7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 2] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5407

7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 2]

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the April issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Problem #4: Unscientific

As with inflation theory, the multiverse is untestable and unobservable, making it unscientific. Astrophysicist and Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University Adam Riess and astrophysicist Mario Livio, previously at the Space Telescope Science Institute, stated: “Even just mentioning the multiverse idea…raises the blood pressure of some physicists. The notion seems hard to swallow and harder to test—perhaps signifying the end of the classical scientific method as we know it. Historically this method has required that hypotheses should be directly testable by new experiments or observations.”¹ But observation, direct testing, and experimentation are not possible with the multiverse. Ellis, in apparent frustration, admitted:

Similar claims [about the existence of multiverses—JM] have been made since antiquity by many cultures. What is new is the assertion that the multiverse is a scientific theory, with all that implies about being mathematically rigorous and experimentally testable. I am skeptical about this claim. I do not believe the existence of those other universes has been proved—or ever could be. Proponents of the multiverse, as well as greatly enlarging our conception of physical reality, are implicitly redefining what is meant by “science”…. The various “proofs,” in effect, propose that we should accept a theoretical explanation instead of insisting on observational testing. But such testing has, up until now, been the central requirement of the scientific endeavor, and we abandon it at our peril. If we weaken the requirement of solid data, we weaken the core reason for the success of science over the past centuries.²

Krauss noted that “for many people, multiverses…are indications of how far fundamental physics may appear to be diverging from what is otherwise considered to be sound empirical science.”³Regarding string theory, inflation, and the multiverse theory, Ellis and Silk insisted, “We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron…. In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.”⁴ Buchanan, writing in New Scientistabout the multiverse, bewilderedly said,

[F]antasy is the very word that occurs to many—including some physicists—when they hear some of the ideas popular in cosmology…. [I]nflationary cosmologists have opened the speculative throttle so fully that physicists now talk routinely of such things as an infinitude of parallel universes, or a “multiverse”…. Is this still science? Or has inflationary cosmology veered towards something akin to religion? Some physicists wonder….⁵

By the end of the article, Buchanan’s answer was clear. “In the end, this [i.e., the multiverse—JM] isn’t science so much as philosophy using the language of science.”⁶

Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo. In an article titled, “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” he forthrightly argued the following:

[T]he multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science. These other universes are unobservable and because chance dictates the random distribution of properties across universes, positing the existence of a multiverse does not let us deduce anything about our universe beyond what we already know. As attractive as the idea may seem, it is basically a sleight of hand, which converts an explanatory failure into an apparent explanatory success…. We started out trying to explain why the universe is so special, and we end up being asked to believe that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes with random properties. This makes me suspect that there is a basic but unexamined assumption about the laws of nature that must be overturned…. [T]he multiverse fails as a scientific hypothesis in spite of the fact that simple versions of inflation made some predictions that have been confirmed. The idea of inflation is plagued by the need to explain how the initial conditions were chosen…. [W]e had to invent the multiverse. And thus with an infinite ensemble of unobservable entities we leave the domain of science behind. In some sense, the multiverse embodies the unreal ensemble of all possible solutions to the laws of physics, imagined as elements of an invented ensemble of bubble universes. But this just trades one imaginary, unreal ensemble for another.⁷

Folger admitted, “The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved…. Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected?... [Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin] Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly.”⁸

Naturalists routinely argue that Creation is “unscientific” and therefore should not be taught in science classrooms. After all, God cannot be directly observed, and Creation and Noah’s Flood cannot be reproduced scientifically. In truth, direct evidence for the truth of the biblical model is available⁹ and abundant indirect evidence exists to substantiate the biblical model as well.¹⁰However, even if it was the case that Creation is unscientific, multiverse theory and inflation (along with the Big Bang) should, on the same grounds that naturalists use, be deemed unscientific by naturalists and left out of the science classroom. Don’t hold your breath that such rational, consistent thinking will prevail among naturalistic scientists. After all, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse,”¹¹ and according to Harvard University evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, naturalistic scientists “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”¹²

Problem #5: Origin of the Multiverse

For the sake of argument, let us concede the existence of the multiverse. Next question: where did the multiverse come from? Ellis noted,

