The Early Dating of the New Testament

Background: Who was the author of Acts?

Evidence for the author of Luke also being the author of Acts is found in the well-known “we” passages of the latter half of the book (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1—28:16). These passages show that the narrator of Acts accompanied Paul from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi on the continent of Europe, returning with him to Troas. Later he and Paul traveled from Palestine to Rome. 

The author was probably an educated Gentile, as attested by the style and the high level of Greek used in Luke and Acts. His Greek is sometimes fully classical (Luke 1:1-4). 

The author’s methodical approach to writing and his interest in research reveal an educated, highly trained man. It appears from Col. 4:14 that Paul was with “Luke the beloved physician.” In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars drew attention to the medical terminology found in Luke and Acts and to the author’s interest in diseases (Luke 4:38; 8:43-44; Acts 3:7; 12:23; 13:11; 20:7-11; 28:3,8). Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 are both addressed to Theophilus.

Thus it is reasonable to think that Luke the physician was the author of both Luke and Acts. 

The Argument for an Early Date for Acts 

If most of the NT texts were early, then that ties in with other evidence [see
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony] that the gospels are based on eye-witness testimony, and so their sense of authenticity is a product of their essential reliability, and not merely a narrative device. 

Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts, since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark.

Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

Point 1 There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. Josephus states that the Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves.  This period was an absolute nightmare. And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts?!?!? To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the 1940s.

Point 2 There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

Point 3 There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. Acts 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he is free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. 

Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book. Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign. 

However, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64

Point 4 There is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James [at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.  Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent in 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred about A.D. 68.

Point 5 The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. Acts emphasizes the legal protection of Christianity under Judaism. Before the Jewish War (AD 66), Judaism was a legal religion. But after? The Romans revoked these privileges. Why then does Acts spill so much ink to demonstrate that Christianity is a legal religion like Judaism (see Acts 18-28), if it was written after Judaism had lost this protection in AD 66 as a result of the Jewish War?

Point 6 The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

Point 7 The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time, a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.

Point 8 The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70.

Point 9 Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.

Point 10 The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these 66-70 A.D. cataclysmic events? The answer is surely obvious: since we should expect to read about these events, this does strongly suggests that the better explanation is that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

Point 11 Certain vocabulary points to an early date. This vocabulary includes:

1) “disciple”; “the first day of the week” (later to become “the Lord’s Day,” Rev. 1:10);

2) a reference to “the people of Israel” in 4:27 (a term later to include both Jews and Gentiles; Titus 2:14);

3) the early title “Son of Man” (7:56);

4) as well as a close similarity in Luke and Acts: worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles, interest in woman, apologetic tendency

5) Many facts about the “political, geographical, and social fields,” “nomenclature,” “titles of officials,” and “Roman citizenship” indicate that the work was written not long after the events occurred

Objection A: How do we even know that Luke finished Acts? Maybe he wanted to write a third volume because it got too long.

Reply: This is a possibility; but it would also mean that ALL of the Gospel had the same intent since NONE of them mention fall of Jerusalem in 70 - the most cataclysmic event of thier time.  

But Luke did mention the Temple - Luke 21:5-6 - And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

If Luke was writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event? In fact, all three Gospels refer to the Temple destruction as a future event. If they were writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event?

Even if Luke was going to write a third volume, referring to a past event as "the days will come", make no sense - it makes more sense if the event hadn't happened

Back to the argument: 

Thus, if Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke states that he took much of his materials from earlier sources (Lk. 1:2). And whenever Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is mentioned in the same context (Phile. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11). This seems to be strong evidence that Mark’s gospel predated Luke’s gospel. Thus, if Luke dates to the late 50s AD, then we should we date Mark earlier

Objection B: Critics argue that we cannot possibly date the Gospels before AD 70, because there was no way that Jesus could have made such predictions.

Reply 1 - This is a philosophical objection—not a historical one. If God exists and Jesus was who he claimed to be, then predicting these events four decades in advance would not be difficult. Critics could be right that God doesn’t exist, but do they ever offer good evidence for this claim? We have reasons to think that a physical only model of the world is false, that the universe was fined tuned, that life was designed

Reply 2 Luke records the fulfillment of Agabus’ prediction of a famine under Emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28), but he never mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the Temple?!?!? Why would Luke record the fulfillment of some no-name, lost to history prophet but neglect mentioning on of Jesus’ most famous predictions? What is a better explanation than it hadn't occurred yet?

Reply 3 Jesus told his disciples to “pray that it may not happen in the winter” (Mk. 13:18). However, Titus destroyed the Temple in the summer (July/August AD 70; Mishnah Taanith 4.6). Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to “flee to the mountains” (Lk. 21:21). Yet, historically, Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that the Christians didn't follow that advise and fled to Pella, which is topically lower than Jerusalem.

Critics will have to do better than simply make assertion about the impossibilities or implausibilities of prophecy.

Objection C:   "...if you look at the themes of Acts, the ending makes perfect sense. One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is that the gospel first goes to the Jews who reject it and after that it goes to the gentiles. We find this very explicitly in Acts 13:46:....We also find it in other places, such as Acts 18:6:...This theme is also reflected in the overall structure of Acts. It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles. Acts 28:28-31 is a completely natural ending to this theme." -  It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles.

