Don’t all religions basically teach the same thing?

Many people wonder why we make such a fuss about Jesus Christ and Christianity, since they believe all religions are basically the same. They assume that all faiths are all talking about the same thing, but are putting it in a different way.

One man once gave this illustration. He said, “Suppose you take ten men and blindfold them, and lead them over to an elephant. You now let each of them touch a different part of the elephant—tail, trunk, etc.—without telling them what they are touching.

“You lead them back inside, take off their blindfolds and tell them to describe what they touched.” The man then asked, “Would their descriptions agree?” The answer of course is no.

The man then made this observation: even though these ten men touched the same thing, they did not agree because each touched a different part or, if you please, experienced it from a different angle. He went on to conclude, “Isn’t it the same in the area of religion?

“Aren’t all the different religious groups— Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc.—experiencing the same God, yet ex­plaining it in different ways? Thus can’t they all be true, but with each giving a different em­phasis?”

The problem with this illustration is identifying the elephant with God. You are assuming that all these people are experiencing the same God, when in fact this is not true. Christianity and Islam cannot both be true at

the same time. Neither can Mormonism and Buddhism both be correct simultaneously, nor can Christian Science and Hinduism.

All religions cannot be true at the same time, because they teach many things completely opposite from one another. They all may be wrong, but certainly they all cannot be right, for the claims of one will exclude the other.

As to matters of salvation and the person of Jesus Christ, only historic Christianity recognizes Him as the eternal God becoming a man who died for the sins of the world and arose again the third day. Salvation is obtained only by putting one’s trust in this Jesus.

The Jesus of Islam is not the Son of God who died for the sins of the world; neither is the Jesus of Mormonism- or Christian Science the same Jesus as revealed in the Bible.

Salvation is not by grace and through faith in these religions, but it is a matter of works. It can then be observed that we are dealing with different religious ideas that are not compatible with one another.

Even though many religions seem to be the same on the surface, the closer one gets to the central teachings the more apparent the differences become. It is totally incorrect to say that all religions are the same.

The God of the Christians is not the same God as that of the Mormons, Muslims or Christian Scientists. If the God of the Bible is the only true God, then the other gods are nonexistent and should not be worshiped.

Continue reading --->

Truth - Does it Exist?

Does Truth exist?  Even if it does, can we know it?  Are we in the dark like Kant said that we are?  Should we be absolutely skeptical as Hume told us we should be?

Here we will begin to discuss the all important question of truth, and whether it can be known at all.  We will be examining the claims of Relativism, Agnosticism, Skepticism, and Postmodernism, and see what they claim to be the truth about truth.

The Mind behind the Universe

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thank you for the amazing work you do in your ministry.

Last year I studied Philosophy of Mind at my university, after hearing your advice to do such on the RF podcast. I found it extremely interesting and it certainly opened me up to a few realities about the field that I wouldn't have expected to be true (such as the increasing number of modern philosophers that are leaning towards dualism).

To my question: It seems to me that your suggestion, that the only rational cause for the universe is an unembodied mind, presupposes dualism. What do you consider to be the best arguments for dualism, in light of the materialist majority?

Moreover, what do you consider to be the best argument for an unembodied mind as the first cause over an abstract object? Could the 'multiverse', as described by Prof. Lawrence Krauss and other New Atheists, be such an abstract object? If so, does this put the notion of an unembodied mind as the first cause into second place?

Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Ben

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Why Atheism Is Nonsense: Pt.1 - "No-thing is actually Something"

This is one of the many reasons why the "intellectual price tag" of Atheism is too high for Theists:  Nothingness is counted as something.  

The amazing thing is, it's not even mentioned that philosophically this is an incoherent idea, since it violates the Law of Non-contradiction (A cannot be A and -A in the same way or at the same time). 

Sadly, although many of these atheistic thinkers and scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss, see themselves as supremely logical and pursue science on the basis of logical inference, they themselves make rudimentary errors of the first magnitude.

Philosophically, atheism is intellectually nonsensical, logically contradictory, and mentally incoherent.  For these reasons, and many others, I don't have enough blind faith to be an Atheist.

