapbox and my classroom to write about the things that read, thought, felt and seen. Based on comments and feedback some people have received hope while others have been reminded of things they need to work on. Some have gotten a dose of happiness from what they have read while others have gotten angry. People have called to thank me and others let me know they did not appreciate what I had to say. All of this is said to acknowledge one thing; people are reading the blog.

Who knew that people would actually be interested in what was written here? Spiritual Spackle is now featured regularly on the Poached Egg (www.thepoachedegg.net) as well the Global University blog called 360 Harvest. Spiritual Spackle has been blessed with a forum that has allowed the sharing of opinions, thoughts, ideas and sometimes frustrations with all who care to read them.

Read them people have. The first year there were over 11,000 hits on Spiritual Spackle. That number was doubled in the second year, with 22,000 hits for a total of over 33,000 hits in 2 years. Small in comparison to many blogs, but refreshing because of the hope, recovery and faith that has been shared. Listed below are  the top 10 blogs of all time (number 2 and 7 are not written by me):

1. 2012: The Year in Review
2. 45 Seconds: Memoirs of an ER Doctor from May 22, 2...
3. What is A Moral Failure
4. Celebrate Recovery Lesson 2 - POWERLESS
5. Stinking Thinking Part 1: Would You Stick Your Han...
6. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics ...
7. Does God Really Love You Unconditionally?
8. From Shack to Temple 2013 - No More Cheating!!
9. Joplin tornado and psychological first aid
10. Celebrate Recovery Testimony 01/19/2012

Spiritual Spackle has had the fortune of being read in multiple countries. I would have figured that Spiritual Spackle would have been read in the United States and maybe several other primarily English speaking countries. I forgot that when you put things on the web they have a very global reach. The first year Spiritual Spackle was read in 84 countries. This year there were an additional 22 countries that were reached for a 2 year total of 106 countries. Here is the complete list off all 106 countries http://spiritualspackle.blogspot.com/2011/06/countries.html Below are the top 10 countries that have viewed Spiritual Spackle in the first two years:

1. United States
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. China
7. Canada
8. Brazil
9. Turkey
10. Australia

So in closing, thank you very much for following me on my journey of recovery as I continue to grow in my personal, spiritual, physical and emotional life. If you ever have any questions you want answered/addressed, suggestions for me on my style of writing or feedback please get in touch with me. Thanks again, and I look forward to the coming year!

Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 5: Which God Exists?

I often hear people say this, "Basically, all religions are the same" and "Isn't it possible you are all right?" First, all religions are not the same. We will cover that in the rest of the blog today, as that is what this chapter is about. Secondly, if I play a game of golf with you and you say that scored a 78 and I say I scored an 80 on the course, are we both right? That would be impossible. We may not be that far apart in our beliefs about what I scored, but that closeness does not make us both right. Either I am right, you are right or we are both wrong. Those are the only options we have to chose from!

As we have seen, the cosmological and design arguments show that "God is necessary, powerful, transcendent, non-contingent, intelligent and personal. The moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged in the world and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. Lastly, God is unique. If God as described above does exist, then there is nothing outside of Himself that He did not create; no other God could exist."

So now we are left with a glass slipper to fill. We have the requirements, and if a religious view does not fit one of these requirements than it gets cast out.

Atheism

Atheism posits that God does not exist. All that exists is the physical universe. The problem here is that there are no good explanations for how the appearance of design in the universe exists or how/why said universe came into existence to begin with. Atheism also lacks a reason for why morality exists. There is only one religion that really has aspects of atheism in it, and that is Buddhism, where God is really irrelevant. The hardest concept to prove in atheism is that God does not exist. To know something does not exist requires exhaustive and complete knowledge of everything that exists. To get around this some atheists say that if God were to exist we could know nothing about Him. This again, knowing for certainty that we could not know anything about Him, requires that someone know without certainty that there might exist an unknowable thing.