Reply: I would say that Acts has three main themes that are related: the Holy Spirit, the Great Commission, and the Church. The Holy Spirit gives power to the Great Commission, which is Jesus' command for followers to share the Gospel message with others worldwide. The Church is the result of the Holy Spirit empowering followers of Jesus to accomplish the Great Commission. The overall theme of the book is the growth of the early church.

But why would your objection mean that Luke wrote late? He could have written late [or early] and decided to end there. So, your "theme of Acts" objection seems decidedly inconclusive.

If Luke, the historian, is writing post 70 A.D. but then fails to record the death of Peter and Paul, the two main subject of Acts? That would seem to be a better stopping point: These two men gave their lives for the spreading of the Gospel. Not to mention, the War of 66, persecution of Nero/Rome, the fall of Jerusalem, and the million killed and thousands enslaved.

The fact that none of the Gospel writers didn't record their deaths seems to be better explained by the fact that they wrote early.

Objection D: Christopher Zeichmann argues that Mark 12 is a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus - Video link

The Passage: 13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[a] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[b] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him. [Mark 12:13-17]

The Reply: 

First, κῆνσος is a general term for tax. It covers all taxes, not just poll taxes. And the passage is clearly not about any specific tax but the general principle of whether it was a sin to pay taxes. There were examples of these types of taxes throughout the history of Roman administration well before AD 70:

κῆνσος, “tax,” is a Latin loanword (census) that was used in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew (cf. קְנָס qĕnās, DJPA, 497–98). Matthew follows Mark in using κῆνσος, but Luke uses φόρος, “tribute,” in his parallel account (20:22) and uses it again in L material where Jesus is accused of forbidding the Jewish people to pay tribute (23:2). On κῆνσος in the papyri, see BAG, 431, and MM, 343. The full meaning is enrollment (ἀπογράφειν) of names and assessment of property for the purpose of levying taxes (Luke 2:1–5); the word census or κῆνσος alone can mean “tax.” On hatred of taxes in the Herodian period, see Josephus, Ant. 17.11.2 §308. Following the removal of Archelaus in 6 C.E., Judas the Galilean urged Jews not to pay Roman tribute and incited a revolt (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.8.1 §118; Ant. 20.5.2 §102). An event such as this and the passions it had aroused would still have been felt twenty-five years later when Jesus was asked about his opinion on whether to pay taxes to Caesar. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

The subject of whether one should pay taxes was widely debated in Jesus' time, with many Pharisees believing it was a sin and Herodians believing it wasn't. This was a pre-AD 70 debate as no one would have it in the context of open war and Herodians ended as a viable political force within Palestine after AD 70 -- The last ruler of Herod survived until AD 92, but they were completely discredited after AD 70 and would not debate with Pharisees after that point as no Pharisee would associate with them. 

The Pharisees and the Herodians held to very different views on this controversial subject. The Herodians (Ἡρῳδιανοί, from Latin Herodiani, meaning supporters of the Herodian rulers) believed that it was appropriate for Jews to pay taxes to Rome directly (as in Judea in the time of Jesus) or indirectly through the Herodian client-rulers (as in Galilee and Gaulanitis). The Pharisees, or at least those who approached Jesus, probably viewed the payment of taxes to Rome as idolatry. At least some Pharisees took this view (and some perhaps did not, if the rabbinic literature is any guide; cf. b. Pesaḥ. 112b; b. B. Qam. 113a). One should remember that Saddok the Pharisee was among the followers of Judas of Galilee (or Gaulanitis) at the time that he refused to pay taxes to Rome (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1 §§1–10; J.W. 2.8.1 §§117–18).  Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

So how can Zeichman misread the passage in such an obvious way? Because he is an expert on coinage and he ignores what the passage is about -- the raging debate between the Pharisees and the Herodians as to whether it was a sin to pay taxes, which firmly dates it pre-AD 70 -- and obsesses over the mention of "denarius", as that is his area of study. Moreover it doesn't appear that Zeichman knew about the various tax revolts that happened pre AD 70 and so he thinks that there was no κῆνσος levied even though we have clear examples of it being levied. His research confirmed a large increase in denarii after the first Roman war - as Rome gave coinage to its soldiers and workers and thus after any building project or military presence the region would have more coins. From this simple observation, Zeichman concludes that Mark was probably written after AD 70, even though denarii were present in Palestine and circulated at the time of Christ (and well before), but in smaller numbers than after AD 70. The misleading argument that this must have been a poll tax that was payable only with a denarius is simply not present in this passage, which discusses the principle of paying tribute (which we know was being paid), using an example denarius (that we know was in circulation) to illustrate a point that money is the creation of the state but that man is God's creation, and each should be given their due, thus resolving the religious debate about whether paying taxes was a sin.

Objection E: The author of Luke-Acts used the works of Josephus.

Reply: My first thought is, why assume that Luke used Josephus instead of Josephus using Luke?

