Pt. 7 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Equivocation??

Does Dr. Craig equivocate the phrase 

"begins to exist"?

What is the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?

(part 7 of 10) Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

The Intolerant Science Guy: Bill Nye

Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: "Your Kids" Need to "Believe in" Evolution

The scapegoating begins when Nye says, "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it [evolution], that holds everybody back." He says that those who "deny evolution" have a worldview that "becomes crazy."
Continue Reading . . .

Pt. 6 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Nothing Ever Begins To Exist!?!

Have things always existed?

Is it an illusion when things come into being?

(part 6 of 10) Apparently, some atheists think so.  In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

Pt.5 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Argument" - Nothing produces something?

Can "Nothing" do anything at all?

Could "Nothing" ever produce the universe?

(part 5 of 10) In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

Pt. 3 & 4 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections To The Kalam Cosmological Argument"

Does the Kalam Argument commit 

the "Fallacy of Composition"?

What about the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?

(part 3,4 of 10) In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

IF315 ANDROID APP NOW AVAILABLE!!!

"Intelligent Faith 315" has an Android App???  

 

Yes, it really is true! IF315 now has it's very own official Android App! Check it out here at: goo.gl/CfqAl , or you can search for it in the "Play Store" under "Intelligent Faith 315".

We would appreciate any constructive feedback or input on improving the app for you, so feel free to let us know what you think about it, and how it could be better.  

Again, thanks for being apart of this growing apologetics ministry, and supporting us in your prayers!  It's a privilege for us to help train and equip you to share the Truth more effectively! 

As always, remember to have an Intelligent Faith..... app!

-Pastor J. 

Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

by Matt Slick

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions.  Below is a list of some of the major fallacies.  It is a good idea to be familiar with them so you can point them out in a discussion, thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing error.

It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand.  But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal: truth is.  Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
   1. Example:  You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
   2. Example:  I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument. 
   1. Example:  If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
   2. Example:  Convert or die.
3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. 
   1. Example:  You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
   2. Example:  Oh come on, I've been sick.  That's why I missed the deadline.
4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
   1. Example:  The majority of people like soda.  Therefore, soda is good.
   2. Example:  Everyone else is doing it.  Why shouldn't you?
5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
   1. Example:  This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
   2. Example:  The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.  It is circular.
   1. Example:  God exists because the Bible says so.  The Bible is inspired.  Therefore, we know that God exists.
   2. Example:  I am a good worker because Frank says so.  How can we trust Frank?  Simple:  I will vouch for him.
7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
   1. Example:  When the rooster crows, the sun rises.  Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
   2. Example:  When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas.  Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
9. Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
   1. Example:  That car is blue.  Therefore, its engine is blue.
   2. Example:  Your family is weird.  That means that you are weird too.
10. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
    1. Example:  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
    2. Example:  Evolution states that one species can change into another.  We see that cars have evolved into different styles.  Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
11. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
1. Example:  You either did knock the glass over or you did not.  Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
2. Example:  Do you still beat your wife?

Click HERE to continue reading

What Does One Mean by “the Universe”? Question of the week by Dr. Craig

I have a question about contemporary cosmology and how the word "universe" is often used. As you know when a proponent of the Kalam argument uses the word universe" they mean "the entire space time manifold." However a while ago on the forums and on the link at the very bottom somebody pointed out that when physicists like Vilenkin use the word "universe," they are using it differently than proponents of Kalam are. He then gives a quote (via email correspondence apparently) from Vilenkin saying

It is certainly more than what we can have access to. Regions beyond our cosmic horizon are included. But if there are other universes whose space and time are completely disconnected from ours, those are not included. So, by “universe” I mean the entire connected spacetime region.--Alex V.

If this is true then what does this do for the scientific evidence that you and Craig use to defend premise (2) of Kalam? Thanks for your time.