Agnosticism

Agnostic simply means lacking/having no knowledge. This view basically states that an individual does not currently have the knowledge to know whether or not a God exists or they have some knowledge but not enough to actually make a decision one way or another. I was an agnostic for most of my life, and my premise was that you could not empirically prove or disprove the existence of a God to me so therefore I would not commit either way.

Pantheism

In Pantheism, there are no opposites. Things either exist or they do not exist. That translates to there being no good or evil, no right or wrong and no true or false. There is no difference between malevolence and benevolence. Reason and logic don't exist, because they too deal with things that are either true or false. Pantheism also believes the universe to be eternal and unchanging, without an end or a beginning. That requires actual infinites, which are false based on the Kalam cosmological argument we looked at in Chapter 2.

Pantheism says when we die, we are all taken back into the impersonal whole. Everyone shares the same fate, Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. Further, we are all part of God, and God is unchanging. Yet if we realize we are part of God, is that not a change? To answer this, pantheism states that we cannot know because logic and reason don't exist. Of course, that could not be known without the use of logic and reason so it refutes itself.

Panentheism

Panentheism sees God as both distinct from and dependent on the world at the same time. God comes from the world and the world comes from God. It says that the universe/God has always existed will always exist, but it is always changing. If it is always changing, then moral values are also changing or they can change. There are  no grounds for morality given by Panentheism. If morals change, then there is no reason to have moral behavior because the laws could change and make the moral behavior immoral. Bottom line, panentheism does not account for the reality found in the design, moral and cosmological arguments.

Finite Godism

Finite Godism sees God as loving, personal and good but says that since evil exists, God must not be able to control or destroy it. With that being seen as true, God cannot be all-powerful. It further looks at the imperfections in the universe and reasons that God must be imperfect. God therefore is finite so we do not know where God comes from or what the source of morality is. And if God is the source of morality then morals are limited because God is limited.

Polytheism

Polytheism is the view that there are more than one god. Said gods either came from nature or where at one time men and women who became gods. Gods are thus finite and contingent. Polytheism states that the universe has always existed. In the case of Mormonism, there has to be infinites since gods came from gods that came from previous gods. In polytheism there is no accounting for the creation of the universe. All things come from the  universe, even Gods. Gods don't exist apart from the universe, and the beings that do exist all have limited power which causes polytheism to not meet all the requirements.

Deism

Deism basically asserts that God cannot be known through religion because the only way to know God is through nature and reason. Because we can only know God through nature and reason there is no miracles. The only way God has revealed Himself is through what He has created. Because there are no miracles we are missing the creation of the world, which was a miraculous act. If the world was able to exist without God, God would not be all-powerful since He could not step it, He would not be necessary and He would have no moral authority since there could be no  purpose for what He didn't create.

Monotheism

  Monotheism sees God as the creator and sustainor of all things. He interacts with creation numerous ways and reveals Himself to us through reason, nature, morality, etc. Thus, monotheism fulfills every part of the requirements stated at the top.This in turn would reduce our search to three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

All three of these religions believe in the same God. Islam says the Old Testament is now corrupted. Christianity sees the promises of the Old Tesament fulfilled in Jesus. Judaism says that both of these stances are false. All 3 also believe Jesus existed. Judaism sees Him as a pretender, claiming to be the Messiah. Islam believes Him to be a great prophet, and  the gospels are corrupted accounts. Christians believe Christ to be the Messiah.

To begin seeing which of these claims is the correct one, we need to see whether or not the New Testament is trustworthy and accurate. If the New Testament is not reliable, then we can narrow down the choices to Judaism and Islam. If it is reliable, then we can discount Islam and narrow it down to Christianity and Judaism. From there we can look at the Old Testament and its veracity. If it is trustworthy, then we look at what it says about Jesus and see whether we embrace Christianity or Judaism.  In chapter 6 we will begin to investigate the New Testament.

Better Life in Recovery and Spiritual Spackle Saturday

This blog is to do two things. It is to take a look at where Better Life in Recovery is currently and where it is headed in the future. We will also look at Spiritual Spackle and the direction it is headed in. I need to be consistent in my life and so far that consistency has been missing the past month. Okay, maybe it has been missing this year.