Furthermore, Steve Mason [a major proponent of the "Luke borrowed from Josephus" theory] begins his chapter on Josephus and Luke-Acts by acknowledging, regarding the notions that Luke borrowed from Josephus or that Josephus borrowed from Luke, "Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events." (Josephus and the New Testament, p. 251)

But after reviewing the breadth of events mentioned in both Josephus and Luke, and noting that no other writings from the first century even come close to covering all these events, Mason concludes, "I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus' work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless, further study may provide alternatives." (p. 293) [though he gives no reasons for his "Luke borrowed from Josephus" conclusion] Mason also concedes that the dating is a bit tricky, since most scholars consider Luke-Acts to have been written before Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Objection F: The author of Acts was probably not Luke, and obtained his information about the revolutionaries, Theudas and Judas (5:36,37) from the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.4-10 and 20.97-98), who wrote during the latter half of the first century. 

And Luke made use of Josephus’s account of the death of Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (12:19-22), since both use similar words in describing the event.

Reply: But the Theudas mentioned in Acts may have been one of many revolutionaries who arose about the time Herod the Great died, and not the later Theudas mentioned by Josephus. Luke’s knowledge of Judas was not necessarily derived from Josephus, any more than Josephus’s knowledge was derived from Luke. 

The two accounts of the death of Herod Agrippa differ considerably. Given that both were historians it is not unreasonable that they would record Herod's death and differed since they used different sources

Objection G: Eric Eve argues Mark references Flavian propaganda and can only be written in 69 CE at the earliest. The healing of the blind man with spit (Mark 8:22-25), and the healing of a man with a withered hand in Mark 3:1-5, Eve argues that the Vespasian story originated in 69 CE as part of pro-Flavian propaganda. This has implications on the date of Mark as written sometime after the summer of 69 A.D. and must then have been written after that

Reply: This is similar to objection E; but why assume that Mark was responding to Flavian propaganda? It could just as easily the Flavian propagandists used Mark's work to dress up and give credance to their Vespasian story

The rest of the NT dates:

Paul makes allusions to the gospels and even cites them verbatim at times. Since we can date Paul’s letters fairly accurately, this gives further evidence for an early date of the Gospels. At the very minimum, this means that Paul had access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus early on. However, we would argue that this implies that the gospels were already in circulation.

The following is based on D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s Introduction to the New Testament; based on the text of that book.

James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council) - the terminology of Jas 2:14–26 is at apparent variance with Paul (compare to Rom 3:21–26) If the letter were written after the conference, when Paul’s terminology and meaning would certainly be known to James, then Jas 2:14–26 would seem to be an intentional repudiation of Paul. If the letter comes before the conference, though, it is reasonable to suggest that Paul and James happened to use the same language [with different meaning] independently, without any attempt to contradict each other.

James clearly has a setting in the land of Israel. The term “former and latter rain” (3:7) addresses a weather concern unique to Israel and regions closely adjacent. James is the only book in the Bible outside of the gospels to use “gehenna” for “hell”. Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned. Verses like 3:11-12 fit with Israeli geography and farming culture.

Abraham is described as “our father” (2:21), yhe book has no mention of any gentiles. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the issues associated with gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians, etc.

Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council) - Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem Council, and the omission is telling. Paul is extremely emotional in Galatians in his opposition to the "Judaizers", Jewish Christians who followed him to Galatia and had been teaching the gentile believers there that they needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. Paul was adamently opposed to that idea, and it was this controversy that led to the Jerusalem Council of 50 A.D., [Acts 15]

It seems likely that Galatians was written just prior to the Jerusalem Council, when the controversy over gentile believers was white hot. If it was penned afterward, Paul would have appealed to the authority of the council's decision that favored him.

1 Thessalonians: 50 - Paul mentions going to Athens alone but leaving Timothy behind (1 Thess 3:1-3). This event occurred in Acts 17:14-15. By the time Thessalonians was written, Timothy had returned to Paul (1 Thess 1:1; 1 Thess 3:6). Therefore, the earliest that it could be written would be in Acts 18:5 when Timothy returns to Paul.

2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51 due to the same names mentioned in 2 Thess 1:1.

1 Corinthians: probably early in 55 - the Gallio Stone dates the beginning of Gallio’s office in Corinth to the early summer of AD 51. This serves as a timestamp, dating 1 Corinthians sometime in the mid-fifties AD.

When Paul refers to “the Lord,” he is referring to the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; 4:5; 7:12; 7:25; 9:5). Jesus, of course, spoke about the subject of divorce in a number of places in the Gospels (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18). This seems to be a strong allusion to the notion that Paul has a copy of at least one of the Gospels. Otherwise, how could he claim to know Jesus’ stance on divorce? This is especially true in light of verse 12, where Paul says he doesn't know Jesus’ views on unbelieving spouses.

2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians??) written shortly after 1 Corinthians based on the mention of forgiving the repentant brother that was rebuked in 1 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:6-7). However, some time had passed, because Paul had left Ephesus and was then writing from Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5, 2 Cor 9:4; cf. Acts 20:1). A question arises from the presence of Timothy in 2 Cor 1:1 that could place this epistle at even a later date on a subsequent trip to Macedonia.

Romans: 57 - Romans is most certainly written from Corinth (Cenchrea) evidenced by Paul staying with Gaius in his house, along with the presence of Erastus and Phebe (Rom 16:1, 23). Also the same company of people found in Romans 16:21 is also found in Acts 20:4 when Paul was leaving Greece to return to Jerusalem (also mentioned in Romans 15:25-26).

Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome) Though Paul was in prison many times, his mention of “the palace” (Phil 1:13), and greetings from “Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:22) fit nicely with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome upon his appeal to Caesar (Acts 28:16, Acts 28:30).

Mark: sometime in the late 50s to the early 60s - Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s - Philemon must precede, if only shortly, Colossians since it is in Philemon that Onesimus is saved while in bonds with Paul (Phm 1:10).

Colossians: early 60s, probably 61 - Philemon and Colossians are linked in time primarily because the same companions with Paul are mentioned in both epistles, which would mean Tychicus traveled with Onesimus with both epistles to Colosse (Col 4:7).

Ephesians: the early 60s - There is not much information to date Ephesians, except that Tychicus delivered the letter (Eph 6:21). For this reason alone, it is assumed Ephesians was written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, although Tychicus may have traveled to Ephesus multiple times (2 Tim 4:12).

1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63 - Knowledge of Peter’s death would have been known to the letter’s recipients. Therefore, even if 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, it is difficult to see how it could have been passed off as from Peter if it was written after the apostle’s death around AD 65.

Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s - The apostle Paul wrote this letter to his coworker Titus. The letter was probably written in the mid-60s A.D. between Paul’s first imprisonment (Acts 28) and his second imprisonment, which is not mentioned in Acts.

1 Timothy: early to mid-60s - Paul probably wrote this letter to Timothy in the mid-60s A.D., during a mission trip not recorded in Scripture. This trip took place after the events described in Acts, between Paul’s first and final Roman imprisonments.

2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)

2 Peter: likely shortly before 65

Acts: mid-60s - based on the evidence listed above

Jude: middle-to-late 60s - due to the letter’s apparent Jewish perspective, Jude’s audience was probably Jewish Christians, or a mixture of Jewish and Gentile readers where the Gentiles were familiar with Jewish traditions.

Luke: mid or late 60s - based on the evidence listed above

Hebrews: before 70 Hebrews reads as a book written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Heb 5:1-4 says “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.” This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be not be possible after 70 A.D after the Temple was destoyed

Matthew: not long before 70 - In Matthew 22:23, we read the present tense to describe the Sadduccees (“[those] who say there is no resurrection”). Those who date Matthew after AD 70 will have difficulty with this passage, because the Sadducees virtually disappeared after the Jewish Revolt (AD 66) and the Destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). (see also Acts 23:8)

John: 80–85 - D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Other scholars date the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100).

1 John: early 90s

2 John: early 90s

3 John: early 90s

Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)

The standard later dates could very well be true, and surely many Christian scholars hold to these dates. It’s also good to remember that even if we accept these later dates, the Gospels were still written far earlier than other ancient biographies. For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history.

Early dating is important for several reasons. 

First, since the gospels were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, it is very likely they recorded a firsthand account of Christ’s life. 

Second, the closer in date to the event, the more accurate the record. Early dating indicates that eyewitnesses were alive and able to attest to the accuracy of the newly circulating gospels. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, Acts 26:26). 

Third, the time period between the events and their written record is too short for myths to proliferate. The reason for this is that there needs to be sufficient time for the eyewitnesses to pass from the scene, otherwise they would be able to object to any changes 

Fourth, with the brief time period from Jesus’ ministry to the writing of the first gospel of Mark, there seems even less of a possibility that a “Q” document exists. Q is a hypothetical document from which many scholars believe Matthew and Luke derive the material for their gospels.

That the Gospels were written within one generation of Jesus’ death in A.D. 30, while eyewitnesses of his ministry were still alive, and by those who were either close companions of Jesus or close associates of those companions. Luke 1:1-4 suggests a careful, historical process of composition, and the overall genre of the Synoptics most closely resembles ancient biographies rather than novels or works of fiction.

God as a source for objective morality - a proposition

Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies values. Axiology includes questions about the nature of values, how they are classified, and what things have value. It also includes the study of value judgments, especially in ethics. 

To be meaningful, in an objective sense, axiological statements must have the force of obligating a moral agent to either perform a prescribed action or prohibit him from carrying one out.  If that force is not sufficiently authoritative, by what right may any human impose his personal convictions on other humans? 

If moral obligations aren’t grounded in a sufficiently authoritative way, then we are not justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. We have no warrant to say things like, “striving to eliminate poverty is objectively good” or that “racial oppression has and will always be bad, in all places and for all peoples”. Nor would one have any basis to say that "rape is wrong, or that "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong".

Only a transcendent Person who is rightly authorized in and of himself (since he alone is the author of all created things) to hold us accountable for them is justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. 

Objectively binding moral obligations can’t rightfully be imposed from within the human community, regardless of consensus by any arrangement of individuals in that community. They must come from a source external to the community (i.e. not derived from but independent of the community). That source would have an authoritative claim on the community because it would have constituted the community.

 It would also have an immutable nature, without which moral imperatives are subject to change over time. The only qualified candidate, with no conceivable substitute capable of satisfying the requirements for grounding objective morality, is God. Only his character – his intrinsically good nature – establishes the basis for why all people are properly obligated to be good.

Is there any reason to conclude that a prefect God, who created humans for a purpose, could not provide them a morality that is free from bias, individual perspectives, cultural norms, and societal values - i.e. objective morality?

Objection 1: One can be moral without believing in God. 