- Pastor J. 

Computers Are Not Darwin Machines

Most people think computers are built by intelligent design. How on earth can you say their development follows Darwin's mechanism of "survival of the fittest"? Yet an article at Science Daily announces, "'Survival of the Fittest' Now Applies to Computers: Surprising Similarities Found Between Genetic and Computer Codes." (Emphasis added.) Certain similarities between Linux code and bacterial genomes may obtain, but one thing should be clear: they are not Darwinian.

Sergei Maslov, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory, holds appointments in physics and quantitative biology. His grad student, Tin Yau Pang, assisted with the mathematical model. Their idea was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. What were the peer reviewers thinking?

Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" originally referred to natural selection in biological systems, but new research from Brookhaven National Laboratory and Stony Brook University scientists shows that this evolutionary theory also applies to technological systems.

But the essence of Darwinian evolution is aimless, purposeless churning via unguided natural processes, with no design or intelligence. If Linux code behaved that way, woe unto users of Linux!

What the authors found, instead, was irreducible complexity -- marks of intelligent design:

Continue reading --->

Is The Bible Without Error In Science and History?

How many errors can an omniscient mind make? 

Did Jesus and his disciples refer to the 50 chapters of Genesis? 

What do Jesus and Jonah have in common?

Here the One Minute Apologist, Dr. Bobby Conway, asks Dr. Norman Geisler if the Bible has any errors. One thing to remember is that the bible is not a text book on math or science or psychology, but when it speaks on these subjects, it speaks with absolute authority and absolute accuracy! If there is just ONE error in the bible, you would be justified not to believe in the entire document, but as we know and believe, the bible in its entirety is inerrant!

Dr. Geisler holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and has authored, coauthored ans edited over 60 books and hundreds of articles. You can check out Dr. Geisler's website at normangeisler.com.

Have an Intelligent Faith!!

-Nelis

Atheism's Achilles Heel: "Scientism"

Do most Atheists hold to a self-defeating view 

of Science?

Here we will examine the logically self-defeating claims of "Scientism", and how many of today's atheistic researchers subscribe to this erroneous view of science.  We will also go over more that  a dozen highly qualified modern scientists who hold very strongly to belief in a Creator God.

It is vital to have a good handle on this faulty concept of learning truth about reality.  Especially since it is endorsed today by many at the University.  Learn how to refute "Scientism".

Have an Intelligent Faith!

- Pastor J.

Libet’s Experiments and Determinism

Dear Prof. Craig,

what does the Libet-Experiment indicate about free Will?

A US-american Scientist, Libet, conducted in 1979 an experiment involving the measurement of Brain-Activity during a controlled Decision-making Process, in order to better understand relations between neurological (physical) phenomena and the activity of the will.

The observation was, that:
1. brain activity occurs, then after a delay
2. one is oneself aware that a decision has become made, then after a delay (for the body to react)
3. the decision becomes made.

The delay between (2) and (3) can become accounted simply by transmission delays from the brain to the body. Of interest is the delay between (1) and (2).

Some (neurobiologists) claim, the gap between (1) and (2) demonstrates that the brain makes the decision and then the person experiences the decision (and simply associates the decision to his own free doing, as opposed to that of the body).

But a few things do not seem (to me) in order here. E. g.

a. (2) merely marks, when the person is, at another level of awareness so-to-speak, aware of his decision. But making a decision and becoming aware of the same are prima facie distinct phenomen, and thus should not be assumed to occur simultaneously. In order to disprove that a free-will decision has occurred, it seems one would have to collapse these two notions.

b. Assume now, decision-making and awareness of the same were to occur simultaneously. The so-called "readiness potential" in (1) is only measured in the times in a small neighbourhood of the activity. Could it be that this readiness potential regularly spikes, and that this be simply a regular phenomen which puts one into a state to make a decision? In this case, the compatibility of free-will and this preempting brain-activity are perfectly compatible.

My objections aside, I would really like to hear your professional opinion of this.