Better Life in Recovery had a great event. I will have a promotional clip of it in April to share. We are looking at having another event late summer in Springfield (location TBD) and during the Fall in Branson (location TBD). My main focus for April is to write the bylaws and file for non-profit status to open us up to more funding opportunities. I will have a blog next month that will truly address what we have, what we are working on and what we need in April.

Now on to the Spiritual Spackle blog itself. I guess  that I do not have the time to write the amount of blogs that I once felt I would be able to. As my life gets busier and busier, some things take a hit. I have a very busy life and my blog has suffered. I was wanting to write 2-3 a week and that is just not possible with the other demands in my life. Because of that, I am going to be writing one blog weekly and several specific blogs once a month. That is what I know I can do.

Every Saturday I will have a blog that will look at either recovery, faith or both. Hence the moniker Spiritual Spackle Saturday, since it will be weekly on Saturdays. There will be a monthly apologetics blog that will be written for The Poached Egg (www.thepoachedegg.net ). There will also be a monthly blog that will look at my progress, or lack of progress at getting into a shape that is not round and attaining a BMI that does not tell me I am morbidly obese.

Those monthly blogs will come out the first week of every month. The apologetics blog on the first Monday of the month and the weight loss blog will be on the first Wednesday of the month, starting in April. There will be other blogs that will be posted if time presents itself and if there are buring, pressing desires to write them.

My focus is on becoming more of a spiritual leader for my family, writing the bylaws so we can file for 501(c)3, advancing Better Life in Recovery, Inc., having more BLiR events and completing the book entitled, Spiritual Spackle. My desire is to have the book completed and either be with a publisher or have a Kickstarter project started to help me get it published by the end of the year.

I look forward to having my first Spritual Spackle Saturday blog to you this Saturday (03/30) and the apologetics blog next Monday (04/01) and the next Weight Loss Wednesday blog on (04/03). Thank you for your continued follows and reading. I am still averaging 2000 hits a month, give or take a couple of hundred. I hope that having a consistent weekly, well written blog will allow me to continue giving you the reader adequate material to build hope, faith and recovery upon.

So, as always, feel free to follow this site, like it on Facebook and share it with anyone you like. I look forward to hearing any feedback you might have about the changes that are happening. Also, my goal is to be a dealer of hope so if you have any questions about faith, recovery, addiction, depression, struggles, etc please ask them and I will address them in upcoming blogs.

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 4: Does God Exist The Moral Argument

In chapter 4 Doug Powell looks at whether or not God exists through axiology, or the study of morality and values. He posits the question, "Are right and wrong objective realities with claims on all people at all times, or are they subjective realities only - matters of opinion?" Today we see how moral argument attempts to show that if moral values are to make any sense, they must be both universal and objective. Further, if they are objective then there must be a source that is "a transcendent, personal being for whom human actions and motives are not a matter of indifference."

Relativism

In our culture, the most popular moral view is relativism. It says that individuals and societies decide right and wrong and that right and wrong vary from person to person and from culture to culture. People create values and they are subject to change instead of being universal and objective moral truths. Relativism comes in three flavors, cultural relativism, conventionalism and ethical subjectivism.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism sees different cultures that appear to have different values. Because of that, there can be no right system of morality or they would be shared by all. For example, the United States allows abortions as a legal option, China actually requires abortions under certain circumstances and Mexico has laws that prohibit abortion. Since these countries all appear to have different morals, there can be no objective reality.

Morals are viewed through observation. So, at best these observations are statements of what is factually observed.  Just because something SEEMS to be a certain way does not mean that they SHOULD be that way. Also, just because there are different answers to the same question does not meant a right answer doesn't exist. If golfers argue over the strokes one of  them took on a hole, they are either both wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right.

