Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

An argument for the Mythological Development of the Risen Jesus is put forth this way:

1) The Gospel of Mark which is the earliest gospel contains no post resurrection appearances,

2) the later Gospels of Matthew includes post resurrection appearances, and

3) Luke includes more detail.

4) But only in the Gospel of John [which is the last Gospel] do we get doubting Thomas where And famously says he doesn't believe that it's the risen Christ, and Jesus says come and touch my wounds, and he touches his way and he said my Lord and my God and Jesus says you believe because you've seen blessed of those who believe that don't see it

5) the myth ends in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more embellished, fantastical, and preposterous, ending in a moral lesson to "believe without evidence".

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more fantastical, preposterous ending in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

There are major problems with this. 

The Resurrection as a mythological development idea is subverted by the early creed founded 1st Corinthians 15 while First Corinthians was written in the early 50s which predates Mark's Gospel and it contains an early creed that likely goes back to within five years of the death of Jesus

This oral creed says:

1. that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
2. that he was buried,
3. that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 
4. and that he appeared to Cephas, 
5. then to the twelve. 
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  
8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Belief in the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance to Peter and the Twelve in verses 3–5, are an early pre-Pauline kerygma or creedal statement. Biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, possibly transmitted from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Though, the core formula may have originated in Damascus, with the specific appearances reflecting the Jerusalem community. It may be one of the earliest kerygmas about Jesus' death and resurrection, 

Early kerygma:

• Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47;
• Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10 (ISBN 0-281-02475-8);
• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90 (ISBN 0-664-20818-5);
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64;
• Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1975) p. 251 (ISBN 0-8006-6005-6);
• Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80–82, 293;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92 (ISBN 0-8091-1768-1)  [From Wiki]

Ancient creed:

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90;
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 81;
• Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 110, 118;
• Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2 [From Wiki]

The historical facts do not fit well with the idea that the resurrection appearances are the result of mythological development over time as you move further away from the source, so that's the first problem.  They do fit well with the fact that Jesus died, was buried, was risen on the third day, and was seen by multiple people is what Christians believed from the beginning 

More evidence for 1 Cor 15 bening very early

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it.” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]

Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been. Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).

Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33). Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online at bethinking.org]

The moral lesson? 

Critics say, John's gospel culminates with the story of doubting Thomas to communicate the moral lesson to believe without evidence. However, read the last two verses of John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This passage isn't against evidence for faith. In fact, this passage is part of the evidence for Faith. There are those like Thomas who saw the Risen Jesus and believed. But John knows that's not most people, and that's why he includes this account in his Gospel. We don't get to see the evidence (the Risen Jesus) and believe, rather we get to read the evidence (about the Risen Jesus) and believe, but make no mistake, both seeing the evidence and believing and reading the evidence and believing rest on a firm foundation.

So, ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds. Since, John includes the story for one simple reason: to provide evidence for belief, as John puts it. These are written so that you would believe

Objection A - No matter how well they are evidenced, supernatural claims will never be the best explanation for any historical event, unless we get to establish some actual knowledge about the supernatural first. Call that a supernatural bias. 

Reply: First, that's not a supernatural bias, it's an anti-supernatural bias or a pro-naturalism bias. But, as argued previously, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting, so we have good reasons to reject a physical-only model for the world and no good reasons to accept it. At least none have been presented. 

Objection B - By not rejecting the supernatural will unavoidably lead to special pleading in favor of the religion one is willing to prove.

Reply - Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the exception. It's a double standard.

The key is "without justifying the exception"; but I have justified it in the link above. Not only that, but naturalism is simply presumed.  In what world is one view, which is simply presumed true, favored over one that has a valid argument for it?

Objection C - How do you deal with the time between when the events happened and the stories were written? Or the time between the events and formation of the creeds? A few days is more than enough time for legends to develop. How do you know what was written was accurate to reality?

Reply - I have already addressed this issue in Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Objection D - The creed in 1 cor 15 doesn't actually go into any detail regarding what those experiences were, so it can't really be used to say that the resurrection appearances being taught in the first few months are basically what ended up in the gospels.

Reply - What detail is it missing? Death, burial, Resurrection, list of five different appearances are there...