* The existence of free-will is among the deepest and most difficult problems in Philosophy/Science. If this problem were solved, and the Libet-Experiment were to have conclusively shown that human decision-making is not free but determined, there would then be consensus. Is there Consensus about the interpretation of the observations in the Libet-Experiment? Is there Consensus about the Free-Will Problem?

* What at all possible do the observations of the Libet-Experiment actually indicate?

Finally,

* Some simply take the approach of redefining free Will as a phenomen, whereby although the decision is determined, its causes is truly the person who does the deciding. In this way, some thing that Determinism is no problem at all for free Will --- rather the definition of free Will could be rethought. What do you hold of this approach?

Thank you for reading and thank you for your work!

With kind Regards,

Raj

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

FOR EARTHDAY: PhD Proves Our Universe Has a Cause!

Professor Alexander Vilenkin:  Mathematical PROOF of our Cosmic Beginnings!

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin, PhD Physicist & Cosmologist

Alexander Vilenkin is a Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers professional papers.His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe,Russia, and Japan, and in many popular books.

The most significant contribution that Professor Vilenkin has made is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem (BVG Theorem) in 2003.  This mathematical theory states that any Universe that has been expanding throughout it's history, must have had a point of beginning in the finite past.  What makes this BVG Theorem so interesting is that it holds REGARDLESS OF ANY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EARLY UNIVERSE.  This includes even the dubious "Multiverse Theory" that is popular today.  In specific reference to wild, outlandish, and extravagant attempts to avoid a finite universe, Professor Vilenkin stated this powerful  quote:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men 

and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. 

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide 

behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: 

they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

This mathematical demonstration of our cosmic beginnings, is tremendously troubling to our atheists and naturalist friends - and for good reason.  The logic is obvious:

1. If our Universe began to exist, it must have a Transcendent Cause.

2. Our Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, our Universe has a Transcendent Cause.

Of course, this Transcendent Cause would therefore be immaterial (having created the material universe), unimaginably powerful (having created all the energy of the universe), a metaphysically Necessary Being (since it is the source of all dependent reality), and would also be a Personal Being (having exercised a free choice to create).

This is some of what the Christian means when we speak of the Being of GOD.

How To Make An Atheist's Head Explode!

How can the Law of Cause and Effect help you 

when speaking with Atheists and Naturalists?

This is a good-humored look at some of the interesting problems raised for Atheists and Naturalists by things like the Law of Causality, which states among many things that "something cannot come from nothing" or that "Non-being cannot give rise to Being".

The principle of causality is a first principle. All first principles are self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. But not everything self-evident in itself appears to be self-evident to everyone. The principle of causality fits that category and so must be unpacked.

The principle of causality may be stated in various ways, some more easily accepted than others. 

For example, it may be stated:

1. Every effect has a cause.

This form is clearly self-evident, and it is analytic, in that the predicate is reducible to its subject. Other ways to state the principle are not analytic, nor so self-evident:

2. Every contingent being is caused by another.

3. Every limited being is caused by another.

4. Every thing that comes to be is caused by another.

5. Non-being cannot cause being.

Sometimes the principle is stated in other ways than these, but each form is reducible to one or more of these statements. For example, "Every thing that begins has a cause" is the same as "Everything that comes to be is caused by another." Also, "Every dependent being is caused by another" is the same as "Every contingent being is caused by another." All of the ways to defend the nonanalytic forms of the principle of causality (forms 2--4) require explanation of what is meant by the terms of the statement. The following are examples:

THE NATURE OF BEING AND NON-BEING:

Statement 5 can be defended by defining terms. "Non-being cannot cause being" because only being can cause something to exist. Non-being is nothing; it does not exist. And what does not exist has no power to produce anything. Only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of "cause" implies that some existing thing has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. Or it can be more popularly phrased, "Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could."

THE NATURE OF CONTINGENCY:

All contingent beings need a cause, for a contingent being is something that exists but that might, under other circumstances, not exist. Since it has the possibility not to exist, it does not account for its own existence. In itself, there is no reason why it exists. Once it was non-being, but non-being cannot cause anything. Being can only be caused by being. Only something can produce something.