Many physicists who talk about the multiverse…assume a multiverse context for their theories without worrying about how it comes to be—which is what concerns cosmologists…. Scientists proposed the multiverse as a way of resolving deep issues about the nature of existence, but the proposal leaves the ultimate issues unresolved. All the same issues that arise in relation to the universe arise again in relation to the multiverse. If the multiverse exists, did it come into existence through necessity, chance or purpose? That is a metaphysical question that no physical theory can answer for either the universe or the multiverse.¹³

Recall that Finkel wrote concerning the multiverse, “This is all highly speculative, but it’s possible that to give birth to a new universe you first need to take a bunch of matter from an existinguniverse, crunch it down, and seal it off.”¹⁴ If a Universe had to first be in existence before the new one was born, how did it all get started? And where did the “strings” of string theory come from? The multiverse theory still does not answer the ultimate question.

That ultimate question is precisely what Richard Webb titled a 2016 article in New Scientist: “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” One of the hopes about the multiverse theory is that it could explain why our laws of physics are what they are. As we have highlighted elsewhere, they certainly could not write themselves.¹⁵ In the multiverse, every possible law would be expected to happen in some Universe at some time—and possibly many times throughout eternity. But again, the ultimate question is not answered. Webb highlights that truth: “A popular idea is that all the other possible laws of physics—including no laws—exist elsewhere in a ‘multiverse’ of all possible worlds. In that case, why a multiverse?”¹⁶ Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and Professor at Arizona State University Paul Davies weighed in as well in an article titled “Taking Science on Faith”:

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.¹⁷

In 2011, he said, “You still have to explain the multiverse. That still has laws. You need a Universe generating mechanism.”¹⁸ According to Davies, the multiverse theory merely moves the goal post. It does not really answer the ultimate question. Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist of the City College of New York, agreed, but went even further: “[I]n string theory, there are other universes out there. There’s a multiverse of universes…. [T]he question is, ‘Where did the multiverse come from?’ You could argue, therefore, that maybe you need a god to create the multiverse, or a creator to create string theory, perhaps.”¹⁹

While there are different versions of the multiverse theory which have been suggested, according to Ellis, “[n]early all cosmologists today” accept the type of multiverse wherein “[e]ach [Universe—JM] has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all.”²⁰ As astronomer Shannon Hall wrote in New Scientist, the other universes of the hypothetical multiverse are “all bound by the same laws of physics” as ours. She reasoned, “At least that’s the assumption: those laws don’t change over the distances we can see, so there is no reason to think they will suddenly transform beyond them.”²¹ Recall again that in the multiverse model, in order to form a new Universe you “need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.”²² It stands to reason that if one Universe starts from another, then the same laws would apply to both, which agrees with what Ellis stated. But if that is the case, then the same laws which prohibit matter and energy from creating themselves or existing forever in our Universe²³ hold in those other Universes as well.²⁴ The origin of it all must still be accounted for. If matter and energy in our Universe come from “a neighbouring universe leaking into ours,”²⁵ the matter in that Universe still has to have come from somewhere. In the words of evolutionary biologist of Oxford University Richard Dawkins, “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing.”²⁶ Reason still leads to an ultimate Creator of everything.

Problem #6: The Multiverse Admits the Existence of the Supernatural

Recall what Ellis and Silk wrote in 2014 in Nature: “This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done.”²⁷ Ironically, the “difficulties” theoretical physicists have encountered have forced many naturalists to go beyond nature to try to explain. As Smolin said, “We had to invent the multiverse,”²⁸ and according to Parker, it was from our “imagination.”²⁹ The use of our imagination to determine where we came from certainly sounds like today’s “science” is moving ever further into the realm of fiction.