Source of the quote comes from here: http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/universe-kalam-and-equivocation/

Truthseeker

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's response

Are you an apologist?

by Matt Slick

Sometimes, when I do seminars, after I introduce myself I give a very brief history of what got me started inapologetics and what keeps me going.  Usually, those who are there are there to learn about Christian doctrine; evangelism; witnessing to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or other cult groups; or are simply there to ask questions on different subjects.  Invariably, I introduce the term 'apologetics' to the group and define it as "that field of Christian study that defends biblical truth against anything that opposes it."  Also, I state that apologetics is as varied as people and subjects and that no one can master all areas.  As God calls people into study, they will become proficient in what interests them according to the gifts and interests that have been entrusted to them by Him.

But one of my concerns when doing seminars is what I call "The Speaker Effect."  Basically, when a group gathers to hear a speaker, it is assumed that the speaker knows his material and is very experienced in the subject.  Given the fact that public speaking is America's number one phobia, the mere fact that a person can get up there and speak for an hour on a subject (and enjoy doing it) has a psychological effect of distancing the learner from the teacher.  The speaker is often elevated to the status of "A Special Teacher Called of God."   Actually, in my case, the speaker is just someone who likes to blab about what he knows.  I'm no different than anyone else, and that is important.  People need to realize that they are called by God to study and show themselves approved (2 Tim. 2:15).  Furthermore, this "effect" tends to make people think that they can't be good apologists since they aren't up there speaking.  This is not true, and I always try to motivate people to study and master those areas that the Lord calls them to study.

Apologetics is the attempt to make a defense for the Christian faith.  If you do that in any way, then you are an apologist.  In fact, you are commanded to be an apologist by Peter:  "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," (1 Pet. 3:15).

Click HERE to continue reading

What is Apologetics? An Outline

by Ryan Turner

1. What is Christian apologetics?
   1. What Apologetics is Not
      1. The art of getting really good at saying, “I’m sorry!” over and over.
      2. The art of intellectually forcing unbelievers into submission holds MMA style.
      3. Arguing about how many angels can stand on a pin.
      4. Shaving your head and looking cool.
   2. A Definition of Apologetics
      1. “Apologetics is the branch of Christian theology which attempts to give a rational defense of the Christian faith.”
      2. Apologetics is giving a reason for why you believe what you believe.
      3. The English word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia which means “to give a reason or defense” (1 Pet. 3:15).
      4. Apologetics is also called “pre-evangelism.”
      5. An “apologist” is someone who defends the Christian faith.
2. Why should we do apologetics?
   1. The Bible Commands us to
      1. 1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (NASB).
         1. The importance of humility:  1 Cor. 8:1, “… Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.”
         2. The importance of love:  1 Cor. 13.
      2. Jude 3, “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
         1. Jude 22, “And have mercy on some, who are doubting.”
         2. Apologetics is to be coupled with mercy and love.
   2. Jesus Did Apologetics
      1. Jesus gave evidence for His claims:
         1. His fulfillment of prophecy (Mk. 14:61-62; Lk. 24:44-45).
         2. His Miracles
            1. Resurrection: Prediction (Jn. 2:19-21; cf. Mt. 12:39-40) and Accomplishment (1 Cor. 15; Lk. 24:26-27).
            2. Healings (Mt. 11:2-5).
         3. Corrected false interpretations of Scripture (Mt. 4:1-11).
   3. Paul Did Apologetics
      1. Greeks at Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34)
         1. Quotes pagan poets Aratus and Epimenides.
      2. Jews in the Synagogues (Acts 17:1-3)
      3. False teachers within the Church (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, etc.)
      4. Paul’s mission
         1. Phil. 1:7 – “the defense and confirmation of the gospel.”
         2. Phil. 1:16 – “I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.”
      5. Paul’s criteria for ordaining elders
         1. Titus 1:9, “Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24).
   4. The Church Did Apologetics
      1. The Early Church with the Apostles
         1. The Apostle Paul:  Galatians and 1 Corinthians
         2. The Apostle John:  1, 2, and 3rd John
      2. The Early Church after the Apostles
         1. Apologists:  Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.
         2. Heresies:  Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.
   5. Apologetics Helps Christians
      1. To better know their faith and share it more effectively.
      2. To answer people’s real questions which hinder them from accepting the gospel.
      3. To have influence in the public square (education, media, etc.).
      4. To prevent doctrinal apostasy in the Church.
      5. To answer the false claims of cults and religions….
3. What are the different methods of Christian apologetics?

