KINGS/CHRONICLES

Quantum Mechanics:“No UniversalCause Necessary”?Jeff Miller, Ph.D.fails in quanQ:Iftumcausalitymechanics, doesn’t thatprove that a Universal Cause isn’tnecessary?Writing in Nature, HowardWiseman, Professor of Physics at Griffith University, explainedthat, “In 1964, Northern Irish physicist John Bell proved mathematically that certain quantum correlations, unlike all other correlations inthe Universe, cannot arise from anylocal cause.”1 Does that mean thata cause for the Universe is unnecessary? If a “quantum fluctuation”does not necessarily require a localcause, doesn’t that mean that a Universe-generating quantum fluctuation would not necessarily requirea cause?The key word that must not beoverlooked in a proper understanding of Bell’s Theorem is theword “local.” In order to answerthe above questions, that termmust be defined and understood.Consider a simplified example: ittakes about eight minutes for lightfrom the Sun to reach Earth. Butlet’s say you were standing on theSun by yourself, without any interaction with me, but every timeI clicked my computer mouseon Earth, you immediately anduncontrollably hopped. There wasnot a delay of eight minutes. Theeffect was immediate. The effect ofA:you hopping would be the result ofa “non-local” cause. In his article,“Spooky Action at a Distance,” Dr.Gary Felder, Professor of Physicsat Smith College, explains locality as “the principle that an eventwhich happens at one place can’tinstantaneously affect an eventsomeplace else. For example: if adistant star were to suddenly blowup tomorrow, the principle of locality says that there is no way wecould know about this event or beaffected by it until something, e.g. alight beam, had time to travel fromthat star to Earth.”2 The questionis, does that principle always holdtrue? According to what’s knownas Bell’s Theorem, at the quantum level, the principle of localitydoes not hold true. Jacob Aron,writing in New Scientist, explainedthat in quantum theory, “particlescould become entangled, so thatmeasuring one would instantlyinf luence the measurement ofthe other, even if they were farapart.” 3 Felder explained: “Bellproved that the results predicted byquantum mechanics could not beexplained by any theory which preserved locality. In other words, ifyou set up an experiment like thatdescribed by Einstein, Podolsky,and Rosen, and you get the resultspredicted by quantum mechanics,then there is no way that localityR&could be true . In short, localityis dead.”4Now what does this mean forusing the Law of Causality toprove the Universe could not createitself?5 Three quick points to consider in response to that question: Most important: even if Bell’sTheorem holds true, and it verywell may, it does not disprovethe Law of Causality—i.e., theneed of a cause for every effectin the Universe. Bell’s Theorem argues that there is not aneed for a local cause at thequantum level (i.e., locality),but it does not claim thatthere is not still a necessary relationship betweencause and effect—i.e., thatcausality still holds. WhileBell experiments seem toshow that there is not alwaysa direct correlation betweena cause and effect at the locallevel, scientists see that theredoes still seem to be a correlation between the causesand effects in Bell’s Theoremexperiments, even if the correlation is not local. Accordingto Bell’s Theorem, a cause cancreate a distant effect instantlywithout apparent (or, at least,understandable) interaction(e.g., separated electrons can“affect each other instantly”6),but there is still an acknowledged relationship betweenthe cause and effect even if itis distant and immediate. Myclicks are undeniably causing you to jump, even if wedo not understand why. Inthe words of Wiseman, concerning the non-local realityinterpretation of Bell’s Theorem, it is possible that “the setting of one measuring devicecan influence the reading ofanother instrument, howeverremote” 7—i.e., the cause and