Objection E -We know that a person cannot return from the dead, by somehow overcoming death. That would break the Laws of Nature.

Reply - This assumes that Philosophical Naturalism is true, but we know that it's actually a self-refuting viewpoint

If one is simply assuming that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then it can be cut away with Hitchens's razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

If one does not claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then this objection falls apart.

If one does claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then they need to provide the reason/evidence. And need to address the argument in the link above. 

Therefore, we can safely say the following: Philosophical Naturalism is false and an objection based on that can be, and should be, dismissed

Objection F - You can believe in Yahweh specifically and still think that it is extremely unlikely that someone would be raised from the dead. Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was raised, and they are hardly naturalists.

Reply - First there are Jews who did believe that Jesus rose from the dead; for example all the disciples were Jewish, secondly there are Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah today And Jesus did fulfill the requirements to confirm Himself as the Messiah. Additionally, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies 

Objection G - So you have Paul’s 1 Cor 15 version [50s], then you have Mark's Gospel, which has no resurrection [60s], then you have Matthew and Luke gospels that include the resurrection. This is exactly how myths work, you just made a very strong argument for mythicism

Reply: This falls apart when one reads Mark 16:6-7 - And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Mark didn't leave out the Resurrection!

Objection H - The oral creed says that christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. But can that be since Mark’s the earliest gospel.

Reply: It makes sense when you realise that it's speaking of Old Testment; mosy likely Jonah and Isaish 53

Objection I -  The Bible isnt evidence that the Bible is true. Thats circular reasoning and non sequitur.

Reply: The Bible is a collection of 66 "books" of various genres, written by over 40 people, on 3 continents over the course of centuries that the church put into a single binder, i.e. book. So, it's like saying "circular reasoning" becuse one cites an entry in an Encyclopedia to support another entry by a different author in the same Encyclopedia. It's an absurd objection

Objection J - How do you go from "the story was told at X time" to "therefore the story was not a myth"?

Reply: Since the Resurrection was told early it couldn't have developed over time

Related posts

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Theists are TERRIFIED of this CRUCIAL argument - Rationality Rules - A response

[Here's the vid]

The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist. 

Where do you get the idea that this world is what God intended? It's not, it's a fallen world. This atheist's error is presuming that we live in a perfect world. 

So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. 

The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22). 

Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. 

The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.

Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil?  All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good? 

A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws.  Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

Thus, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting as a physical-only model of the world cannot account for human reasoning - i.e. goal-directed thinking. 

Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity.   So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules. 

[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

Skepticism as defined by Webster's as:

1) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object

2) a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3) doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking.

Skepticism is just a small part of the critical thinking process, the beginning part.  

The problem with Skepticism is that we know almost nothing with certainty, save a few mathematical or logical proofs almost everything we know is via The Inference to the Best Explanation, Since almost everything is 1) not known with certainty and 2) our knowledge of anything can change with better data or better explanations than skeptical "doubting" is a very low intellectual bar.  

Skeptics need to get into the intellectual mainstream, offer better explanations of the data, reasons why something is better understood as false rather than true; just relying on "I don't know" when in an intellectual corner; it's intellectually weak out.   

Belief in religious propositions IS a matter of choice

Has God has given you the free-will to choose to follow and worship him, or not?

Some think freewill in direct contradiction to how we come to believe as we do; they think that science shows that nobody gets to simply pick and choose what they can or can't believe. In fact, nearly every choice we make is made subconsciously, not consciously. For evidence of this they cite studies like this They argue that we aren't really making a conscious choice to accept or dismiss any claim.

Quick question: How many live sporting events have you ever watched? Surprisingly the answer is the same for everyone - Zero. Why? Because there is a time lag, even when one is in the stands, for the light reflecting off the player to reach your eyes. It is almost instantaneous but not quite.

Thesis: Results from studies like the one cited and like Libet's original experiments is exactly what we should expect if the Christian dualist-interactionist view of humans is correct.

In Libet’s initial experiments people were instructed to press a button with one of their fingers while he monitored their brain activity. Libet discovered that prior to a person’s awareness of his decision to press the button, a brain signal had already occurred which resulted in his finger’s later moving.