Lastly, cultural relativism refutes itself. If a cultural relativist claims he has the correct view of moral theory and other views are wrong he is not abiding by his own claims. If he claims there is no universal right view of moral theory, he cannot say that other views are incorrect. Due to that cultural relativism cannot be a proper explanation for morality.

Conventionalism

Conventionalism says morals are decided by each society. Morality is simply what is legal, which can differ from society to society. There is a right and a wrong, which makes it different from cultural relativism. In this instance, if a society said blues eyes were illegal and that those possessing blue eyes would die, there would be nothing immoral about the law. The immoral thing in that society would be those born with blue eyes.

This may sound crazy, but it is exactly what Germany did in the 30's and 40's. Jews were declared to be both subhuman and deserving of death. Since law is law, the concentration camps were not only filled with Jews but with German criminals. The crime the Germans committed was pretesting Nazi policies and laws.

Conventionalism is not about morality, but instead power. The will of the majority defines morality and forces  into submission or imprisons any who oppose. Due to this, people like Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were criminals. By the sheer moral bankruptcy of conventionalism, it lacks much needed to explain morality.

Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism says that individuals decide wrong and right for themselves, and only themselves. "What's true for you is true for you, and what 's true for me is true for me." Another common refrain is, "Who are you to judge me?" No longer does nayone have the right to say what anyone does in either right or wrong. Saving a drowning baby can no longer be praised, and drowning a baby could no longer be reviled.

This view is self-refuting. If all truth is relative, than what are we to do with this universal statement? And if ethical subjectivism is not true for everybody, than why would someone who holds that view attempt to push it onto others? Paul Copan says that claiming a statement holds true for all but you is called the "self-excepting fallacy."

"Torturing babies for fun is wrong," is a great way to expose what is wrong with ethical subjectivism. Obviously, that statement would not be correct as it is stating a universal that others may not agree with. Someone thinking torturing babies for fun is okay behavior has to have their feelings validated by an ethical subjectivist. Beckwith and Koukl state, "The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience."

Objective Morality

Morals are not descriptions of behavior, but instead are prescriptions for behavior. Morals aren't opinions, but instead they contain a sense of obligation and rightness to them. Moral relativism turns out to simply be sets of opinions. Morals are universal and they transcend society, time, and people. Therefore the source must be transcendent and universal. Since morals are authoritative, not telling us what we should do but what we ought to do, they musc come from an authority. This authoritative, transcendent and universal entity we call God.

We have looked at the validity of a God existing through morals, design and cosmological arguments in the past few chapters. In chapter 5 we will sort out which God exists by looking at various existing religions.

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 3: Does God Exist The Design Argument

The chapter starts with the Watchmaker analogy. The watchmaker analogy asks a nonsensical question, and here it is: If you are walking through the woods and stumble upon a watch, what do you think? Do you wonder how, over time, bits of metal came together by chance, springs and gears were formed with no apparent purpose, yet over time they all joined accidentally, eventually formed a fully accurate functioning machine that measures time?

The answer to the question above is, of course no. No one stumbles upon a watch and thinks that it evolved. They assume someone must have dropped it. Due to the intentionality and precision of the watch one assumes there must have been an intelligence that first conceived of the watch and how it would work then created it. Yet when some look at nature, with all of its intentionality and precision, they see chance. The Watchmaker analogy is used to argue for design.

The design argument is also called the teleological argument. Telos is Greek for purpose, or ultimate ending. Teleology is the study of a thing's design, or purpose. Plato and Aristotle first used the design argument to argue for the existence of God based on what they observed of the stars. Thomas Aquinas used it as one of his 5 arguments to prove God exists. Today it is called intelligent design, and there are many ways to argue it. Today we will look at 3 of them.