But if someone does not accept this as self-evident, the statement can be defended in two ways:  First, inherent in the concept produce or cause is the implication that something that existed brought into being whatever is produced or caused. The alternative is to define nothing as something or a non-being as a being, which is nonsense. This argument should be distinguished from David Hume's point that it is not absurd to say that nothing can be followed by something. Hume himself denies that something can be caused by nothing: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause" (Hume, The Letters of David Hume, 1:187).

Second, everything that comes to be must have a cause. If it came to be, it is not a Necessary Being, which by its nature must always exist. What comes to be is a contingent being, which by nature is capable of either existing or not existing. Something separate from the contingent being has to determine that it comes into existence. So, everything that came to be must be caused, since there must be some efficient action which causes it to pass from a state of potentiality (potency) to a state of actuality (act). For, Aquinas noted, no potency for being can actualize itself. To actualize itself means it would have previously been in a state of actuality, and to be actualized means it would have been in a state of potentiality. It cannot be both at the same time. That would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Hence, one cannot deny the principle of causality without violating the principle of non-contradiction.

EVERYTHING THAT COMES TO BE HAS A CAUSE: 

 Using this statement of the principle of causality, the existence of God/a First Cause can be demonstrated as follows:

- Everything that comes to be is caused by another.

- The universe came to be.

- Therefore, the universe was caused by another.

Another way to prove the existence of God uses a different statement of the principle of causality:

- Every contingent being is caused by another.

- The universe is contingent in its being.

- Therefore, the universe is caused by another.

Atheist PhD & World Famous Geneticist now believes in GOD!

What led Dr. Francis Collins, 

head of the "Human Genome Project", 

to become a believer in the Christian God?

In this short CNN interview, he details his attempts to validate and 'prove' his atheistic arguments and beliefs.  He admits that some of the arguments he had simply "cooked them up" in his own mind. 

Later he decided to study Medicine, and he came face-to-face with the reality of human suffering and death.  This caused him to reflect upon what he truly thought about the possibility of God's existence, and the human hunger for life beyond the grave.

All the while, he was coming to grips with reality of the pre-installed program of "Moral Law" that operates within humanity, which functions as a sign-post to point towards the Moral Law Giver - GOD.

Interesting insights from one of the most highly qualified scientific minds of our time.  Listen to his own words of how science, philosophy, and the awareness of human mortality led him to give his life to the GOD of Christianity.

- Pastor J.

Buddhism vs Christianity

By Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

1. Creator God
Buddhism – No creator God exists .
Christianity – Creator God exists . Created our universe a finite period of time ago, as explained by the Big Bang theory.
The arguments for the existence of a creator God are:

2. Moral law
Buddhism – Moral law is there, but no moral law giver . But still moral and immoral actions have consequences. Morality is relative . All their compassion, non -violence and eight-fold path , none of it absolute or objective. Buddhism is just one way of obtaining liberation. There may be other ways.
Christianity  - Moral law exists and a moral law giver gave it to us. Therefore an absolute and objective moral law exists. This moral law giver has made it obligatory for humans to live according to the moral law. There is judgement day when everyone has to account for his life before this moral law giver.

3. Man
Buddhism : Man does not have a soul or Atman. What we call as man is just his consciousness which is made up of one physical element and four psychic elements.
Christianity : Man is made in the image of God. Man has a soul and has essential worth, because he is made in the image of God. He is different from animals which do not have the image of God. Man was created so that he can have a relationship with God and also exercise dominion over the world. The soul of man is not eternal but immortal. God loves mankind.

New guest blogger at Intelligent Faith, Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

Hey guys,

I would like to welcome Dr.Samuel Inbaraja Sundar M.B.,B.S., PGDipHM, C.O as our new guest blogger at Intelligent Faith 315. He originates from Pondicherry India where he works as a radiologist. He is involved in evangelism, apologetics and bible teaching for the past 12 years. His apologetics training includes RZIM Truth@life seminar, Bangalore, India in the year 2005 and has also been involved with the Pondicherry Apologetics Club since 1998. He also blogs at Christian Apologetics Alliance and also maintains quiet a few apologetics and Christian devotional blogs of his own. 