effect are still apparently correlated. So, Bell’s Theoremmay highlight another type ofcause and effect relationship,but it does not negate the needfor a cause in the first place. Scientists recognize that theydo not completely understand why Bell’s Theoremseems to hold true. Theyacknowledge that there maybe things we have not discovered about reality which couldaffect our understanding ofwhat is happening at the quantum level and which couldprove that the cause is ultimately still “local.”8 In otherwords, compared to what weknow about the macroscopicrealm from centuries of study,we are relative novices whenit comes to the study of thequantum world. We simplydo not have all the answersas to what is happening inthat realm, but, on the otherhand, the evidence for the Lawof Causality is abundant andundeniable. Scientists even acknowledgethat Bell’s Theorem may befalse and that further investigation and accumulation ofknowledge may reveal thatfact. According to Felder,hidden assumptions (e.g., theassumption that “no signalcan propagate faster thanthe speed of light,” whichis a fundamental element ofEinstein’s theory of relativity)could be corrupting the Bellexperiment results.9 Wisemanconceded that “[b]efore investing too much angst or money,one wants to be sure that Bellcorrelations really exist. As ofnow, there are no loopholefree Bell experiments.”10Bottom line: all observed evidencein the Universe, whether at thequantum or super-quantum level,indicates that in the realm in whichwe live, an effect must have a cause.The Universe is an effect, and ifone is to be rational (i.e., followthe evidence we have at our disposal), he must acknowledge thatthere must be an ultimate causefor the Universe, whether it belocal or non-local. According tothe evidence, that Cause is noneother than the God of the Bible.11ENDNOTES12Howard Wiseman (2014), “Bell’sTheorem Still Reverberates,” Nature,510[7506]:467-469, p. 467.Gary Felder (1999), “Spooky Actionat a Distance,” Math and PhysicsHelp, http://www.felderbooks.com/papers/bell.html, italics in orig.Kyle ButtJune 14June 21June 26-28Eric LyonsJune 4-9June 25-30Dave MillerJune 2-3June 4June 14Jeff MillerJune 7,14June 9-11June 17June 25-30R&Jacob Aron (2015), “QuantumWeirdness is Reality,” New Scientist,227[3037]:8-9, September 5, p. 8.4Felder.5Jeff Miller (2011), “God and theLaws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, egory 12&article 3716&topic 90.6Felder.7Wiseman, p. 468.8Felder.9Ibid.10Wiseman, p. 468.11Jeff Miller (2015), “How Can aPerson Know Which God Exists?”Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:52-53,May, http://apologeticspress.org/pub rar/35 5/1505.pdf.3Rome, GAWetumpka, ALOakman, AL(706) 291- 0351(334) 567-6561(205) 686-9079Oakman, ALOakman, AL(205) 686-9079(205) 686-9079Dallas, TXCanyon Lake, TXSelma, AL(972) 897-9456(830) 899-7077(334) 874 -7941Wetumpka, ALWaxahachie, TXJay, FLOakman, 9079

List of ABR (Advanced Bible Reader) books & tests66 BOOKS OF THE BIBLEBOOKS-MEDIUM39 O.T. Books Genesis-MalachiGen .10 testsEx .8 testsLev .5 testsNum .5 testsDeut .5 testsJosh .4 testsJdg .4 testsRuth. 1 test1 Sam.6 tests2 Sam.5 tests1 Kgs .4 tests2 Kgs .5 tests1 Chr .3 tests2 Chr .7 testsEzra . 1 testNeh .2 testsEst . 1 testJob .6 testsPsa .19 testsPro.9 testsEcc . 1 testSong.2 testsIsa .13 testsJer .11 testsLam . 1 testEze .8 testsDan .2 testsHos .3 testsJoel . 1 testAmos .2 testsObad . 1 testJonah . 1 testMicah . 1 testNah . 1 testHab . 1 testZeph . 1 testHag . 1 testZec .2 testsMal . 1 testBOOKS-HARD27 N.T. Books Matthew-RevelationMatt .6 testsMark .3 testsLuke .5 testsJohn .4 testsActs .7 testsRom .4 tests1 Cor .4 tests2 Cor .3 testsGal .2 testsEph .2 testsPhil . 1 testCol . 1 test1 Thes . 1 test2 Thes . 1 test1 Tim .2 tests2 Tim . 1 testTit . 1 testPhm . 1 testBIBLE FACTS4 Easy Bible Facts Tests3 Medium Bible Facts Tests1 Hard Bible Fact TestHow to Become a ChristianBeing Saved and the ChurchThe ChurchBOOKS-EASYBats, Cats, and RatsBirds, Bugs, and BeesDogs, Frogs, and HogsDucks, Bucks, and WoodchucksFish, Flies, and FleasGoose, Moose, and MongooseSharks, Larks, and AardvarksSnails, Quails, and WhalesA Man Who Loved MoneyA Patient Man From UzA Son Who Ran AwayGod Made AnimalsGod Made BirdsGod Made InsectsGod Made PlantsGod Made ReptilesGod Made Sea CreaturesGod Made YouGod Made the WorldHeb .3 testsJam . 1 test1 Pet . 1 test2 Pet . 1 test1 John . 1 test2 John . 1 test3 John . 1 testJude . 1 testRev .4 testsAmazing Copies of God’s DesignAmazing Dinosaurs Designed by GodThe Amazing Human Body Designed by GodAmazing Migrating Animals Designed by GodAmazing Skin Designed by GodAmazing Tails Designed by GodAmazing Tamable Animals Designed by GodAmazing Teeth Designed by GodDinosaurs Unleashed (Part 1)Dinosaurs Unleashed (Part 2)Does God Like to Paint?How Do You Know the Bible is From God?How Do You Know God is Real?Truth Be Told (Chapters 1-5)Truth Be Told (Chapters 6-10)Wonders of God’s Creation (Chapters 1-3)Wonders of God’s Creation (Chapters 015-Jan-Dec2016-Jan-Dec2017-Jan-AprEXPLORER SERIESJourney 1