Fine Tuning as Design: The Anthropic Principle

Over time and a lot of study and research, scientists have found the universe to have a great deal of precision. In fact, to alter any of the multiple parameters would destroy the universe. This has led some scientists to argue that for life to exist, their had to be a designer. There are two classes of these parameters: one for the sun-planet-moon system and the other for the universe.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, in The Creator and the Cosmos, says that in order for life to be possible there are 35 parameters that must fall within a narrow range. One of those is the expansion rate of the universe. If it is slower than one part in 10 to the 55th power, the universe would collapse before galaxies could form; if it was faster than one part in 10 to the 55th power galaxies could not have formed. Without galaxies we have no starts, with no stars we have no planets forming and without planets we have no life. 

Some of the other parameters are: velocity of light, ration of protons to electrons, ration of electron to proton mass, mass density of the universe, gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, weak nuclear force constant, strong nuclear force constant, ration of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant, velocity of light, fine structure constant and a lot more. Everything falls into an extraordinary balance in order for the whole to exist. 

The second set has 66 parameters to do with our sun-planet-moon system. They are all vital for life to exist on the planet. If the distance from Earth to Sun is any greater, the earth is too cool for a stable water cycle. If it is any closer to the Sun, it is too warm for a stable water cycle. If gravity was weaker, our atmosphere would lose too much water, but if it was stronger it would retain too much ammonia and methane, which are poisonous. If the day was greater, temperature differences would be too great to sustain life. If the day is shorter atmospheric wind velocities would be too great to survive.

Looking at just a couple of the parameters Mr. Ross identified in his book, we begin to realize just how exact things had to be in order for life to exist on Earth. Add to that all of the constants needed for the universe to exist and you begin to see that there may have to be a master's hand behind the creation of it all. It is all much more complex than any watch in existence, and we would never suppose the watch was accidently created so why would we suppose that about life on Earth?

Information as Design: Information Theory and DNA 

To understand this argument we must first understand that there are different kinds of order:

1. Specified Order is a string of repeating information. This is a natural occurring kind of order. Examples of this are crystals and snowflakes. 
2. Unspecified Complexity is non-repetitive and random. This is also a naturally occurring type of order. Examples are the shape of a rock and the wind howling. 
3. Specified Complexity is non-repetitive and non-random. These are not naturally occurring. Examples are the sentence you are reading as well as statues.

A specified complexity is contingent and an unspecified complexity is not. The sentence takes an author and the sculpture needs a sculptor. The sculpture can be any shape the sculptor imagines. Information, on the other hand is communication between two minds that share a common language. That language must exist and be understood prior to any ability to communicate. Every language is a set of tokens and a set of conventions for the use of the tokens.

DNA is an agent housing a set of tokens used to store and convey information the body needs to develop and function. Before the DNA could be useful, there had to be a language that already existed. Genetic code had to exist prior to the existence of DNA. It also had to come from outside of the DNA. It didn't come from the DNA any more than a bowl of alphabet soup can say "I love you." It may spell it out but there is no intentionality.

The easiest way to explain the information contained in DNA is that it was imposed on the DNA by a mind, with intentionality. Naturalism claims that all things are produced by non-directed, random forces. This would seem a moot argument when used to explain how information was included in DNA and how a genetic code language exists at all. You must first have an informer to have information. 

Complexity as Design: Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity says there are some things that are at the simplest level they could be and still function. Biochemist Michael Behe says, "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Basically he is saying that there are things that had to be created, because they could not have by chance or through undirected forces have evolved.

Behe uses a mousetrap to make his point. He asks which part of the mousetrap can be removed and still leave a functioning mousetrap? The answer is nothing. You could not have first a piece of steel that caught a mouse, than added a piece of wood which caught a few more, than added a spring to catch ore. A mousetrap is made of individual pieces that when separated are useless at catching mice. The mousetrap could therefore not have evolved, but had to first have been conceived by an intelligent mind with the will and power to act. 

In Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box,  he looks at various cases of irreducible complexity, such as the cilium, bacterial flagellum, antibodies, animal cells and blood clotting. All of these, he argues, are irreducibly complex. They are basic biological machines, but they are each useless if apart from the whole. 