If you have any questions for Dr. Inbaraja you can email us at intelligentfaith315@gmail.com or him directly at amuelinba2@gmail.com and if you are interested in becoming a guest poster on our blog please email us!

and always remember to have an intelligetn faith!!

-Nelis

Pt.2 - Atheism's Nightmare #2: "How can human Cells communicate with each other?"

Our Cells have the ability to signal each other

in order to perform vital biological functions?

In this second installment, journey inside the cell and follow proteins to learn about cellular interactions, communications, and signal transduction.

According to what we observe scientifically in the areas of information science and mechanical engineering, when we see the incredible amount of specified complexity and information rich signals used by cells to operate and communicate, we infer and intelligent agent behind their construction.  In science this is called the "Inference/Argument to the Best Explanation" and is a normal way of making scientific predictions.  It is not using "God of the Gaps" reasoning, but rather observational scientific inferences, based on our repeated experience and research.

Attributing highly complex, specific, and information rich systems like this to CHANCE, however, is definitely a type of "CHANCE OF THE GAPS" reasoning, and is highly unscientific.

Some questions that need to be answered by Atheists, Naturalists, and Neo-Darwinists in light of Cell Signals and Communication:

1. WHERE DID THE FIRST LIVING CELL ORIGINATE FROM?  

2. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?  WHAT WERE THE MECHANICS OF IT?

3. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM?

4. WHERE DID THE "LANGUAGE SOFTWARE" COME FROM THAT IS USED IN CELLULAR SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION?  DON'T LANGUAGES NEED AN AUTHOR/INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THEM?

5. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE INFORMATION (IMMATERIAL QUALITY) THAT IS USED TO GUIDE CELLULAR SIGNALS, IF THE UNIVERSE IS PURELY NATURAL OR MATERIAL?

It would seem that the most plausibile "Inference to the Best Explanation" would be that a Designer caused the genuine Design that we see (not apparent design); that a Mind originated the information/language used during Cell Signaling; and that an Uncaused Being is the explanation for the First Cell coming into Being (Life comes from Life - Law of Biogenesis).

For these and many other reasons, I simply don't have enough blind faith to be and Atheist, Materialist, or Naturalist.

- Pastor J.

Fine Tuning and Physical Necessity

Hello Dr. Craig,

I'm looking for some clarity regarding your argument about the explanation for the fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life, in which you identify either physical necessity, chance, or design as explanatory options.

You rule out necessity by saying that the laws of nature (and/or their values) are contingent and could have been different. This seems intuitively correct to me, and I have heard secular scientists like Brian Green state similar views on his PBS documentary (only in the context of the multi-verse). However, I'm wondering what kind of evidence we have for such a claim (i.e., that the weak/strong nuclear forces or gravity could have taken on different values, or be reversed, or have completely different characteristics all together)?

Evidence aside, you imply (but haven't explicitly stated) that such necessity would be disconfirming of theism. This is inferred by the way you dichotomize necessity from design. However, I don't see why the necessity of physical reality could not be merged with design. Wouldn't a grand unified theory (if it could show that the natural laws and their values COULD NOT have been any different) just bring up an even more important question...that is, 'why does a life permitting universe HAVE to exist?' Would this question be incoherent in the light of proven physical necessity? Otherwise, it seems to me that a proof for the necessity of the physical laws would be strongly confirming of theism (i.e., necessity by design), especially in the absence of a multi-verse.

Aaron

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

The Atheist's Nightmare #2 - CELL SIGNALS - Pt.1

The Cell, thought by Darwin to be a glob of protoplasm, 

has turned out to be one of the most information rich structures in the Universe.

In this first installment, journey inside the cell and follow proteins to learn about cellular interactions, communications, and signal transduction.