Reply: I’m not saying one can’t be a good, moral person unless you believe in God. I’m saying that if you accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, yet you can’t provide a coherent explanation for how to derive them, then your view of the world is incoherent.  

And if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral. 

Objection 2: All morality is subjective

Reply: if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral.  

See also: The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?

Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that translates to "by Scripture alone". It is a Christian theological doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. This doctrine is held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions

1) The doctrine of sola scriptura need not be taught formally and explicitly. It may be implicit in Scripture and inferred logically. Scripture explicitly states its inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and its sufficiency is implied there as well. This passage contains the essence of sola scriptura, revealing that Scripture is able to make a person wise unto salvation. And it includes the inherent ability to make a person complete in belief and practice.

2) Scripture has no authoritative peer. While the apostle Paul’s reference in verse 16—to Scripture being “God-breathed”—specifically applies to the Old Testament, the apostles viewed the New Testament as having the same inspiration and authority (1 Tim. 5:18; Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 3:16). The New Testament writers continue, mentioning no other apostolic authority on par with Scripture. The New Testament writers directed Christians to test their teachings by remembering the words of the prophets and apostles, not by accessing the words of living prophets, apostles, or other supposedly inspired teachers (Heb. 2:2-4; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:2; Jude 3-4, 17).” 

3) Scriptural warnings such as “do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6) and prohibitions against adding or subtracting text (Rev. 22:18-19) buttress the principle that Scripture stands unique and sufficient in its authority.

4) Christ held Scripture in highest esteem. The strongest scriptural argument for sola scriptura, however, is found in how the Lord Jesus Christ himself viewed and used Scripture. A careful study of the Gospels reveals that he held Scripture in the highest regard. Jesus said: “The Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “Your word is truth” (John 17:17); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:18); and “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17).

5) Christ appealed to Scripture as a final authority. Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19) while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). He used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every theological and moral matter under dispute. When disputing with the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, he proclaimed: “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13).

Conclusion: Because Scripture came from God, Jesus considered it binding and supreme, while tradition was clearly discretionary and subordinate. Whether tradition was acceptable or not depended on God’s written Word. This recognition by Christ of God’s Word as the supreme authority supplies powerful evidence for the principle of sola scriptura. 

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.

A fine tuned universe

Within the context of a life-permitting universe, fine-tuning involves “the claim that the laws of nature, the fundamental parameters of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur.” Robin Collins, The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at Its Implications,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity,  207.

In other words, certain physical constants and quantities exist within an exceedingly narrow range that favors the appearance of life.

This does not mean, necessarily, that the universe was designed but, rather, as physicist Luke Barnes states: “In the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature… an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life.” But the implication is that it is more likley to have occured via design than by chance.

Reasonable Faith video

 

Examples of fine Tuning

Even the tiniest change to any constants or quantities will result in a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational fine structure constant (i.e., a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force) was slightly smaller, existing matter would have expanded too far and rapidly to form stars and planets. Hence, no life could have formed. 

On the other hand, if the gravitational value was too large, the universe would have collapsed on itself, and the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow the existence of life. Moreover, if the electromagnetic force did not exist, there would be no complex chemistry. The chemicals essential for life would be too unstable to allow proper bonding, and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.

Alternate views

While some believe that the many observed constants and quantities seem finely tuned for developing intelligent life, others have suggested that there is no way to scientifically test the effect of fine-tuning since there is no way to adjust the values to observe the consequences. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder stated, a fine-tuned universe represents “an observational constraint on our parameters.” In other words, our knowledge of fine-tuning is interesting but is of limited scientific value since the parameters cannot be changed.

The Fine Tuned Argument [FTA] claims that, given the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of a life-permitting universe is very unexpected given naturalism — that “there is only one world, the natural world . . . [which] evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature” (Carroll, The Big Picture, 20)—but not particularly unexpected given theism—that God exists. It thus provides evidence for the existence of God. 

Faced with his own fine-tuning discoveries in physics and astronomy, Fred Hoyle commented that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (Hoyle, p16).

Virtually no scientists dispute the science behind fine-tuning. What they dispute is what it all means. Three popular explanations for the existence of a fine-tuned universe are:

1) the multiverse explanation

2) fine-tuning is a brute fact of a universe brought about by chance (i.e., single-universe naturalism)

3) the design hypothesis 

The Multiverse

The multiverse explanation of fine-tuning proposes the existence of a vast, if not infinite, number of universes with different initial conditions or fundamental boundaries of physics and perhaps even different laws of nature. If there were an endless system of universes, we could expect that at least one universe would be structured to support intelligent “observers.” Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find human-like life forms or other embodied conscious agents somewhere in a multiverse. In this scenario, we were randomly selected to live in a universe that supports life.

Evaluation: One problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that NO scientific evidence supports it. None. If multiple universes exist, they are unobservable—without observation and testing, there is no way to generate scientific evidence to support a multiverse hypothesis. One cannot test a hypothesis when no data is forthcoming.

According to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, any universes outside our own would be “causally disconnected from us.” and “The vast majority of multiverse ideas are presently untestable, and will remain so eternally.” Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, p 101-107

As a result, the multiverse explanation is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical (metaphysical) one. Philosophical questions such as this lie outside the purview of traditional scientific methods and must be justified in some other way.