In conclusion, the design argument doesn't prove that Christianity is the only truth. Rather, it looks at the God we find in the Bible being consistent with the intelligent designer defined by these arguments. There are several religions that describe an intelligent designer. As we have seen, the way things are precise and exact, from life on Earth to the balance of the universe, point us to a designer. Next time we will look at Chapter 4, which is the moral argument for the existence of God.

As featured on the Poached Egg: http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/01/holman-quicksource-guide-to-christian-apologetics-chapter-3-the-design-argument.html

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 2: Does God Exist? The Cosmological Argument

The word cosmos is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists. Not just the universe, but all its constituents. This argument for God says that because everything exists, there must be a God who brought it into existence. The proposition of this argument is that nothing could or would exist without God. God's existence is possible without the universe, but the reverse is not true. God is a necessary being. The universe cannot exist without God, for the universe in not a necessary being and therefore cannot account for its own existence.

There are 3 different philosophical arguments and a scientific example that are used to support the cosmological argument. We will first look at the philosophical arguments; Kalam, Thomist and Leibnizian.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam argument attempts to show that the universe had to have a beginning and is therefore not eternal. In order to comprehend this argument we must first understand the two types of infinities, which are concrete (actual) infinities and abstract (potential) infinities.

Potential infinites are numbers that increase by adding another number, such as seconds on a stopwatch. Once the time starts, it will add numbers until it is stopped. If never stopped, it could potentially go forever. That said, it can't be infinite. A potential infinite is always a finite set to which another increment can be added. Therefore, it is not infinite.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which nothing can be added because by their very nature they are infinite. They already contain all numbers do nothing can be added. If that is difficult to grasp it is for a good reason. Actual infinites do not and cannot exist in a physical world. If they did it would create absurdities.

So we know that time cannot be infinite. If time were infinite than now would not exist. Imagine now is a destination and you are at that destination. If you are awaiting a train at your destination and the train tracks are infinitely long, how long would it take for the train to get to you. Obviously, never since the train cannot reach the end of its track. Infinite time/numbers can never become finite and finite numbers/time can never be infinite.

So if time is finite it had to have a beginning. If it had a beginning than something had to initiate it. An effect MUST have a cause. The Kalam argument lets us know that the universe had a beginning and the beginning was caused by an uncaused cause. The question is, "Is the cause personal or impersonal?" The cause must be able to create. It cannot rely on anything for its own existence. It must be transcendent, or exist apart from creation. It also requires an intention or will to create. Could an impersonal being have these attributes? Of course not, and if that is the case then the universe was caused by a powerful, transcendent and personal being. That being is God.

The Thomist Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas utilized 3 forms to prove his cosmological argument in Summa Theologica. The first way was from motion. He noted that since motion is an effect and needs a cause, than you could not have a infinite chain of one thing moving another. Without an agent to open the music box, although it the box may be wound it would remain closed, silent and motionless. Further, to say it needs no one to open the box would in turn lead us to believe the music box used wood and metal to create itself. Because a builder is needed, the builder would be God. 

The second form was called "efficient cause." Nothing in existence does not owe its existence to nothing. Everything owes its existence to something. Nothing creates or causes itself. Existence is then an effect of some cause that was an effect of a cause, etc. But that cannot be an infinite loop. There must be a first cause that was self-existent (not relying on anything for existence) to explain any cause existing. That first cause is God. 

Third was the possibility of existence. Nothing we see has to exist. All we know could have just as well not existed. That leads all we see to be possible but not necessary. But for everything to exist, there must be one thing that is necessary. A necessary being must exist to account for all the possible beings in existence. That necessary being is called God. 

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The famous philosopher G.W.F. von Leibniz asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer was found a bit differently than the others we have talked about. Cause was not the basis of his argument. Instead he argued that there must be a sufficient reason for the universe or it would not exist. Caused things only happen with a reason. He said that all caused things, before they existed and outside of their existence, had a prior reason. As his contemporaries saw that there could be no infinite chain of causes, he said that there could no infinite chain of reasons. The universe couldn't explain its existence. Instead, the reason must be found in a being outside of the universe who is both logically necessary and self-explanatory. That being is God.