READINGWHAT MATTERSASummer Reading Ideaspologetics Press’ AdvancedBible Reader (ABR) has teststhat cover the entire Bible plusnumerous A.P. books includingour Reader Series. It is completely free, and it is so easy to usethat kids can do it by themselves.Kids have their own accountthat accumulates points. ABR isa great way to encourage kidsto read the Bible. Teachers cansign up and check on children’sprogress. ABRis an excellentsupplement toBible class orhomeschoolBible programs.Scan code to seethe ABR Web site or go toadvancedbiblereader.comCall us at 800-234-8558 if you have any questions Expand your knowledge of God’s WordIncrease reading comprehensionCompete against siblings and friendsRead what has true value—God’s Word

& In the NewsEn-Gedi Scrolls and the Accuracy of the BibleAny honest person who has studied theprocess of how ancient books have comedown to us in modern times knows thisremarkable fact: the Bible is the most accurately transmitted book in the history ofthe world. Skeptics and those of other religions (such as Islam) often attempt to castdoubt on the biblical text by claiming thatthe words that were in the originals havebeen lost over thousands of years of copying. This accusation is patently false. Theaccurate and meticulous transmission of the66 books we call the Bible is nothing shortof divine. To document this truth wouldtake entire volumes of thousands of pageseach, which has been done, but we have noroom to repeat it here. One good summaryarticle of that vast research is the AP article“3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible HasNot Been Corrupted.”1One astounding fact about the Bible’stransmission is that new information continues to come to light, silencing the skeptic, andbolstering an already irrefutable case. Onesuch discovery was made in 1970 near thearea where the Dead Sea scrolls were found.A group of scrolls known as the En-Gediscrolls came to light, but were badly damaged by fire and were unreadable with thetechnology available at the time.2 While thedating methods used to date the scrolls arenot completely reliable, experts place the dateof the writing near A.D. 300. That meansthe scrolls predate the Masoretic Text fromwhich the King James Version was translated by about 500 years.By using technology known as volumecartology, computer scientist Brent Sealesand others were able to “map” the text andidentify the writing. When they did, theyfound an ancient Hebrew text that coincided perfectly with the Masoretic Text ofLeviticus 1:1-8. Newitz wrote:What’s incredible about these chapters,according to archaeologist Emanuel Tov,is that they are virtually identical to themedieval Masoretic Text, written hundredsof years later. The En-Gedi scroll even duplicates the exact paragraph breaks seen later inthe medieval Hebrew. The only differencebetween the two is that ancient Hebrewhad no vowels, so these were added in theMiddle Ages.3Were this situation to have occurred withsome other ancient text (such as the Quranor even the texts of ancient writers such asHerodotus or Thucydides), scholars wouldhail the event as unprecedented. In truth,however, this is a “run-of-the-mill” normaloccurrence for the biblical text. The accusation that the biblical text has been miscopiedor corrupted, in light of such evidence asthe En-Gedi scrolls, is vacuous and unsustainable.Emanuel Tov went on to say this aboutthe En-Gedi text: “[It is] 100 percent identical with the medieval texts, both in itsconsonants and in its paragraph divisions .