So the sequence is:

1) a brain signal occurs about 550 milliseconds prior to the finger’s moving;

2) the subject has an awareness of his decision to move his finger about 200 milliseconds prior to his finger’s moving;

3) the person’s finger moves.

Some have taken the results to provide evidence for determinism and even materialism.

In a second run of experiments, Libet discovered that even after the brain signal fired and people were aware of their decision to push the button, people still retained the ability to veto the decision and refrain from pushing the button!

Some interpreters take the brain signal to indicate a “readiness potential” to initiate movement which the subject may go along with or cancel.

From the Christian perspective this is exactly what the dualist-interactionist would expect. The soul (or mind) does not act independently of the brain; the mind uses the brain as an instrument to think. So, of course, the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the conscious awareness of them. How could they be?

Given the soul’s reliance upon the brain as an instrument of thought and the finite velocity of the transmission of neural signals, of course there is a time lag between the mind’s decisions and the awareness of them. In Libet’s experiment, since neural processes travel at finite velocities, of course it takes time for the mind’s decision to come to consciousness. This is exactly what we should expect on a dualist-interactionist view.

It's a conscious decision, but because of the finite velocity of neural signals it takes time for the person to become conscious of it. Just as we never see present events because of the finite velocity of light, but only events just slightly past, so we do not have consciousness of our decisions simultaneously with our making them.

If the soul has the ability to decide without being causally determined, then in order to make free, responsible decisions, the soul just needs to be conscious of the facts relevant to the decision prior to making the decision. So there’s no reason to deny free will.

So, in no way do experiments of this type refute the Christian dualist-interactionist view; they in fact support it.

. 

Degrees of Punishment in Hell

The idea that there are different levels of punishment in hell is known by most due to Dante's classic Divine Comedy where he writes of the nine circles of hell. The circles are concentric, representing a gradual increase in wickedness, and culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is held in bondage. Each circle’s sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes. Each sinner is afflicted for all of eternity by the chief sin he committed. According to Dante, the circles range from the light punishment of the unbaptized and virtuous non-believers to the very center of hell reserved for those who have committed the ultimate sin and thus get the harshest punishment.

Although the Bible does not specifically say there are different "levels" in hell, it does seem to indicate that judgment will indeed be experienced differently for different people.

The biblical authors are clear that hell is a place of divine judgment on sinners. Furthermore, many authors speak of more and less severe degrees of punishment, dependent on several factors in one’s life, which indicates that some will bear a fiercer measure of the wrath of God upon them.

The biblical writers and our Lord himself describe hell as a place of divine judgment on sinners. In multiple passages the ideas of punishment, wrath, retribution, and vengeance are prominent (Matt. 5:22; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 24:51; 23:33; 25:30; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 13:28; 2 Thess. 1:5–10; Rev. 20:10–15). The purpose of hell is not that of rehabilitation of the sinner or even the obliteration of evil. The purpose is retributive justice—the punishment of God on sinners.

The biblical writers are not content, however, to speak of hell broadly in terms of divine justice and retribution. They go further and insist that the divine justice in hell will be specifically fitted to the guilt of each individual offender. We will explore this teaching here in four steps: 

Biblical Evidence for the Degrees of Punishment Concept of  Hell

Below are some passages of Scripture that speak directly of degrees of punishment in hell. Here we will just cite the verses to establish the teaching in principle; then we will draw on them for specific exposition and application.

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36–37).

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Luke 12:47–48).

“But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5).

“How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29)

What is Meant by Degrees of Punishment

These statements of degrees of punishment in hell are not meant to suggest that there shall be anything less than perfect misery for every soul in hell. For every person in hell, it will be a place of “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12), and this suffering will be forever (Rev. 14:11). No one in hell will have it easy. Hell will be a place of torment and misery for all who are there. Precisely how the degrees of punishment will be given out is not told us.

The Reasons for Degrees of Punishment

The infliction of punishment proportionately in degrees is an outworking of divine justice. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God will judge “in righteousness” (Acts 17:31) and that it is a function of God’s justice and glory to avenge every wrong (Rev. 16:1–7; 19:1–6). It is in the interests of divine justice that punishment will be given out according to the nature of the offense. We see a reflection of this, for example, in the Old Testament law which prescribed more severe punishment for premeditated murder than for accidental homicide. So also Moses’s law prescribed measures for restitution for various offenses. The nature of the crime, the attending motivations, and the varying circumstances all determine the measure of punishment.