Advocates of the multiverse often posit a "universe-generating" mechanism to explain the origin of other universes. By postulating a universe generator, proponents think that it may increase the probability of getting a life-friendly universe somewhere in the multiverse. However, the speculative cosmologies that are purportedly responsible for generating multiple universes (i.e., string theory, inflationary cosmology) invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning.  Thus, the multiverse hypothesis cannot explain fine-tuning without appealing to some prior fine-tuning mechanism (either the universe generator or whatever generated the generator).

For example, suppose one tries to explain the design of a car by referring to the assembly plant that produces many similar cars. Such a description doesn’t alleviate the need for an explanation for the design of the car. Indeed, it simply points to the need for an explanation of the design of the assembly line that produces the cars. In other words, it shifts the need for explanation to the next level. The shortcoming of this approach is that it leaves one in doubt about the source of all prior fine-tuning processes and mechanisms and still leaves open the question of why these should be random rather than designed.

Thus, even if a multiverse exists, theism may provide a better explanation than naturalism. An infinite set of universes is better explained by an unbounded cause than a random cause. Since there is no good reason to believe that the multiverse must be randomly caused, and since the universe generator must also be finely tuned, a simpler explanation [via Occam's Razor] seems more likely: If a multiverse exists at all, then a single transcendent intelligence designed it to support life.

Single-universe naturalism

Philosophical naturalism [PN] is a worldview that asserts that the existence of intelligent life in our universe is the result of chance processes governed by natural laws. There are no design influences, only blind material causes. However, naturalism is unproven scientifically and therefore requires a substantial defense to warrant belief. And PN is also self-refuting. 

Fine-tuning is a brute fact

Single-universe naturalists claim that there is nothing surprising about the fact that we find ourselves in a universe with rational beings because nothing else is possible. Only in a universe that supports life can there be beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine-tuning. Single-universe naturalists see life in the universe as a brute, inexplicable fact that requires no further explanation. Nobody would be alive to comment on fine-tuning if the universe weren’t life-permitting in the first place. Thus, the existence of human observers is unremarkable.

If one assumes in advance that the fine-tuning found in the universe is the result of chance, then any arrangement of matter is equally improbable (or probable), and there is no reason for one to ask why or how we exist. Naturalists who see fine-tuning as a brute fact say we don’t need to search for a deeper explanation: The universe “just is.”

Evaluation: First, to say that fine-tuning “requires no further explanation” is a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly, many people seek deeper explanations than are readily available. And to say that human existence is “unremarkable” is, at best, arguable. 

Second, to justify one’s belief that a fine-tuned universe is merely a brute fact, one must know in advance that the universe is solely the result of chance. In other words, one must assume the truth of philosophical naturalism. However, mere assumptions are not self-justifying. To prove that naturalism is true, one must develop and present good reasons to justify such a belief.

Furthermore we have reasons to conclude that  PN is self-refuting. 

Nevertheless, the assumption of naturalism receives no help from science because naturalism is not a scientific position; it is a philosophical one. To merely assume the truth of naturalism amounts to nothing more than a “naturalism-in-the-gap” belief. Thus, single-universe naturalism is a belief that requires one to put forth evidence and arguments to demonstrate the rationality of naturalism and that it's the best explanation of the evidence

When scientists (or anyone else) assume the truth of philosophical naturalism, they naturally begin to reject anything and everything that does not fit their predetermined viewpoint.  Many people take the side of naturalism simply because of a prior commitment since it's the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. They have an unspoken, a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce only material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive. But that is not rational. The cure for that, of course, is Reason. 

The design hypothesis

For many theists, it is unsurprising that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. After all, if an intelligent being wanted to create a world where intelligent life exists, it seems reasonable that it would set the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe to favor that outcome. A finely tuned universe - one that supports intelligent, self-reflective, rational beings - is perfectly consistent with a theistic explanation. It is a coherent and simple explanation that need not appeal to unnecessary conjectures (e.g., the multiverse) to support its case.

Theists (specifically monotheists) have historically believed that God created the universe and populated it with all forms of life including intelligent life. This has inspired many theists, as well as non-theists, to seek answers to the “how” question through the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. To theists, fine-tuning leads one to look for an ultimate explanation for the universe and its many features. In a theistic world, the Designer could have used any number of methods to ensure the establishment of intelligent life, including a fine-tuned single universe or a multiverse.

Evaluation: Like the multiverse and chance hypotheses, theism cannot be proven scientifically. In other words, the theistic explanation is not a scientific position but a philosophical one. But that's okay since reason is the basis of all knowledge, not science. Nevertheless, many philosophical/theological arguments favor theism, while naturalism has few if any, positive arguments. Therefore, the success of theism depends on demonstrating why it explains fine-tuning better than the other two hypotheses.

Conclusion

Although each of the three explanations offered is consistent with a fine-tuned universe, none of them can explain fine-tuning with absolute certainty. But then we know almost nothing with aboslute certainty. 

Both the multiverse and chance hypotheses are doubtful. Neither is supported by scientific evidence, and both lack philosophical arguments to support their foundational beliefs.

Nevertheless, the design hypothesis is currently the best explanation of the data - it infers that the fine-tuned constants and quantities of the universe favor the influence of a designing intelligence. And the design hypothesis indirectly supports theism, as this designer must be beyond the confines of the physical. 