Click HERE to continue reading

Another Atheist Philosopher, Thomas Nagel, Rejects Darwin!

"Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"

In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It's a bombshell.

Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy. In chapter 1, Nagel cites with favor the work of three Discovery Institute Fellows in particular:

In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

Refreshingly, Nagel is not taken in by one-sided efforts to evade the arguments of intelligent design proponents by stigmatizing their presumed "religious beliefs." As Nagel points out, "the empirical arguments" offered by ID proponents "are of great interest in themselves." It's the evidence that matters, and it's the evidence that demands a response.

Click here to read the FULL article.......

Pt. 2 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections To The Kalam Cosmological Argument" - Circular Reasoning?

(part 2 of 10) In this series of videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith! (1 Pet 3:15)

- Pastor J. 

Classical Apologetics

by Matt Slick

Classical Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses rational arguments for the existence of God and uses evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles.  It is quite similar to evidential apologetics and appeals to human reason and evidence.  Early Classical Apologists include Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas.  Contemporary classical apologists are Norman Geisler, William Craig, J. P. Moreland, and R.C. Sproul.

Some of the arguments relied upon for proofs of God's existence are the cosmological argument and theteleological argument.   The cosmological argument attempts to prove that God exists by stating that there has to be an uncaused cause of all things.  That uncaused cause is God.  The teleological argument uses the analogy of design; that is, the universe and life exhibit marks of design.  Therefore, there must be a Designer.  Other times, strict evidence is used to establish Christianity's validity.  Of course, both aspects are also combined in classical apologetics.

An example of the latter might be as follows:

Allen: Can you give me a logical reason why God exists?
Matt:  I will try (simple logic).  The universe exists.  The universe cannot be eternal because if it were eternal then it would mean that an infinite amount of time has passed in order for us to get to the present.  But you cannot transverse an infinite amount of time.  Therefore the universe is not infinitely old.
Allen:  That is an interesting argument.  Do you have anything else?
Matt:  Sure (Cosmological Argument).  All things that came into existence are caused to exist.  There cannot be an infinite regression of causes because this would mean that there was an infinite amount of time in the past that had to be traversed in order for us to get to the present.  Again, you are not able to cross an infinite amount of time.  Therefore, it is logical to say that there must be a single uncaused cause.  I propose that that uncaused cause is God.

The preceding very simplistic dialogue has strengths and weaknesses but it demonstrates a way of using evidence and logic as a defense to support the resurrection, a biblical miracle.

A variation on this could focus on prophecies and be as follows:

Click HERE to continue reading

Are there Guidelines for doing Apologetics?

by Matt Slick

Almost every discipline has a set of rules and guidelines that help a person perform better. In fact, guidelines could be produced for nearly any endeavor. Why should apologetics be any different?

Following are some things I have found that are very helpful in developing apologetic skills. I am not saying that these are definitive or exhaustive in scope. Rather, these are simply the things that I have found that have helped me. I hope they help you.

Remember, there is no method for apologetics that works in all situations. There can be no outline approach that, if followed, will always lead a person to understanding and accepting the truth. That is why apologetics is a combination of what you know and are. It is a fluid expression that must adapt to the obstacles in its course.

Apologetic skill is directly related to your experience and knowledge. You gain knowledge by experiencing a situation where you defend the truth. This is "doing" apologetics. It is through this doing that you polish what you know, discover your areas of weakness, and plan ways to improve your abilities. You need to learn as much as you can through study, practice what you learn in real situations, think of ways to apply what you know, mess up, and keep going. All of this is what apologetics is and is how you get better. So, is there one single rule that will help you develop skill in apologetics? Yes there is. Go for it! You will have success and failures.