Science: The Big Bang

Edwin Hubble discovered light from galaxies distant from ours appeared differently than expected. He found the light was shifted to the red side of the spectrum. The Doppler effect was then applied, which explained the red shift in the light spectrum occurring because the stars are all moving away from each other. If the wavelengths are shorter, which would represent an object moving towards you, there is a blue shift in light. If they are moving away from you, this causes the wavelengths to lengthen which causes the red shift.

So if the universe is expanding as the red shift represents, then surely it has a point of origin. And other discoveries were made that pointed to the expansion occurring slower now than it did at its inception which could have happened due to an explosion. That explosion is how the universe was began, and it all started with a  big bang according to this theory. There are a couple of challenges to this theory.

Steady state theory says that the universe will and has always existed. This runs into several problems. For starters the observations supporting the big bang theory argue against steady state. Secondly, this would require actual infinites. is the fact there is a now, which makes an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility as described earlier. 

The oscillating theory supposes the universe will stop expanding and recede back to a singularity which will explode and begin the cycle again. It says that the cycle has and will repeat forever. This theory also requires a series that has always been and always will be, or actual infinites. It is also limited by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system always decrease in energy and be less than it was at its beginning. So, the universe must have had a beginning and the energy it began with cannot be recreated unless acted upon by an outside force.

So the big bang appears to be the best theory we have. But if it was an explosion (or expansion), what caused it to explode? What exploded and where did that come from? An explosion is an effect and effects need a cause. They cannot cause themselves. So the matter that exploded needs a creator and the bang needs a banger. The cause must be found outside of the universe because the universe didn't cause itself. What does the cause need?

It needs to be transcendent in order to be outside of the universe. It must be powerful to cause all that exists to come into being out of nothing. The cause has to be uncaused, for if it is an effect we then have a chain of infinite regress which is nonsensical. Finally, it must be non-contingent, or relying on nothing for its existence.

Even if we have an entity that has all of the above requirements, we are still missing one ingredient. Just because it exists doesn't mean the universe has to exist. It still has to have a will to make the universe happen, an intentionality. A car that is in perfect  operating order, good battery, working engine, full of gas and properly connected electrical system has all of the conditions to run but yet will sit silent forever. It has one more need, a driver.

A driver is not part of the car, does not rely on the car to exist, has the will to start and direct the car, power to start the car and may have even create the car. But the driver is separate. So too does our universe need a driver, an agent who was capable of either creating or not creating our universe. That is what we call God. The Cosmological Theory does not identify what or who God is, only that He exists. In the Cosmological Theory we see that God is necessary!

Join me next time as we look at the Design Argument from the Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Aplogetics.

2013: Plans and Goals

2012 was talked about in the last blog as we looked back and now we get to look ahead! 2013 is going to be incredible for Spiritual Spackle, Better Life in Recovery and me personally. There are already some plans made and the goal is to outline more goals for the future. We got off to a good start this year and our plan is to continue moving forward.

For starters, the things we know for sure. The next Better Life in Recovery (BLiR) event is going to be at New Life Church during Spring Break. The date will be either the 13th or the 15th of March. We are having our first planning session on January the 12th for it. As yet we are unsure of who the entertainment will be or the prizes that will be won by those in attendance.

We have bought a dinner party package for 50 people that we will be using over the summer as a fundraising event. We are planning a $25 a plate fundraiser paired with a silent auction in the hopes of raising several thousand dollars. We will get to the needs for that later.

A couple of the BLiR videos will be shown at the Missouri Association of Drug Court Professionals (MADCP) convention this Spring. Two more people have agreed to be interviewed for the BLiR documentary and we have contacted a pastor in East St. Louis running a recovery program that has some participants we can interview.

We will be starting a KickStarter campaign the first of the year, shooting for March when everyone is getting their tax money back. We will have 30 days to raise a minimum of $5,000. If we don't raise the money, we get nothing. Our hope is to get more than $5,000 so that we can have the funding we need to make the documentary really rock and be able to take it into a couple of schools, too.