Objection A - The puddle analogy is an argument against FTA as it compares a puddle to life, and any hole to the environment and its pressures. It shows that organisms with specific adaptations are well-suited to any environment.

Reply: The puddle analogy is refuted here 

Objection B - Design is unscientific,

Repy: SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection C -This is a God of the gaps argument.

Reply: A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about the universe, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal] or an the scientifically unknowable [the multiverse]

Objection D -You can't apply Zeno's paradox to causal chains.

Reply: Per the [IEP] "...many of Zeno’s arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, he was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Where did I say that "space and time are infinitely divisible"?  Difficult to evaluate your objection since it's so vague. 

Objection E -You can't speak of BEFORE the universe, when time as we know it is a product OF this universe.

Reply: 1) I guess that wipes out the possiblity for any multiverse theory

2) Perhaps I spoke of casually prior. 

Objection F -Saying that "God" is the TOE is literally meaningless. It provides no knowledge or insight into the universe, it's just wordplay. Pumpkin soup is the explanation for everything. See, we call all assert meaningless things.

Reply: LOL, showing that God exists provides NO knowledge or insight into the universe?  That's totally absurd the the nth degree. 

Objection G - how can a designer create the universe without time, space, or energy/material?

Reply: My post is limited to showing the the best explanation is that the universe was designed, not how that design was implemented. This question will have to be addressed in a future post.

That being said, scientific observations are consistent with the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing rather than existing eternally or forming from pre-existing material. Modern astrophysics has confirmed by both mathematics and observation that the universe is continually expanding; that space itself is expanding. 

An expanding universe must have a starting point. An infinite regress of causes isn't logically viable. While there are a variety of models that, at best, delay the problem further into the past, none can escape the ultimate reality that even the very substance of the universe had a beginning. These facts also negate eternal, cyclical models of the universe found in many eastern religions in which the universe has always existed. The universe is finite. It began to exist, and there was no matter before it. And every model of the universe must contend with the fact that there must be a starting point for existence. 

Objection H - What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.

I'll let Wiliam Lane Craig address this: 

It seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the constants and quantities in question are not physically necessary. This is because they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory or any extension of current physical theory. Several years ago Stephen Hawking addressed your question at a cosmology conference at the University of California, Davis. Notice the alternative answers which he identifies to the fundamental question he poses:

Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.

Notice that the options mentioned by Hawking are precisely the three alternatives which I address. Hawking argues that the first option, physical necessity, though the option most physicists would prefer to be true, is a vain hope: “M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model. Obviously, the values of the parameters we measure must be compatible with the development of life. . . .But within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant.” He wrapped up by saying,

"...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location.

In fact, this idea of a “cosmic landscape” predicted by string theory has become something of a phenom in its own right. It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that the theory does not at all render the observed values of the constants physically necessary.  [source]

Scientific Evidence for an Immaterial Mind - aka the Soul

Yes, we do have some evidence that the mind is separate from the brain.

1) cerebral localization

It's been known since the 19th century that for motor and sensory function there are very specific locations in the brain that seem to mediate those functions. Hand movements are controlled by a specific part of the opposite cerebral hemisphere. Vision is controlled by a very discrete area in the occipital lobes.

However, Higher intellectual functions, such as abstract thought, mathematics, ethics, are not localized like that. There is no calculus center of my brain. There's no ethics center in my brain.

The brain seems to be necessary for doing calculus and doing addition and thinking about concepts like justice and mercy, and so on, but it's not localizable. The belief that higher abstract thought was going to be localizable was held by materialism in the 19th century, and they developed the theory of phrenology from that. He has the idea that all of these individual higher intellectual Functions have a spot in the brain that controlled them. Phrenology has been discredited. It's been shown to be wrong.

Because only certain things in the brain seem to be mediated by the brain other aspects of the mind, don't have a spot in the brain. The implication there is that they're not really material, but they're an immaterial power of being able to reason and use logic. And frankly, that's a very old dualist idea. It was an idea proposed by Aristotle. So for thousands of years duelists have predicted that and modern neuroscience, for now, confirms that.

2) split brain operations

Back in the 1960s, Roger Sperry, a prominent neuroscientist did a series of studies on patients, who had split brain operations due to severe epilepsy. An epileptic focus would begin in one hemisphere of the brain and travel through the corpus colosum, which is a bundle of fibers connecting the two hemispheres, and cause a generalized seizure.

It was recognized by surgeons in the mid-20th century that if you cut the fiber bundle that connected, the two hemispheres of the brain that you could prevent the seizures from becoming generalized, and you could greatly improve the quality of the patient's life. So a number of patients had this operation called corpus callosotomy. The patient's seizures would get better. But they really weren't much different, that is that their brains were essentially cut in half, but they still seem to be a unitary person. They still seem to be fairly normal. Sperry was a neuroscientist who studied these people in detail, and he did find that there were some subtle abnormalities as a result of cutting the brain in half, but the abnormalities were very subtle; so subtle that the experiments he won him the Nobel Prize.

And what that implies is that the human mind is not purely generated by the matter of the brain, otherwise cutting the brain in half would have profound effects on the human mind. It might make two people. Certainly, it should create a profound difference in a person's state of consciousness, but it doesn't. You've cut the brain in half and the person can't tell the difference, except that he has fewer seizures.