Regardless, notice that according to many physicists, something beyond the current definition of science is needed to explain certain things—i.e., the existence of the unobservable, supernatural realm is demanded by the evidence. Notice how Davies put it: “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too.”³⁰

Besides the existence of the laws of physics, what kind of “difficulties” are physicists encountering that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to “invent” the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer for the Universe. According to Folger, “The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973.”³¹ Since then, the principle has grown in strength. Consider, for example:

• In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse, Ellis discusses argument number four:

  A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things…. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples—JM]…; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.³²

  [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we have no hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t that make it not a “scientifically based option”?]
• By 2014, Ellis and Silk went even further:

  The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist…. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant—known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory—is difficult to explain, for instance.³³

• John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American, noted,

  The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?³⁴

• Carroll, along the same lines, noted that

  [i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural way.³⁵

• According to Smolin,

  Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick—or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation—the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe.³⁶

• Folger quotes Linde in Discover magazine:

  “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea…. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse…. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei Linde:] “And if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”³⁷

• Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, said,

  We can’t explain the numbers that rule the universe…the different strengths of weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces…. Were any of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson’s mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe’s matter becoming unstable. Similar “fine-tuning” problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is the carbon atom structured so precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe?³⁸

• Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,

  Susskind was suggesting that string theory augments this grand cosmological unfolding by adorning each of the universes in the multiverse with a different shape for the extra dimensions. With or without string theory, the multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—would be answered with a shrug…. Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort….  Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment continues to elude us.³⁹

• Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist, said,

  Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life? For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident. Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,” and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.⁴⁰

Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the truth of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Design demands a designer, and the Universe has abundant evidence of design (i.e., fine-tuning). The multiverse is a concession by naturalists that we have been right all along: there exists an “unseen realm.” But rather than concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically all the while, the multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should behave, making it attractive to many.

Problem #7: Would the Existence of the Multiverse Actually Prove the Existence of God?

According to multiverse theory, “All that can happen, happens” somewhere in the many Universes that make up the multiverse.⁴¹ Ellis explained concerning the multiverse that “[i]n seeking to explain why nature obeys certain laws and not others, some physicists and philosophers have speculated that nature never made any such choice: all conceivable laws apply somewhere. The idea is inspired in part by quantum mechanics, which, as Murray Gell-Mann memorably put it, holds that everything not forbidden is compulsory.”⁴² Sokol agrees: “In the multiverse of eternal inflation, everything that can happen has happened—and will probably happen again.”⁴³ In 2014, Lisa Grossman authored an article in New Scientist titled “Quantum Twist Kills the Multiverse: Goodbye Eternal Multiverse, Hello the End of Everything.” Therein, she explained:

In such an infinite multiverse, everything that has even a slight chance of happening is virtually certain to happen—you just need to wait long enough. Some theorists have pointed out that, taken to its logical conclusion, that includes the spontaneous aggregation of matter so that it creates self-aware, disembodied brains. It’s the same kind of logic that says an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. “It sounds like something a bunch of college sophomores would discuss while high. It doesn’t sound like a real scientific problem,” says Scott Aaronson at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.⁴⁴

It’s certainly a ludicrous idea—“pure speculation” in the words of Ellis⁴⁵—but that is what multiverse theory suggests. Buchanan explained: “In the multiverse, every conceivable world exists, and individuals identical to you and I live out parallel lives in places we cannot have access to.”⁴⁶ Gefter said that in the multiverse, “[e]very conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite number of universes, and any universal theory of physics valid throughout the multiverse must reproduce all those values.”⁴⁷ Recall that Steinhardt, writing in Nature, criticized the multiverse concept: “Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes.”⁴⁸

Now, that said: if in the multiverse, “all that can happen happens” and “every conceivableworld exists”; if “everything that has even a slight chance of happening is virtually certain to happen”; if “anything” “will exist an infinite number of times”; if “everything that can happen has happened—and will probably happen again”; if “everything not forbidden is compulsory”; then why would it not be the case that a God with the characteristics of the one in the Bible would exist in at least one of those Universes? Does the multiverse not demand that God exists? If not, why not? And if a God like the one in the Bible exists, then that God is omnipresent—He is everywhere and every-when (cf. Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Ecclesiastes 12:4; 1 Timothy 1:16-17). That means that if He exists in another Universe somewhere, He must exist here as well.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have intentionally quoted extensively from emeritus distinguished Professor of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa George Ellis since he is a well-respected cosmologist among naturalistic scientists and a key player in the multiverse discussion. Ellis thoroughly grasps why the multiverse is being championed. He understands what is at stake for naturalism, but he also understands that the multiverse theory has significant problems. Consider what he said in his critique of the multiverse in Scientific American in 2011:

Proponents of the multiverse make one final argument: that there are no good alternatives. As distasteful as scientists might find the proliferation of parallel worlds, if it is the best explanation, we would be driven to accept it; conversely, if we are to give up the multiverse, we need a viable alternative. This exploration of alternatives depends on what kind of explanation we are prepared to accept. Physicists’ hope has always been that the laws of nature are inevitable—that things are the way they are because there is no other way they might have been—but we have been unable to show this is true. Other options exist, too. The Universe might be pure happenstance—it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are—purpose or intent somehow underlies existence.⁴⁹

It is significant that Ellis and Silk acknowledge, “In our view, cosmologists should heed mathematician David Hilbert’s warning: although infinity is needed to complete mathematics, it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe.”⁵⁰ The evidence is clear: there must be Something infinite beyond the physical Universe that brought about this Universe and its laws or ordinances. There is zero evidence for a multiverse being that supernatural realm. Indeed, by cosmologists’ own admissions, the multiverse concoction “leapt out of the pages of fiction into scientific journals”; is “hard to swallow”; is a “sleight of hand”; “dodge[s] the whole issue”; is “imaginary”; and is an “oxymoron.” But on the other hand, there is ample evidence that the God of the Bible exists.⁵¹ He wrote the “ordinances of the heavens” and “set their dominion” over the Universe (Job 38:33). By His word, “the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6).

ENDNOTES

¹ Adam G. Riess and Mario Livio (2016), “The Puzzle of Dark Energy,” Scientific American, 314[3]:42, emp. added.

² George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:40-43, emp. added.

³ Lawrence M. Krauss (2014), “A Beacon from the Big Bang,” Scientific American, 311[4]:67, emp. added.

⁴ George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:322-323, December, emp. added.

⁵ Mark Buchanan (2014), “When Does Multiverse Speculation Cross into Fantasy?” New Scientist, 221[2952]:46-47, January 18, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129 520-900-when-does-multiverse-speculation-cross-into-fantasy/, emp. added.

⁶ Ibid., p. 47, emp. added.

⁷ Lee Smolin (2015), “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” New Scientist, 225[3004]:24-25, January 17, emp. added.

⁸ Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10.

⁹ Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf; Jeff Miller (2014b), “Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate: Tying Up Really Loose Ends,” Reason & Revelation, 34[4]:38-59, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1152.

¹⁰ See the following for a discussion of indirect evidence in science: Jeff Miller (2013b), “‘Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,’” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.

¹¹ As quoted in Folger, emp. added.

¹² Richard Lewontin (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, p. 31.

¹³ Ellis, pp. 40-43, emp. added.

¹⁴ Michael Finkel (2014), “Our Star, The Sun, Will Die A Quiet Death,” National Geographic, 225[3]:102, March, emp. added.

¹⁵ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.

¹⁶ Richard Webb (2016), “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:32, September 3, emp. added.

¹⁷ Paul Davies (2007), “Taking Science on Faith,” The New York Times, November 24, emp. added, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0.

¹⁸ “The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ellis, p. 38, emp. added.

²¹ Shannon Hall (2017), “Infinite Frontiers,” New Scientist, 233[3109]:28.

²² Finkel, p. 102, emp. added.

²³ Concerning the eternality of matter/energy, some physicists have acknowledged that even the multiverse could not exist forever [Lisa Grossman (2014), “Quantum Twist Kills the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 222[2969]:9, May 17].

²⁴ Jeff Miller (2013a), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=57.

²⁵ Joshua Sokol (2015), “A Brush with a Universe Next Door,” New Scientist, 228[3045]:8, October 31.

^₂₆ Richard Dawkins and George Pell (2012), “Q&A: Religion and Atheism,” ABC Australia, April 9, http;//www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm.

²⁷ Ellis and Silk, p. 321, emp. added.

²⁸ Smolin, p. 25.

²⁹ Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” , 225[4], April, center tearout.

³⁰ Davies.

³¹ Folger, emp. added.

³² Ellis, p. 42, emp. added.

³³ Ellis and Silk, p. 322.

³⁴ John Rennie, Editor’s Note in Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:48, June.

³⁵ Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:57, June, emp. added.

³⁶ Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.

³⁷ Folger, emp. added.

³⁸ Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.

³⁹ Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-ist, emp. added.