According to what we observe scientifically in the areas of information science and mechanical engineering, when we see the incredible amount of specified complexity and information rich signals used by cells to operate and communicate, we infer and intelligent agent behind their construction.  In science this is called the "Inference/Argument to the Best Explanation" and is a normal way of making scientific predictions.  It is not using "God of the Gaps" reasoning, but rather observational scientific inferences, based on our repeated experience and research.

Attributing highly complex, specific, and information rich systems like this to CHANCE, however, is definitely a type of "CHANCE OF THE GAPS" reasoning, and is highly unscientific.

Some questions that need to be answered by Atheists, Naturalists, and Neo-Darwinists in light of Cell Signals and Communication:

1. WHERE DID THE FIRST LIVING CELL ORIGINATE FROM?  

2. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?  WHAT WERE THE MECHANICS OF IT?

3. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM?

4. WHERE DID THE "LANGUAGE SOFTWARE" COME FROM THAT IS USED IN CELLULAR SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION?  DON'T LANGUAGES NEED AN AUTHOR/INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THEM?

5. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE INFORMATION (IMMATERIAL QUALITY) THAT IS USED TO GUIDE CELLULAR SIGNALS, IF THE UNIVERSE IS PURELY NATURAL OR MATERIAL?

It would seem that the most plausbile "Inference to the Best Explanation" would be that a Designer caused the genuine Design that we see (not apparent design); that a Mind originated the information/language used during Cell Signaling; and that an Uncaused Being is the explanation for the First Cell coming into Being (Life comes from Life - Law of Biogenesis).

For these and many other reasons, I simply don't have enough blind faith to be and Atheist, Materialist, or Naturalist.

- Pastor J.

The Atheist's Nightmare: ATP Synthase

Could an outboard propeller motor 

come into existence, assemble, and activate itself? 

According to what we know of Probability Theory, and even just our common sense, the answer is a resounding "NO!".

Now enter the design nightmare of any rational atheist or naturalist: the ATP Synthase.  The ATP Synthase is the smallest Molecular Machine that we know of, and is very properly called a molecular motor, since it possesses many of the same mechanical parts and engineering.  

The ATP Synthase operates within each Mitochondria, the power cell for each of your 30 trillion cells.  Within each Mitochondria, hundreds upon hundreds of elegantly and efficiently designed ATP Synthases operate with breathtaking efficiency and relentless determination to keep you alive on a daily basis.  They produce Adenosine Tri-Phophate (ATP) which your body uses up to it's own weight in, every day of your life.  Cyanide poison is fatal instantly, precisely because it blocks the production of ATP for your body.

   

Without this nano-technological marvel of engineering and design, you would not be alive to read this information, and watch this video.  This, of course, raises some obvious scientific questions:  

1. WHAT IS THE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION FOR A STEP-BY-STEP EVOLVING OF SUCH A MARVELOUS MOLECULAR MACHINE?  

2. WHERE DID THE SPECIFIED INFORMATION COME FROM ON THE DNA MOLECULE THAT WAS THE BLUEPRINT FOR THE ATP SYNTHASE?   

3.  ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT OUTBOARD MOTORS HAVE INTELLIGENT PERSONAL DESIGNERS, BUT NOT APPLY THE SAME SCIENTIFIC/LOGICAL REASONING TO THE ATP SYNTHASE, WHICH IS A MILLION TIMES SMALLER AND THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE EFFICIENT.

I propose that to believe such a marvel of elegant and efficient engineering arose randomly, and by chance, is not only THE HEIGHT OF UNSCIENTIFIC REASONING, but also VIOLATES RATIONAL AND LOGICAL REASONING as well.

I simply don't have enough faith to be an Atheist or Naturalist.  Not in the light of the ATP Synthase, and other Molecular Machines.

- Pastor J.

Inter-Racial Marriage and Same Sex Marriage

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thanks for the work you do. I greatly appreciate it.

My question concerns a commonly made argument for same-sex marriage. The argument essentially says that it was wrong to prohibit interracial marriages. Since prohibiting same-sex marriages is analogous to prohibiting interracial marriages, we ought to allow same-sex marriages.