This explains why Scripture repeatedly insists that judgment will be “according to works” (Rom. 2:6) and that in judgment “the books”—record books—will be opened (Rev. 20:12). There seems to be no point to this other than that of determining the measure of accumulated guilt, and that for the assigning the appropriate measure of punishment. This is why God the Judge will take into consideration the works, the words (Matt. 12:37), and even the thoughts and motives (Rom. 2:16) of sinners. Judgment is not merely for determining who is in and who is out; it is for measuring guilt and assigning punishment that is exactly what every individual sinner deserves.

The Basis for Determining Degrees of Punishment

What, then, will be the basis on which degrees of punishment will be determined? Scripture sets forth at least three considerations.

A) The Extent to which a Person has Abandoned Himself to Sin

The first consideration is the extent of the "abandonment to sin". This concept is entailed in Matthew 5:21 and other passages that indicate degrees of sin—worse sins result in worse punishment. This seems clearly to be the point in Romans 2:5—“Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” What can this mean but that every sin committed is like making a deposit in the bank and that in the day of judgment it will all be withdrawn in judgment? In judgment, every last sin will be taken into consideration in fitting each sinner for the exact degree of punishment deserved (Rev. 18:6–7).

It is the fool who reasons, “Well, if I’m going to hell, I might as well have my (sinful) fun in the meantime!” Every day given to sin, every venting of lust, every untruthful word, every next sin committed only adds to the punishment that will be assigned. It would be better for that man to die young than to live only to accumulate a lifetime of sin that will return to him in divine wrath.

B) The Extent to which a Person by Example and Influence has Led Others to Sin

The second consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which a person who by example and/or influence has led others to sin. See Jesus' words in Matthew 18:5–7:

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” (See also Mark 9:38–47.)

Here Jesus pronounces a woe on those who become an occasion for others to sin. The degree to which a person influences others to sin will in turn serve, in part, to establish the degree of his own punishment.

This appears to be at least one reason why there must be a day of judgment at the end of time. Final judgment is not fixed upon the death of every individual sinner: it is not until the end of time that the full effect of the influence of any one life can be measured. The omniscient God will take every individual life and assess every aspect of its influence—sometimes an influence that extends for centuries. And based on the accumulated influence of evil, God will mete out punishment upon the wicked.

Jesus warns of this again in Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.” This “woe” is pronounced on those who by their actions and teaching block the way to heaven for others.

The thought is stunning and deeply sobering. The parent who refuse Christ and, in turn, influence their children away from the things of God thereby increasing their guilt and the punishment they will receive for it. That older brother or sister or that friend or work associate who stands above his or her peers and who uses their position to influence others to sin and to ignore the gospel—all of this will be brought to bear on the day of judgment to measure the degree of punishment deserved.

The extent of abandonment to sin and the degree of sinful influence on others will serve to determine the extent of punishment received.

C) The Extent to which Light and Privilege were Abused

The third consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which light and privilege were abused. Jesus speaks to this directly in Luke 12:47–48:

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The contrasting expressions—“severe beating” and “light beating”—indicate contrasting degrees of punishment. Both of the men in view here were servants accountable to their masters. Both did things that were worthy of punishment. And both in fact receive punishment. But the one had more understanding than the other and as a consequence received greater punishment. Differing degrees of light resulted in differing degrees of punishment. Both received lashes, but for the one it was “many”; for the other, it was “few.” And lest we miss the point, our Lord interprets the parable for us: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” That is to say, the extent of light and privilege abused will determine, in part, the measure of punishment. (See also Rom. 2:12.)

Jesus speaks to this consideration elsewhere:

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

As wicked and as guilty and as deserving of punishment as Sodom was, the greater sin belonged to Chorazin and Bethsaida, for they had seen and heard our Lord himself and had refused him. And for their abuse of such great light and privilege, their judgment will be the more severe.