⁴⁰ Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), “God vs. the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 228[3052/3053]:64, December 19/26, emp. added.

⁴¹ Ellis, p. 42.

⁴² Ibid., emp. added.

⁴³ Sokol, p. 8, emp. added.

⁴⁴ Grossman, p. 9, emp. added.

⁴⁵ Ellis, p. 42.

⁴⁶ p. 46, emp. added.

⁴⁷ Amanda Gefter (2012), “Bang Goes the Theory,” New Scientist, 214[2871]:34, June 30, emp. added.

⁴⁸ Paul Steinhardt (2014), “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” Nature on-line, 510[7503]:9, June 5, http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346.

⁴⁹ Ellis, p. 43, emp. added.

⁵⁰ Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.

⁵¹ Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-119, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175; Jeff Miller (2015b), “How Can a Person Know Which God Exists?” Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:52-53, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1189&article=2506.

Special thanks to Dr. Mike Houts (AP Auxiliary Scientist and NASA nuclear engineer) for reviewing this article and offering helpful suggestions.

Animal Rights by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2367

Animal Rights

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

View Article in PDF

The last 40 years have witnessed a decline in the predominating influence of the Christian perspective in American civilization. Sociologists now refer to America as a “post-Christian nation.” With this increasing alienation from the one true God of the Bible has come a corresponding upsurge in aberrant thinking regarding the value and nature of human life. The largest animal rights organization in the world, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is “dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals” and operates under the principle that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment” (“PETA’s Mission...,” 2007). Millions of dollars have been spent on causes that assign an inordinate value to animals—from dolphins, whales, and sea turtles, to birds, beavers, and spotted owls. Pet mega-supermarket chains have sprung up around the country. Pet dentists, pet nutritionists, petsitters, and pet therapists offer their expensive services to people whose pets have become “part of the family.” [NOTE: That is not to suggest that giving attention to pets is wrong; nevertheless, most Americans prior to the 1960s would disagree with current culture’s inflated preoccupation with animals as pets.]

What is the Christian (i.e., biblical) stance on animal rights? During the Creation week, after God made the animals, He made the first human beings, setting them apart from the animal kingdom by making humans in His own image (Genesis 1:27). A human possesses a soul—a spirit—that lives on after the death of the body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1; Luke 16:22-31; Hebrews 12:9; James 2:26). Animals do not share this spiritual dimension with humans. While they possess an animating life force, when they die, they cease to exist. No part of their being continues to exist beyond physical death. Animals are not subject to the laws of God; they are not accountable for their actions as are humans; they do not commit sin; and they are not subject to God’s plan of salvation.

God created the planet to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). Included in His creation of human beings was His pronouncement regarding human rule of and domination over animals. Referring to humans, He stated: “[L]et them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26, emp. added). He instructed humans to “fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28, emp. added). The Hebrew term for “dominion” (rah-dah) means to rule over (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:833; Gesenius, 1847, p. 758). The word for “subdue” (kah-vash) means to bring into submission by force (Harris, 1:430). The psalmist echoed these very directives when he praised God by saying, “You [God] have made him [man] to have dominionover the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen—even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas” (Psalm 8:6-8, emp. added). God stressed human domination in even stronger terms after the Flood: “[T]he fear of you [humans] and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Genesis 9:2-3, emp. added). The only restriction that God placed on the consumption of animal meat was that the blood was to be drained from the animal before it was eaten (Genesis 9:4; cf. Leviticus 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:16,23-24; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; Acts 15:20).

Both Old and New Testaments endorsed human consumption of animal meat (Deuteronomy 12:15; 14:4ff.). While God placed certain restrictions on the Israelite dietary practices, primarily due to health concerns, Christians are under no such regulations—as Paul affirmed: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Timothy 4:4). God intended for animals to serve as food for humans; He did not intend for humans to serve as food for animals. In fact, God made provision for animals to be destroyed if they killed humans (Genesis 9:5; cf. Exodus 21:28). No such provision was made when humans killed animals. In fact, the divine sacrificial systems instituted by God under both the Patriarchal and Mosaic religions required animal sacrifice (Genesis 4:4; 15:9-10; Job 42:8; Leviticus 1:2ff.).