Obviously this argument has great emotional and rhetorical appeal. But I was wondering if you could comment on the strength of such an argument. I recognize that if one could point out a relevant difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, then the argument would fail. I've heard several suggestions for such differences, but I was hoping to get your perspective. Thanks.

Zachary

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

NOTE: Itunes is Hindering our RTB Podcast!!

Just wanted to let all of you know that our "Reason To Believe" podcast is being hindered by Itunes since we switched over to a different server.  We encourage you to enjoy the podcast episodes that you already have downloaded, and stay tuned for this problem to be resolved in the near future.  We will notify you when the "Reason To Believe" Podcast is up and running.

In the mean time, we encourage you to go the Google App store and download our NEW AND IMPROVED - "Intelligent Faith 315" app.  It is superior to the previous version, and will give you instant access to every new post, article, and video that we create.  Plus you will be able to access all of our archived resources for your own study.  You can also send us and questions you have regarding evidence or proof for the Christian Worldview, atheism, etc...  Of course, the IF315 app is free!!

Go download the NEW IF315 app..... and have an Intelligent Faith!

- Pastor J.

"Is Science The Ultimate Truth?" - Part 7

Can we learn truth about reality 

apart from empirical knowledge?

(pt.7) In this seventh and final installment, we will examine Reason #5: That although the scientific disciplines are a good avenue to obtain certain truths about reality and the universe we, inhabit, they are by no means the only pathways to reliable knowledge about our world.  There are many other forms of truth that are important and necessary for a fuller understanding of our human experience.

The goal of this series is to delineate at least 5 Reasons why science has NOT eliminated the classical and historical Christian concept of God:

1. Scientific Founding Fathers - These individuals were primarily Christian Theists. 

2. "Scientism" - This is a logically self-defeating and self-contradictory concept.

3. Simple Irrelevance - Approximately 95% of scientific knowledge has no bearing on the ideas and truth claims of the Christian Worldview.

4. Strong Support - Approximately 5% of scientific knowledge that does intersect with the Christian Worldview is strongly supportive of Christian Theism. 

5. Single Perspective - Scientific knowledge is only one of many reliable methods we can use to obtain solid understanding and knowledge about reality.

I hope that you will stay with us as we continue to investigate this important question in light of the scientific, historical, and logical evidence - "Has Science Eliminated The Need For God?".

- Pastor J.

Christianity and Non-Empirical Knowledge

 by J.P. Moreland

 Knowledge is to represent (i.e., experience or think about) reality the way it really is on the basis of adequate grounds, on a solid basis of evidence, experience, intuition, testimony and so forth. We also saw that there are three different kinds of knowledge:  1) Knowledge by acquaintance:  This happens when we are directly aware of something, e.g., when I see an apple directly before me or pay attention to my inner feelings, I know these things by acquaintance. 2) Propositional knowledge:  This is knowledge that an entire proposition is true.  Propositional knowledge is justified true belief; it is believing something that is true on the basis of adequate grounds. 3) Know-how:  This is the ability or skill, usually based on the other two sorts of knowledge, to do certain things, e.g., to use apples for certain purposes.

However, we Christians are not just committed to knowledge, as important as that is.  We are also committed to the idea that we can have various kinds of non-empirical knowledge, i.e., knowledge that does not require an appeal to what one can see, smell, taste, touch or hear in order to know it:  knowledge of God, the soul, moral values, demons and angels, and so on.  But is there really such a thing?  The answer is “Yes, indeed!” and in what follows I will briefly dismiss the charge that all knowledge is empirical (i.e., must be testable by the five senses) and then present examples of knowledge that is non-empirical.

Asserting What Can’t Be Said

People sometimes assert things that they are not rationally entitled to assert.  “I can’t speak a word of English,” “There are no truths,” “No sentence is longer than three words,” are all examples.  Why?  Because they are self-refuting.  Each statement is an example of something that refutes the statement itself.  Now the assertion “There is only empirical knowledge and truth” is not itself an example of an empirical knowledge or truth.

Continue reading --->