In fact, when I teach seminars on apologetics, I can confidently state that I have probably made more mistakes in evangelism, witnessing, apologetics, etc., than any ten people combined. My wife will attest to that. But hey, that's okay. You don’t grow if you don’t go.

Nevertheless, here are some guidelines.

1. Pray
   1. It is the Lord who opens the heart and mind, not you (Acts 16:14). Ask God for guidance (John 14:14). Ask for blessing in your understanding (James 1:5) and your speech (Col. 4:6). Ask the Lord to also open their understanding to God's word (Luke 24:45).
2. Memorize Scripture
   1. Few things are as powerful when defending the faith as being able to cite chapter and verse of a particular verse (Psalm 119:11; 2 Tim. 3:16).
3. Memorize the locations of information
   1. ...whether it be in cult material, secular material, or any other source you've got. It is extremely valuable to know material in different disciplines. Of course, you cannot know everything, but you can memorize a few pertinent facts about Mormonism, or evolution, or philosophy, or the Bible, or whatever else may be needed. You will learn what you need as you witness.
4. Listen to what is being said to you
   1. ...and respond to what is said. It is by listening that you will then know what to say. Listen for errors in logic. Listen for motives, for hurts, for intent. Listen.
5. Don’t interrupt
   1. This is just common courtesy. You need to earn the right to speak. Just because you have an answer doesn’t mean it must be heard right away. When interruptions become the norm, learning is thrown out the window.
6. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes
   1. One of the best ways to improve is to discover your weaknesses. The best way to discover your weaknesses is when mistakes uncover them for you.
7. Study what you discover you don’t know

Click HERE to continue reading

Prayer in Apologetics

by Matt Slick

One of the dangers of the apologist is falling into the trap of relying on his own intellectual abilities to try and wrestle someone into the kingdom of God.  I am sad to say that I have been guilty of this.

Pride hides itself in the heart so it cannot be seen.  When we find ourselves relying on our knowledge instead of God's word, mercy and grace, then we have fallen into that trap.  It is not reason that converts, but God's Spirit.  It is not logic that draws us to God but Jesus (John 12:32).  It is not evidence that convicts a person of his sins, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:8).  That is why we need to rely on God and trust that He will use our defense of the truth for His glory and their benefit.

To ignore prayer in apologetics is to be prideful.  It is the same as saying we don't need God.  But we do.  We need to pray for those who are lost, pray for their minds to be opened, pray that God's word will ring true to them, pray that our witness will be strong, and pray that the evil one will not have a foot-hold with them or with us.  We are fighting a spiritual battle and need spiritual tools.  Prayer is perhaps the most important of them all.

It is the Lord who opens the heart and mind, not you (Acts 16:14). Ask God for guidance (John 14:14). Ask for blessing in your understanding (James 1:5) and your speech (Col. 4:6). Ask the Lord to also open their understanding to God's word (Luke 24:45).  This is what He does.

Prayer brings humility to the one praying.  It admits dependence on God.  If we are humble and depend on God, we are more likely to hear His voice.  Prayer means that you are seeking divine intervention.  It works power to your words.  It changes your heart.  It moves you closer to God.

Being a great apologist is not a badge of honor to be worn by the Christian as a demonstration of his intellectual abilities.  Rather, it is a response to the calling of God upon all Christians (1 Pet. 3:15) that is to be undertaken with love and humility: love of people and humility before God.

Never let your study and practice of apologetics replace the power, received by faith, in prayer before the Holy Creator.  Ask God to empower your words and open the hearts of those with whom you speak...and then study and witness to the best of your abilities.

 Click HERE to read article

Pt.2 - Dr. Craig: "10 Worst Objections to the Cosmological Argument"

What are the supposed objections to the Kalam 

Cosmological Argument?

Is it 'Reasoning in a Circle'?  Is it 'Hypocritical on Evidence'?

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument 

commit any logical fallacies?