Likewise, the Bible endorses the use of animal skin/leather and fur in order to aid humanity. When the first human pair sinned, their newly acquired sense of shame led them to prepare coverings made from leaves (Genesis 3:7). However, God replaced their makeshift coverings with clothing made from animal skin (Genesis 3:21). Animal skins and hair were used in the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:5; 26:14; 35:23). The famed forerunner of Jesus, John the Baptizer, was “clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist” (Mark 1:6). Jesus’ sandals were laced with leather thongs (Mark 1:7; John 1:27). Many righteous people wore sheepskins and goatskins (Hebrews 11:37).

Assuredly, the Bible teaches the principle of stewardship and wisdom in the use of resources allotted by God (Matthew 25:14-30; 1 Corinthians 4:2). Occasional references seem to give a measure of consideration to the humane treatment of animals (e.g., Leviticus 22:27-28; Deuteronomy 22:6-7,10). God, Himself, provides for their care (Job 38:41; Psalm 147:9; Matthew 10:29), and we should not be wasteful, greedy, cruel, or reckless in our handling of Earth’s resources in general and Earth’s animals in particular. However, animals do not take precedence or preference over humans. A balanced, proper perspective is needed. We must realize that animals are not human and are not to be regarded as such. Animals, like the rest of the created order, render divinely intended services to humans as sources of food and clothing, as well as transportation (e.g., Mark 11:7) and other work-related performance.

If there is no God, then animal rights activism is as sensible, appropriate, and as noble as any other cause. However, if God exists, and if He has spoken to humans through the Bible, then our view of the created order must be shaped by God Himself. A review of Bible teaching regarding the status of animals reveals that animal rights activism evinces misinformed, misplaced zeal. Rather than spending millions of dollars on animals, would not a more rational approach be to concentrate on alleviating the starvation, sickness, and suffering of humanity? Or more importantly, why not concentrate our resources on striving to achieve what the Founders of American civilization considered to be the purpose of the Republic, as stated by the Continental Congress in October 1780: “to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth” (Journals of..., 1904-1937, 18:950-951, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL:http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

“PETA’s Mission Statement” (2007), [On-line], URL:http://www.peta.org/living/magazine.asp.

Warmed-Over Prophecy? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=298&b=Psalms

Warmed-Over Prophecy?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The New Testament writers did not always use Old Testament prophecy in a way that conforms to some people’s idea of how they think it should be used. For this reason, many allege that the New Testament writers take Old Testament Scriptures out of context, or that they “reuse” or “warm over” already fulfilled Old Testament passages in order to make their point. However, in response to this idea, logical solutions can be contemplated that clarify and justify the New Testament writers’ multiple use of Old Testament prophecy.

First, could it not be the case that that Holy Spirit, knowing what would happen in the future, directed the Old Testament writers to pen phrases and statements that had an immediate application and a distant future application as well? Well did Wayne Jackson write:

[I]s it not possible that the omniscient Holy Spirit, who guided both the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament inspired writers, could have directed certain prophecies to ancient Israel, but also could have known that a future event would ultimately fulfill the meaning of his words? What is wrong with such a view? Absolutely nothing. It surely is possible and preserves the integrity of the New Testament writers. Let me suggest an example to illustrate this point.

David declared: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). During the last supper, Christ quoted from this passage as follows: “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me” (John 13:18), applying it to the treachery of Judas, and declaring that such fulfilled the statement in David’s psalm. The Lord, however, altered the quotation. He omitted, “whom I trusted,” from the original source, the reason being, He never trusted Judas! Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him (John 6:64). It is clear, therefore, that Psalm 41:9 had an immediate application to one of David’s enemies, but the remote and complete “fulfillment” came in Judas’ betrayal of the Son of God. I personally do not believe that it is acceptable to suggest that prophecies have a “double fulfillment.” That is a meaningless expression. If a prophecy is filled full once, it can hardly be filled “fuller” later! It would be far better to speak of some texts which have an “immediate application” or “partial fulfillment,” and then a more “remote fulfillment” (1988, 8:29)