3) epilepsy neurosurgery

Dr. Penfield was the first neurosurgeon to systematically operate on the human brain when people were awake; he would work on the brain while they were awake in an effort to identify the focus of their seizures and to remove the focus from the brain. So their seizures would stop, and he operated on upwards of a thousand patients like this and very carefully recorded his results. He believed that all the mind originated from activity of the brain., but by the end of his career, he was a passionate dualist.

He repeatedly observed that there were aspects of the patient's mind that no matter what he did to the brain he couldn't affect. He could elicit memories, make a muscle move, or make a patient have a sensation. But he couldn't change their consciousness, he couldn't change their intellect, he couldn't change their sense of self. There was a fundamental core, that no matter what he did to the brain, remain the same. So, he said there was something he couldn't reach.

He asked the question, why are there no intellectual seizures? When people have epilepsy, commonly a person will have jerking of a muscle. Sometimes so many muscles jerk that they actually go unconscious. Sometimes they have a tingling on their skin, or sometimes they'll have a funny smell, or sometimes they can even have a little behavioral tick.

But they never start doing calculus. They never contemplate, justice or mercy. They never think about Shakespeare. So Penfield says, why aren't there intellectual seizures? If the mind comes from the brain entirely, the mind is material in some sense, then you ought to have seizures that make you do addition. Or think about politics. But you don't. What that implies is that the intellect is not the brain.

4) vegetative state brain function

Neuroscientist Adrian Owen looked at brain function in people who were in persistent vegetative state, Persistent vegetative, where a person has such severe brain damage that they show no sign of consciousness. And sometimes their caretakers will say something like, *I get the sense that the person is there that they understand things*, but there's no clinical evidence for it. Doctors would examine them, but there's no sign of any reaction at all and scan their brains are shrunken and obviously severely damage.

So Owen did a fascinating experiment. He used the technique called functional MRI imaging, which is mRI machine that images changes in blood flow in the brain that seems to correlate with brain function. So if you're moving your arm, the part of your brain that involves moving your arm lights up on the functional MRI. If you're thinking about stuff, your frontal lobe, slide up, things like that. So what Owen did is that he took a woman who had been diagnosed for several years and persistent vegetative state from a car accident, who showed no sign at all of any awareness, deep common, put her in the MRI machine and ask your questions. He said, pretend that you are playing tennis. Or imagine that you're walking across the room. He asked her to imagine all these things, and her brain kind of lit up in places.

But you could say that the brain lighting up, doesn't mean she was understanding anything. Maybe the sound coming into her ears, was causing a reflex or something. So, he took 15 normal people. And he did the same thing with them. Stuck them in a machine, put an asked the same questions. And then he asked, neurobiologists to look at the functional MRI images of this woman and the 15 normal people, And see if you can tell a difference between the two and they couldn't. Her pattern of reaction was identical to the normal people. That seemed to imply that she could understand what he was asking.

But perhaps the lighting up of areas in her brain and the lighting up of the area is a normal people's brains was just because of the reception of the sound, and didn't really understand. So what he then did is he took the same words that he had asked her before, but he took away the semantics. And just left some syntax. And her brain stop stopped reacting. As did the normal controls. Her brain only reacted when what he said to her made sense. It didn't react from just sound.

And this has been repeated by a number of different investigators that show the same thing that he found. That even when your brain is so massively destroyed and there's no clinical evidence for any mental activity at all, functional MRI can find that these patients are capable of thinking. Some patients who can do mathematics, ask "what's six plus six" and then give them different answers and when you hit the right answer of the brain lights up. So, very clearly, there are aspects of the mind that cannot be destroyed by severe brain damage. That's what Owen's work is showing us. It's showing us our aspects of the mind that aren't connected tightly to the brain, our minds are immaterial.

Conclusion

So not only is this a blow to a naturalistic understanding of the world it is also evidence for the existence of the soul, since in religion and philosophy, the soul is often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.

And while this doesn't show how an immaterial mind could interact with the physical brain in A Scientific Case for the Soul Robin Collins offers some idea how the immaterial mind can interact with the material brain - see sections 4 & 5.

This added with the argument that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting is additional evidence that a physical only view of the world is not sufficient to explain it; i.e. there must be some supernatural, nonphysical, element at play in the world

If God has perfect foreknowledge how can humans have free will?

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Philosophers sometimes call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. And from determined events that are outside their control.

Thought experiment:

Let's say Grace builds a time machine and decides to travel to the future and see what her friend Anna has for breakfast tomorrow. After she comes back to the present day, she now has prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with God having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans have free will.

Objections:

A) Let's say Anna changed her mind at the last second and decided on something else for breakfast.

The reply: Grace would have seen that, and Grace would know of that change. Remember, we are speaking about perfect foreknowledge of the future

B) The idea of a time machine is incompatible with logic and therefore not possible for even an omnipotent being to accomplish, so using it as an example doesn't really resolve the issue.

The reply:

A time machine may not be compatible with physics/metaphysics, but it’s compatible with logic. But it's not meant as the way it was done, but more as an illustration of how prior knowledge doesn't refute the idea of freewill.