One of our websites, www.betterlifeinrecovery.org is under construction. We need to find someone to work on www.betterlifeinrecovery.com so that we get that going also. We also need to find someone who can design our Facebook landing page.

After the BLiR event at New Life Church over Spring Break, we will begin preparing for the next major event. We are hoping to have that event towards the end of Summer. We will be using a larger facility such as Remington's, and bring in a worship band or singer that you hear on the radio. Following that BLiR will do another event.  The goal for 2013 is to have at least 3 events.

We need to complete the paperwork and raise the money needed to file for non-profit status. I am hoping to find either an accountant or attorney who will volunteer their time to help us in that endeavor. The goal is to have the articles of incorporation written and filed by February. Then in February we get our employee identification number (EIN).

This is where the silent auction/dinner comes in. We need to have donations for the silent auction. They will range from services (massages, hair cuts, lessons) to items (paintings, autographed memorabilia, gift baskets, seats at sporting events). We need to raise money for the next phase.

The next step is to file for tax exemption with the IRS, which requires more paperwork and $850. At this point we will hold a fund raiser if we have not yet gotten the money we need. We will also need to hold our first true board meeting, which will require us having a board of directors. We need a couple more people who have a passion for what we are doing willing to be board members.

We will have the documentary finished this year and ready to take into schools in 2014. We will complete the pre-test and post-test questionairres for those who view the BLiR program. In order to do this we need to complete filming the documentary.

To complete the documentary we require at least 5 more volunteers to do interviews. We aim to reach as many people as possible and have them relate to the documentary, so we need to show diversity. We are short on ethnicities. That is our primary focus to complete the filming so we can begin editing. Our need is 5 more people (preferably between the ages of 18-25) who have struggled with trauma/addiction and overcame them.

I would like to have several more chapters written for my book, if not have it finished by the end of the year. I have at least 6-8 more chapters to go before it is completed. Once completed it will have to go to an editor and then I may attempt another KickStarter campaign to get it published if I can't find a publisher to pick it up.

I would like to have more public speaking opportunities. I get to share hope. It is what I am led to do. I spoke in 2012 at two churches, two Celebrate Recovery meetings, two colleges and one community outreach. That is an average of once every other month. This year the goal is to speak 12 times.

I also will have an opportunity to reach more people with this blog. I started off writing just on here, but in 2012 I became a regular contributor to the Poached Egg website (www.poachedegg.net ). In 2013 I will start contributing to the Global University blog as well. Once again, what a great opportunity to share strength, hope and knowledge with people everywhere.

Personally, I would like to get below 200 pounds. That is a weight loss goal of 40-50 pounds. I am getting back on a cleaner diet after the first of the year, which will definitely help. I also will be trying new workouts that involve complexes and full body workouts instead of hitting a muscle group or two each day. I am optimistic that should help also as I work to overcome both my food addiction and the curse of sloth that sometimes takes me over. Finally, I will be the best husband and father I can be by continuing to put Christ first in all that I do!

So, here are the main goals in chronological order:
1. Write BLiR's Articles of Incorporation and Incorporate
2. Obtain EIN
3. KickStarter campaign
4. BLiR Spring Break Event
5. Silent Auction
6. File for tax exempt status (501c3)
7. Show clips at the Missouri Association of Drug Court Professionals (MADCP) Convention
8. Finish filming interviews for the Better Life in Recovery documentary
9. End of Summer BLiR event
10. Compile pre and post-test questionaires

In closing, I would appreciate any help you could give me in reaching these goals. If you are able to donate anything we could auction off, that would be amazing. If you have computer skills, we could use help with the website on the .com site and our Facebook page. When the Kickstarter campaign starts we could use donations and help spreading the word about the campaign. If you have a venue for us to show the documentary or for me to speak at, please contact us.

LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL WE DO TOGETHER IN 2013. THANKS FOR JOINING ME ON THE JOURNEY!!!