Indeed, many New Testament quotations of Old Testament prophecies could conceivably fall into the category of “remote fulfillment.” Consider the situation of Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15. In Jeremiah, the Old Testament prophet obviously was dealing with a fairly immediate point in the not-too-distant future when the mothers of Israel would weep because of the captivity and punishment that the enemies of Israel would inflict upon them. However, Matthew employed Jeremiah’s prophecy—“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not”—to refer to the mothers who wept over King Herod’s vicious slaughter of the innocent male children of Bethlehem. Taking Jackson’s comments into consideration, it is not a difficult stretch to maintain that the Holy Spirit certainly could have foreseen the dastardly deeds of King Herod and supplied Jeremiah with a prophetic utterance that could sufficiently describe the captivity and punishment in the Old Testament as well as depict the gruesome scene related in Matthew. Richards added to this explanation by saying:

The Jeremiah passage quoted is linked to this event. Jeremiah 31:15 portrays Rachel, the symbolic mother of the Jews, weeping as her descendants are torn from the Promised Land. Yet that prophecy is found in a context of the hope that despite the tears God promises the exiles will return. Now, despite the tears shed for the innocent victims of Herod’s slaughter, their deaths underline the escape of the child Jesus, whose survival ultimately means restoration of humankind to a personal relationship with God. As tears intermingled with joy in Jeremiah’s time, so tears and joy intermingle in Bethlehem (1993, p. 228)

It also is interesting to note that many times, Old Testament prophecies have not only immediate and remote applications, but also multiple, diverse uses. Jackson commented:

Still again, we may note that, consistent with His own purposes, the Holy Spirit may give a prophecy multiple applications. Consider the case of Psalm 2:7, where Jehovah said: “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.” In the New Testament, this statement is applied to Christ in several different senses. First, it is employed to demonstrate that Christ is superior to the angels, for the Father never addressed any angelic being, saying, “You are my son, this day have I begotten thee” (cf. Hebrews 1:5). [This is a truth which the “ Jehovah’s Witnesses” (who claim that Christ was a created angel) would do well to learn.] Second, Psalm 2:7 is applied by Paul to Christ’s resurrection from the dead. The apostle argues that “God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my son...” (Acts 13:33). It was, of course, by His resurrection that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4). Thus, it was appropriate that the psalm be applied to the Lord’s resurrection. Third, the writer of Hebrews uses the psalm to prove that Christ glorified not Himself to be made our high priest; rather, such a role was due to His relationship as the Son of God (Hebrews 5:5). Again, we absolutely must stress that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the original psalm, surely had all of these various thoughts in mind as is evidenced by His guidance of the New Testament writers as they employed His language (8:29-30, bracketed statement in orig.).

After looking closely at the different ways in which the New Testament writers used the Old Testament Scriptures, it cannot be argued effectively that there was error or discrepancy on their part. Although they might not have used certain passages in a way that some people might prefer, they did use the prophecies without contradiction or discrepancy in a manner consistent with the plan and purpose of the Holy Spirit.

REFERENCES

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered, (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

Jackson, Wayne (1988), “Principles of Bible Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 8:27-30, July.

Let us pursue the knowledge of God by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/know.html

Let us pursue the knowledge of God

“Let us know, let us pursue the knowledge of the LORD” (Hosea 6:3).
To pursue is to resolutely strive for something even if it is difficult to obtain.
God placed people on earth “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).

Through God’s creation we know that He exists.
The creation is solid evidence for the existence of God.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).
“The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the peoples see His glory” (Psalm 97:6).
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).
There is no excuse for anyone not to believe in God. Yet knowing God is much more than just knowing that He exists.

Through the Scriptures we know what God is like.
Knowing a person is different from knowing a fact. You know someone only if you are familiar with his characteristics, if you know what he is like. Effort is required to get to know anyone, so it is not strange that effort is required to know God.
God’s nature is revealed in the Scriptures. God reveals Himself to us as our Maker, our Sustainer, our Ruler, our Lawgiver, our Judge and our Savior. He is the source of life on earth and the source of eternal life. God reveals Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Yet knowing God is more than just knowing what He is like. Some things can be known about God through His creation. More can be known through His word. Most can be known through His Son.

Through His Son we can know God. 
To know someone well, one must have a personal relationship with that person. Likewise, we must have a personal relationship with God to know Him well. By sending His Son, the Father has made this possible! Before discussing this, let us examine some fundamentals.

We cannot know God through human wisdom alone.
“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).