[T]he scroll brings us the good news that theancient source of the medieval text did notchange for 2,000 years.” Newitz added, “Inother words, the Jewish community managed to retain some of the exact wording inpassages from their biblical texts over centuries, despite massive cultural upheavalsand changes to their languages.”4Indeed, such text preservation is unparalleled when compared to all other ancientdocuments in the world. We should recognize and appreciate the Providential care bywhich the biblical text has come down to us.And we should let that knowledge spur us onto study the Holy Bible, knowing that thewords we read are those that God inspired.Kyle Butt, M.Div.ENDNOTES1234Dave Miller (2015), “3 Good Reasons toBelieve the Bible Has Not Been Corrupted,”Reason & Revelation, 35[8]:86-89,92, y 13&article 5196&topic 103. Formore extensive information, see Neil Lightfoot (2003), How We Got the Bible (GrandRapids, MI: Baker), third edition.Annalee Newitz, “One of the World’s Oldest Biblical Texts Read for the First -the-first-time/.Ibid.Ibid.June 2017 R&R Resources 37(6):68

Apologetics IsEvangelismJeff Miller, Ph.D.ON occasion in our travels, wehave heard well-meaningChristians say things like, “Asnon-profit organizations, apologeticsorganizations like you guys surely needsupport! We wish we could help. Apologetics is great, but we want to supportmission efforts that are evangelistic—missions that teach the Gospel.” At therisk of sounding self-serving, we wishto gently respond to that line of reasoning—after all, ironically, it’s an apologetics issue.Kyle Butt, one of our AP authors, saidthis about apologetics:You walk up to the man on the streetand tell him that Jesus Christ loves himand died so he could receive forgivenessof his sins. You explain that everyoneshould obey Jesus because He is the Sonof God. The man wants to know howyou know this information. You informhim that the Bible, the inspired Wordof God, declares it to be true. He wantsto know two things: (1) How can youprove that there is a God?; and (2) Howcan you prove that the Bible is His Word?He is not being belligerent or cantankerous; he simply wants some goodevidence that would warrant the totaloverhaul of his life you are asking himto make.It is now your responsibility to presentsolid, rational arguments that prove thethings you have affirmed. You mustdefend the propositions you have presented. You are appointed for the defenseof the Gospel (Philippians 1:17).1Notice: apologetics is crucial to evangelism. When a person engages inapologetics, he is simultaneously evan-gelizing by exposing error and/or teaching truth.Several times over the years I have beenasked the question, sometimes evenwith indignance, “Why is your organization called ‘Apologetics’ Press? Youhave nothing to be apologetic for!” Justa few months ago, we received an e-mailthat said, “I am leary of your name—Apologetics—I am a servant of the Living God and have no need to apologizefor anything but I am seeking ananswer .” Ironically, this individualwas inadvertently requesting the verything she thought she had no need for.The word “apologetics” is derived fromthe Greek word apologia, which meansto give a defense or reply.2 Christiansare commanded to “always be ready toapologian (give a defense) to everyonewho asks you a reason for the hope thatis in you” (1 Peter 3:15). ApologeticsPress, therefore, was founded to assistChristians in following that divinedirective: to give a defense of New Testament Christianity—counteringattacks by enemies of the cross andproviding answers to those sincerelyseeking evidence for Christianity.Apologetics is an important aspect ofthe Christian’s walk. One does not haveto read far in Scripture to find examplesof God and His followers defendingthe truth through logical argumentation and reasoning from the evidence,or those who were supposed to be Hisfollowers failing to defend properly theR&truth and choosing instead to succumbto erroneous doctrines (starting withAdam and Eve). In fact, examples ofapologetics are in nearly every chapterof Holy Writ, whether directly or indirectly. Jesus, Himself, was an apologist—the Master Apologist.3 Paulengaged in apologetics constantlythroughout his ministry, as did otherNew Testament evangelists, defendingthe truth of Jesus’ messiahship, deity,and resurrection.4 In fact, it could beargued that apologetics is the primarymode of evangelism used in Scripture.If Christians are commanded by ourRuler to “contend earnestly for the faith”(Jude 3), to “always be ready to give adefense” (1 Peter 3:15), and to “persuademen” (2 