Again, this is deeply troubling and sobering. The person who grows up in a society in which the gospel is readily available and the person who grows up in a Christian home has great light and privilege. The person who attends a gospel-preaching church has great light and privilege. The person who has a Christian friend who witnesses to him of Christ has great light and privilege. And for this light and privilege, God will hold them accountable—if such privilege is refused, judgment will be unspeakably great. For those who have heard the gospel only finally to refuse it, that gospel preached to them will in the end have served only to increase their guilt and enhance the punishment they will receive.

Conclusion

The punishment of hell will be in keeping with divine justice. The all-knowing God will assess each individual life, counting exactly the extent of abandonment to sin, the influence of others to sin, and the light and privilege abused, and he will assign punishment accordingly—exactly fitted to each person.

Surely this thought ought to capture the conscience of sinners such that they would restrain their sinning! Furthermore, this thought ought to drive any sinner to run to Christ and be saved! And surely this thought must drive every believer to humble yet glad praise for our Redeemer who took all of our sin to himself and paid its price in full, absorbing the full wrath of God in our place to make us his.

Whatever degrees of punishment hell contains, it is clear that hell is a place to be avoided.

Unfortunately, the Bible states that most people will wind up in hell: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14). 

The question one must ask is “Which road am I on?” The “many” on the broad road have one thing in common—they have all rejected Christ as the one and only way to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). When He said He is the only way, that is precisely what He meant. Everyone following another “way” besides Jesus Christ is on the broad road to destruction, and the suffering is hideous, dreadful, eternal, and unavoidable.

Why nipples on males?

Evolutionists often raise the "Why did god make nipples on a male" question as an objection to the concept of a creator God. After all, if there were an all-knowing Creator, why would He design men with a structure for which they have no use? In females, the nipple has an obvious function, that is, to breastfeed a baby. So what’s the purpose for nipples on males?

Very early in the maturation process, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female.

In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all start out female. The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus, the programming for male and female is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. 

Useless male nipples?

If nipples and breasts are useless to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are useless to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child. It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested; nipples respond to sexual stimulation in both sexes.

Male nipples as vestigial organs

Furthermore, to say that male nipples as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

If male nipples are vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? What is the evidence for this?

Male nipples as nascent organs

If male nipples are nascent, what developmental changes has the male nipple undergone since in the last five million to seven million years? If there has been no evidence of development, why believe that they are nascent?

Do evolutionists have any explanation that fits their theory and is backed by the evidence?

Alternatively, the evolutionist could argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate; but again where is the evidence?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female was already in place in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve, since there were already male/female reptiles?

Far from being a problem for creationists, it is in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario. The creation model provides a far better explanation for the presence of nipples in males than any evolutionary model. Especially since the evolutionist never offers a theory for male nipples that is backed by the evidence.

Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning

Many people are fascinated by the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. The late Christopher Hitchens called the fine-tuning argument “the most intriguing.” Physicist Sean Carroll referred to it as “the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.”

But just like other arguments for God’s existence, there are rejoinders. One popular-level response is called “the puddle analogy.” The analogy was originally expressed in Douglas Adams’s The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Some think the puddle analogy deals a fatal blow against the fine-tuning argument. If the pondering puddle shouldn’t be surprised about its existence, we shouldn’t either. But does the analogy work? Are advocates of the fine-tuning argument engaging in “puddle thinking?”

Arguments from analogy are a kind of inductive argument. Basically, they reason that because two things are similar, what is true of the first is also true of the second. For an argument from analogy to work, the analogy has to be a good analogy

Of course, no analogy is perfect—there will always be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant, and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial—well, then, we have a problem. In other words, if the analogy fails, so does the argument.

Puddle Problems

In a recent article titled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking,” astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails.

Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. [Emphasis added.]

This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe. [source]

In the puddle analogy, the puddle can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.

The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe  just slightly, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.

The significant difference:   We know that changing the dimensions of a hole does not affect the existence of the puddle. Any old hole will do. There is no fine-tuning for puddles. However, we also know that changing the conditions of the universe does affect the existence of life. There is fine-tuning for life.

So, the puddle analogy has a problem. And it’s a big one. It’s a false analogy. The analogy doesn’t work because getting a life-permitting universe is vastly different from getting a puddle-permitting hole.

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses.

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses.

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Consistency: Is the hypothesis consistent with other established facts or theories?

7. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.