In this next series of 10 videos, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles and defuses 10 supposed objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which posits GOD as the Personal First Cause of the universe.

He refers to these as the "10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument", and proceeds to make short work out of all of them.  This is a great video series for you to get your mind around so that you will be able to answer these hollow objections for what they are - uninformed opinions.

Have an Intelligent Faith!

- Pastor J. 

Logic in Apologetics

by Matt Slick

Logic is typically very important in apologetics. To defend the faith, the Christian must use truth, facts, and reason appropriately and prayerfully. The Christian should listen to objections and make cogent and rational comments in direct response to the issues raised.

Logic is simply a tool in the arsenal of Christian apologetics. Logic is a system of reasoning. It is the principle of proper thinking used to arrive at correct conclusions. Of course, some people are better at thinking logically than others, and there is no guarantee that using logic to the best of one's ability will bring about the conversion of anyone. After all, logic is not what saves a person. Jesus does that, and we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1).

Therefore, the proper use of logic in apologetics is to remove intellectual barriers that hinder a person from accepting Jesus as Savior. Logic is not to be looked at as the answer to every problem facing Christianity nor every objection raised against it.  Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom. It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love.  It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience, the prompting of the Holy Spirit, nor the clear truth of God's word.  Nevertheless, logic is still very valuable and can be quite powerfully used by people, both saved and unsaved.

Opponents of Christianity use logic

Sometimes an opponent of Christianity might use logic problems as a type of evidence against God’s existence. Consider this rather basic objection:

• Proposition: God can do all things.
• Statement: Can God make something so big that He cannot pick it up? If He can, then He cannot do all things because He could not pick up the rock. If He cannot, then He cannot do all things because He cannot make a rock so big He can’t pick it up.
• Conclusion: Since God can do all things and we have shown that there are things He cannot do, therefore, God does not exist.

On the surface, this logic could be difficult to answer. But, all we have to do is think a bit more and we can see that the problem asserted above is not logical to begin with. Here's the answer:

• Proposition: God cannot violate His own nature; that is, He cannot go against what He naturally is.
• Statement: God's nature does not permit Him to lie, to not be God, etc.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the statement that God can do all things, is not true and the conclusion raised against God is also not true.

Logic is a valuable tool in witnessing, particularly when using proofs of God's existence.  Consider the following basic approach using logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe cannot be infinitely old; because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy long ago.
   1. Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics which states that all things are moving toward chaos and non-usable energy.  In other words, everything is running down.
3. The universe is not in a state of non-usuable energy; therefore, it is not infinitely old.
   1. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would have run out of usable energy long ago.
4. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning.
5. The universe could not have brought itself into existence.
6. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into existence.
7. That something is God.

All logical proofs for God have strengths and weaknesses.  But the Christian should not be afraid to use logic, reason, and evidence when defending the faith.

I suggest getting books on introduction to logic and go through what you can.  Absorb as much as possible.  Also, learn to ask questions in discussions.  Learn to think about what the ramifications are of what people are saying.  Look for logical flaws in their speech and your own.  If it helps to learn from actual dialogues, go to theApologetics Dialogues page and read some of the actual dialogues I've had with unbelievers.  They should help to see how to "do apologetics," though I have much to learn in this area.

Is logic a common ground between the believer and the unbeliever?

Click HERE to continue reading

Eight reasons why we need apologetics

by Matt Slick

There are several reasons why we need apologetics.

The first and most obvious is because we are commanded to defend the faith:  1 Peter 3:15 says, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

Second, we need apologetics because it helps Christians know their faith. This is something that is sadly lacking among believers.  Most don't know much about their faith, let alone be able to describe the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, His physical resurrection, or even to tell the difference between justification and sanctification.  Apologetics helps to define and defend what the truth of the gospel is.