Corinthians 5:11), apologeticsis central to implementing our Commander’s orders.The bottom line is that apologetics iscrucial in being able to reach otherswith the Gospel. False concepts mustbe countered and evidence provided inorder to build a foundation for the obedient faith that saves. Regardless ofwhether or not we as Christians chooseto support apologetics efforts, we shouldall be clear about the fact that Godintends for all Christians to be apologists. It is our responsibility to prepareourselves for that endeavor. Souls areat stake.ENDNOTES1234Kyle Butt (2001), “What is Apologetics?”Apologetics Press, ry 12&article 826.William Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-EnglishLexicon of the New Testament and OtherEarly Christian Literature (Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press), second edition revised, p. 96.Dave Miller (2011), “Jesus Was Rational,”Apologetics Press, y 10&article 1245; Dave Miller (2011), “Is Christianity Logical? [Part I],” Apologetics ategory 12&article 3869.Eric Lyons (2016), “Apologetics and theGrowth of the Early Church,” Reason &Revelation, 36[6]:62-71, http://apologeticspress.org/pub rar/36 6/1606w.pdf.

Why Be AnAtheist?Dave Miller, Ph.D.CREDIT: wikipedia.org (Cmichel67) 2017 license CC-by-sa-4.0WHY do we believe whatwe believe? Answers tothis question are legion.However, the most basic humanmotivations that lie behind beliefand practice may be identified inlight of Bible teaching. Here area few:Greed/Materialism—“I can makemoney by believing this viewpoint.”Jealousy—“If I hold this viewpointI will be held in higher esteem thanothers.”Loyalty—“I believe this viewpointbecause my parents did.”Ambition—“I will advance in mycareer if I believe this viewpoint.”Selfishness—“I want to believethis viewpoint because it makesme feel better.”Sensualism—“I believe this viewpoint because I can indulge myselfsexually.”Ignorance—“I’m not sure why Ibelieve this viewpoint, but I do.”Bias/Prejudice—“I don’t believethat viewpoint because of who elsebelieves it.”Indifference—“I hold this viewpoint, but it really doesn’t mattermuch to me.”Foolish Pride—“The smart people don’t believe that viewpoint.”If God exists and the Bible is HisWord, then what we believe andwhy we believe it are crucial andeternally significant.Intellectuals throughout historyhave considered themselves superior to others based on their allegedintellectual prowess. The atheisticelite of our day ooze arrogance intheir condescending dismissal ofthose who believe in God. Theyseek to give the impression thatthey believe what they believedue solely to a rational, unbiased,sensible analysis of facts that have,in turn, led them to the beliefsthat they hold. On the otherhand, those who do not consentto their infidelity are depicted asignorant, biased, and stupid. Consider the frantic judgment leveledby prominent evolutionist RichardDawkins of Oxford University: “Itis absolutely safe to say that if youmeet somebody who claims not tobelieve in evolution, that personis ignorant, stupid, or insane (orwicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1Despite such high and holy selfrighteous declarations, the factis that the very nature of error issuch that a person can continueto embrace it only by means ofR&impure motives. If an honest atheist is willing to examine the facts,he will either cease being an atheist or he will cease being honest.Hence, those who have distinguished themselves for their ongoing vociferous defense of theirinfidelity most assuredly possessone or more motives deep downin their hearts that enable themto dismiss the actual evidence thatdisproves their viewpoint.Interestingly, atheists occasionallydivulge their inner motives withoutparticularly intending to do so. Forexample, in a makeshift “debate”conducted in 2010 on the campusof Caltech between atheists SamHarris and Michael Shermer onthe one hand, and Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the other,Sam H

2. T. en times in 1 & 2 . C. hron-icles. 3. you will discover the phrase “the book of the . kings. of” I. srael/ J. udah. 4. M. any . B. ible readers assume that “the book of the chronicles” mentioned in 1 & 2 . K. ings is a ref - erence to 1 & 2 . C. hronicles, while “the book of the kings” mentioned in 1