God has made Himself known through testimony.
Paul did not use human wisdom when he declared “the testimony of God” (1 Corinthians 2:1). “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son” (1 John 5:9, 10).

We must be God-fearing truth-seekers to know God.
We must seek knowledge and be open to God’s testimony to find the knowledge of God.
“Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,
And find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding”
(Proverbs 2:3-6).
Only those who love truth and seek knowledge accept God’s testimony and find the knowledge of God.
Paul speaks of certain people who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). This is because they have insufficient respect for God: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). “For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight” (Ecclesiastes 2:26).


Someone who hates knowledge cannot know God.
God does not listen to the prayers of people who hate knowledge: “Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, they would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies” (Proverbs 1:28-31).
God said about Israel: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
“How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge” (Proverbs 1:22).

We may not reject the knowledge of God.
Deceitful people refuse to know God: “‘Your dwelling place is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know Me,’ says the LORD” (Jeremiah 9:6).
Just claiming to know God is not enough. Of certain people Paul wrote: “They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work” (Titus 1:16).
Much evil emanates from a rejection of the knowledge of God: “because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Romans 1:21-25).
They who do not know God will be punished when Jesus is “revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8).

To be God’s people we must know God.
Under the New Covenant one cannot be a part of God’s people unless one knows God: “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).
Under the Old Covenant, God’s people were a regular nation that included people who knew God and people who did not know God. The faithful encouraged the others to know God.
Under the New Covenant, God’s people are a spiritual nation consisting only of those who know God. “Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart” (Jeremiah 24:7).

In Christ we know God.
Jesus Christ has made God known: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (John 1:18).
If we are in the Son, we have a personal relationship with the Father: “We know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).
Being “in Christ” involves being an active member of His body, the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). We are “baptized into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13).
Paul explains that Christians have a personal relationship with the Father because the Spirit of His Son is in their hearts: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Galatians 4:6, 7).

Our knowledge of God must increase.
Paul prayed that the Colossians might “walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10).
Peter admonishes us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

Knowledge of God must be put into practice.
We can know God only if we love one another and keep His commandments: “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3, 4). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:7, 8).

Pursue the knowledge of God.
Through God’s creation we know that He exists. Through the Scriptures we know what God is like. Through the Son we can have a personal relationship with God.
Although we must seek wisdom and knowledge in general to find the knowledge of God, we cannot know God through human wisdom alone. We must be God-fearing truth-seekers who accept God’s testimony. Someone who hates knowledge cannot know God. We may not reject the knowledge of God. They who do not know God will be punished. We must know God to be His people. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, has made Him known. In the Son we have a personal relationship with the Father through His Spirit within us. Our knowledge of God must increase and must be put into practice.
“Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2). Amen.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Smile! by Gary Rose

I walked out my front door, proceeded down the street, glanced back at my house and smiled. The new cleaning solution I bought the other day, really worked- the green was gone.

I felt better about things and even the morning dog-walk (in August's heat and humidity) seemed better than usual. And I thought of the "Sermon on the mount" from the Bible....

Matthew, Chapter 5 (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)

 ¹ But, seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain,—and, when he had taken a seat, his disciples came unto him;  ² and, opening his mouth, he began teaching them, saying:— 

  ³ 

Happy, the destitute, in spirit; for, theirs, is the kingdom of the heavens;  ⁴ Happy, they who mourn; for, they, shall be comforted:  ⁵ Happy, the meek; for, they, shall inherit the earth:  ⁶ Happy, they who hunger and thirst for righteousness; for, they, shall be filled:  ⁷ Happy, the merciful; for, they, shall receive mercy:  ⁸ Happy, the pure, in heart; for, they, shall, see God:  ⁹ Happy, the peacemakers; for, they, shall be, called sons of God:  ¹⁰ Happy, they who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake; for, theirs, is the kingdom of the heavens.  ¹¹ Happy, are ye, whensoever they may reproach you and persecute you, and say every evil thing against you, falsely, for my sake:  ¹² Rejoice and exult, because, your reward, is great in the heavens; for, so, persecuted they the prophets who were before you. 

Happiness shines. And the glory of it is reflected in a smile. You change inside and outside is never quite the same. God does that, HE changes you into someone better. Smile!