Third, apologetics is an attempt to keep people out of hell.  God takes sin very seriously, and He will punish those who have rebelled against Him and are not covered in the blood of Christ.  As Christians, we should be motivated to present the truth of salvation in Jesus.  We should not sit idly by and ignore the dilemma of the unbeliever.  We need to tell them that sin is real because God is real, and that breaking God's law has a consequence.  Since we have all sinned, we cannot keep God's law perfectly.  Also, we cannot undo the offense to an infinitely holy God because we are not infinite or holy; the only thing left for us is to fall under the judgment of God.  But God has provided a way for us to escape that judgment.  That is why God became man in Jesus.  He claimed to be God, (John 8:24,58; compare with Exodus 3:14).  Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross, (1 Pet. 2:24).  By trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, we will be spared from the rightful judgment of God upon the sinner.  Salvation is not found in Buddhism, Islam, relativism, or in one's self: It is only found in Jesus.  We need to not only defend God's word and truth, but also present the gospel to all people so they can escape the judgment to come.

Fourth, we need apologetics to counter the bad image that Christianity has received in the media and in culture.  Televangelists and their scandals—both sexually and monetarily—are a disgrace to Christianity. The Catholic church hasn't helped with its scandals involving priests.  On top of that, the media is very biased against Christianity, and you will see negative opinions of Christianity promoted everywhere.

Fifth, we need apologetics because there is a constant threat of apostasy in the visible Christian church.  Such is the case with the Metropolitan Community Church denomination, which openly advocates the support of homosexuality in violation of scripture (Rom. 1:18-32).  Also, as of 2002, the Evangelical Lutheran Church is in risk of apostasy by entertaining the idea of accepting homosexual relationships into church.  "The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, June 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX).  Or "The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy." (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct. 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX).  Such examples are demonstrations of the incredible need for defending biblical truth within those churches that claim to be Christian.

Sixth, another reason we need apologetics is because of the many false teachings out there.  Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world, that he brought one of his goddess wives with him to this world, that they produce spirit offspring that are born into human babies, and that you have the potential of becoming a god of your own world.  The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there is no Trinity, that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, that there is no hell, and that only 144,000 people will go to heaven.  Atheism denies God's existence, openly attacks Christianity and is gaining ground in public life and schools.  Islam teaches that Jesus was not God in flesh, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and that He did not atone for our sins.  It teaches that salvation is partly based on one's works and partly based on Allah's grace.  It teaches that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel (Surah 2:97; 16:102); that Jinn are unseen beings created (51:56) from fire (15:27; 55:15); and that Muhammed was greater than Jesus. Even within the Christian church there are false teachings.  We can see that from both within the Christian church and outside of it, false teachings are bombarding believers (and nonbelievers) all over the world.

Click HERE to continue reading 

Is Having Properties a Criterion for Existence? Question of the week by Dr. Craig

Dear Dr. Craig,

In your most recent post, you wrote, "I'm inclined to say that ... properties don't really exist."

However, if the having of properties is a necessary criteria for being, then it follows that:

1. If something exists, it has one or more properties.

2. If God exists, He has one or more properties.

3. Properties do not exist.

4. God has no properties.

5. God does not exist.

Of course, I don't accept the premise that properties do not exist, so I wouldn't arrive at atheism. But since you deny the existence of properties, aren't you denying the existence of God? In fact, you'd be denying the existence of all things, which is an absurdity, for surely you must exist to deny anything else.

So I can only conclude that your idea of existence doesn't require the having of properties. If that's so, what criteria constitutes existence?

Furthermore, I hope you have a better answer than to just say that properties are "useful fictions". I fail to see how a fictitious something or other can constitute a criteria for existence. One may as well appeal to a "blark" as a criteria for existence. My intent is not to be snarky, because I have the utmost respect for you and your work. However, I find your denial of properties as highly problematic. It appears more reasonable to accept the reality of properties, but to redefine them, if necessary, in a way that doesn't appeal to platonism.

Finally, I realize that the having of properties as a criteria for existence raises a problem of infinite regress (if a property exists, does IT have a property? And does its property have a property, ad infinitum?), but it seems any criteria we suggest will fall prey to the problem of self-reference.

Frank

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer