Questions about the Cosmological Argument

Dear Dr. Craig

I’m a Muslim student from Iran. I’ve been really interested in your arguments and writing especially since I saw your works on Kalam cosmological argument. We have learned cosmological argument from contingency and along with my classmates we think that it really sounds. We considered the answers to objections made by Russell, Hume and etc.

I had two questions sir

1. Do many philosophers believe that no current version of cosmological argument does not sounds? And if so, what is the reason?(at least in your idea)

You once wrote in one of your comments that actually there s nothing all philosophers believe with no doubt! Is this the same or are they really retracted in current philosophy?

2.my second question is about your personal carrier. Some atheists argue that you couldn’t find academic acceptance and thus you come up to advance public s knowledge, this made us sad. What is the truth sir?

I would really be thankful if you would answer me. I know you’ll probably receive many comments. I d wait no matter how long it takes

Best regards,

Anonymous

Iran

Click HERE to read R. Craig's answer

Urgent Academic Freedom Update: Your Help Needed to Defend Indiana Professor Under Attack

Physicist Eric Hedin at Ball State University in Indiana teaches an elective course on "The Boundaries of Science" that discusses intelligent design in a fair manner. Now the atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to bully university officials into censoring Dr. Hedin's course and possibly disciplining Dr. Hedin. University officials need to hear from those who support Hedin's academic freedom to talk about intelligent design.

Please help defend Dr. Hedin's academic freedom by signing our petition, and by asking all your friends to sign it. Discovery Institute will deliver the petition and a list of its signers to university officials in the next few days. The petition will list the name and state of signers, but not their email address or other contact information. 

For more information about the Hedin case, see:

Sign the Petition Now: Defend the Academic Freedom of Ball State University Professor Eric Hedin

Let's Compare Ball State's Eric Hedin to a Preachy Atheist Professor, David Barash

At Ball State University, Intimidation Campaign Against Physicist Gets Troubling Results

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHAT I BELIEVE?

Does it really matter what I believe as long as I believe in something?

As long as your belief helps you, isn’t that all that matters?

The idea behind statements such as these is that there is no absolute truth to believe in, and thus the act of believing is all there is. We all believe in something, as Edgar Sheffield Brightman states, “A thinker cannot divest himself of real convictions, and it is futile to pose as having none” (E.S. Brightman in H.N. Wieman, B.E. Meland (eds.), American Philosophies of Religion, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1936).

The idea of finding any truth or meaning to life has escaped modern man. This statement reflects the inability to conceive of something outside of one’s self: “There are no rules by means of which we would discover a purpose or a meaning of the universe” (Hans Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, p. 301).

Even though we live in a day in which we all have definite beliefs about things, the climate seems to be the act of belief rather than any real object of belief. “Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact,” states pragmatist William James.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Belief will not create fact. Truth is independent of belief. No matter how hard I may try, believing something will not make it true. For example, I may believe with all my heart that I want it to snow tomorrow, but this will not guarantee snow. Or I may believe that my run-down old car is really a new Rolls Royce, but my belief won’t change the fact.

Belief is only as good as the object in which we put our trust. Someone may come to me and say, “Hey, let’s go for a ride in my new plane!” If I come to find out that his plane hardly runs at all and he does not even have a pilot’s license, then my faith, no matter how much I have, is not well-founded.

My faith won’t create a great pilot out of my friend once we are in the sky! However, if another friend of mine comes along and makes the same offer, but he is a certified pilot with a new plane, then my trust has a much more solid base. So it does matter what I believe, for my believing it does not make it true.

The Bible also emphasizes the fact that it is vital what one believes. Jesus said, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24, MLB). We are also told, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36, KJV).

Continue reading --->

"Science & God: Friends or Foes?" (Downloadable Presentation)

"Science & God: Friends or Foes?" - Dr. Norman Geisler from godknt777

Atheist MD Becomes A Christian - Dr. Mark Eastman

Dr. Mark Eastman, a medical physician details his intellectual journey of how he turned away from Atheistic Materialism after being exposed to incredible evidence of design in the Universe at large, and in particular in living systems.

As you listen, you will note that some of the evidences that convinced him that his Evolutionary indoctrination into the field of medicine was incorrect are the following:

1. Universal Fine-Tuning

2. Molecular Chirality of Proteins and DNA Nucleotides

3. Specified Complexity of the DNA Molecule Hardware 

4. Digital Information/Language/Code within the DNA molecule

If you are an atheist, take some time and listen to the intellectual journey of this MD, and the powerful scientific evidence that convinced him that living systems, being genuine machines, are the product of a Designer and Engineer - God.

- Pastor J.

Are My Arguments Totally Nonsensical?

Dear Dr. Craig,

My Name is Michael, and I campaign in the UK against the religious indoctrination of children.

I have viewed many of your debates with interest, and I have to say - without the intent of appearing insulting - that your content always brings to the fore, the concept of the emperor's new clothes.

It seems that your following can only be pretending to agree with - and accept - your arguments, because they feel that they are supposed to understand them in order to be considered Christians. But in actuality, your arguments require more credulity to accept, than the core concepts of Christianity itself. You seem to be of the view that: it is difficult to challenge your arguments. This is not because they are good sound arguments; it is because they are totally nonsensical.

I could give you an argument in your own style: We could if we wanted to, make water run uphill without the use of mechanical energy, and in doing so solve the planet's energy crisis in a heartbeat; if we would only be prepared to pray hard enough to make water run uphill. The reason water does not run uphill, is not because it is impossible to make water do so, it is simply because no one has yet prayed hard enough to initiate the process. When someone does finally pray hard enough, water will indeed start to run uphill.

Ok, this sounds utterly ridiculous as an argument; but it cannot be proven wrong, even although it clearly is. As such, it mirrors the constructs of your own arguments precisely.

To your own apologetic work I would say, you can along with other theologians state as many times as you like that there is written evidence for the historic existence of the Jesus character, but the hard fact is that this is a fallacious statement; no matter how many times it is claimed, or by how many people; it is simply a false statement.

So, to forward sensible arguments, I invite you to view a documentary titled 'Just Suppose' which proves by means of mutual exclusion that you are quite incorrect in your defence of a historical 1 to 30 CE Jesus character. The character is, without question, a mythical construct.

All best regards

Michael

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Why Atheism Is Nonsense Pt.6 - Life is Ultimately Meaningless!

Though most Atheists would revolt and object to this idea, this was the ultimate conclusion of Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Johny Cage, and Bertrand Russel.  All of these famous Atheist intellectuals of the past centuries agree that if there is no God, the ULTIMATELY, life is utterly meaningless and becomes truly absurd.

They are not saying that there isn't momentary/personal/subjective meaning - but rather ULTIMATELY every act of every man, woman, and child is meaningless if after death there is nothing more, and if there is no God to infuse life with ultimate purpose, value, and meaning.

Most Atheists aren't courageous (or logical) enough to admit it, and they don't even realize that their "intellectual champions" such as Sartre, Camus, Russel were very bold and blunt about this.  In an essay entitled "A Free Man's Worship", Bertrand Russel declared:

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built."

If an Atheist is ABSOLUTELY HONEST about the logical outworking of his/her worldview, this is the inevitable result: An Ultimate Loss of Meaning, Purpose, and Value.

The problem is, however, that you don't live/think that way.  Why not?

Because you want life to have meaning, and believe that at some level it does have ultimate meaning....but this can't be true unless God exists to give it Ultimate Meaning.

Might this be a clue, placed within the innate beliefs and desires of men, to point them towards a Creator God?

"He has set eternity within the heart of man..." - Ecclesiastes 3:11

Confused about Concordism

Dr. Craig,

I am confused... You have repeatedly said you are not an "evidentialist" but you have said that our theology should be molded by modern-day science. (If you need references I can of course provide them). Secondly you have mentioned that we should not use the biblical text as a reference point back into science, but at the same time in both your published work and speaking you specify the biblical account of "creation ex nihilo" as being accurately conjectured in the Genesis account? Now while I agree (to a degree) with you I think, if we use the same logic on the virgin birth (which you admit to believe by faith alone) then shouldn't we conclude in light of modern science that the biblical text was simply using the virgin-birth account as perhaps a symbol of Jesus' purity but it was not really a virgin birth?

Do you see where I am getting at? It is quite confusing to get a solid idea where you stand on many of these type of issues; sometimes it seems more like you are close to a Karl Barth and other times to a more traditionalist viewpoint. I am and have been a RF chapter leader for several years now and though we can of course agree to disagree on points, I do want to accurately represent your position. (My specialty is in the philosophy of history with degrees in history/philosophy post grad in ancient history)

I hope you see where I am coming from and you or a colleague that checks these emails for you can help break this down a little for me. I personally have no problem (much like Francis Schaeffer or a Wayne Grudemen) in just saying "I don't know" on certain areas, but once we commit ourselves to one area (such as letting our exegesis be guided by modern science) we are just one step from deism it would seem? Because even if you have ample room for the historicity of the resurrection you do not for the virgin birth so how can you say the virgin birth is "factual" but most of the Genesis accounts must be looked at through the lens of modern science? (I am not a young earth creationist asking this mind you). My wife and I will be on the RF cruise this month which we are excited about but if you or someone could help clarify these point that would be fantastic and it would save me having to ask you on the trip. ;o)

Sincerely,

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Why Does Philosophy Get A Bad Rap With Some Christians?

Dr. Norman Geisler elaborates of the importance and function that Christian Philosophy should have for believers today.  It is an outstanding tool for defending the orthodox Christian faith, and also for developing Christian theology and doctrine.

As C.S. Lewis once stated "...Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, than bad philosophy must be answered."

- Pastor J.

Swami Vivekananda’s Christ ,The Messenger Part 1

by Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

“Vivekananda renounced the world and criss-crossed India as a wandering monk. His mounting compassion for India’s people drove him to seek their material help from the West. Accepting an opportunity to represent Hinduism at Chicago’s Parliament of Religions in 1893, Vivekananda won instant celebrity in America and a ready forum for his spiritual teaching.For three years he spread the Vedanta philosophy and religion in America and England and then returned to India to found the Ramakrishna Math and Mission. Exhorting his nation to spiritual greatness, he wakened India to a new national consciousness. He died July 4, 1902, after a second, much shorter sojourn in the West.”

Swami Vivekananda (SV) delivered a speech at California on January 7, 1900. His topic was CHRIST ,THE MESSENGER. Though Swami Vivekananda had some grasp of some of the main ideas of Christianity, his presentation of Christ and his teachings is incomplete, erroneous and misleading. It is for this reason that a good critique to show his errors is needed.
1. “The voice of Asia is the voice of religion . The voice of Europe is the voice of politics. The voice of Europe is Greece…….. In Asia ,even today , birth or color or language never makes a race.That which makes a race is it’s religion…. We see therefore in the life of the messenger of life , the first watchword: Not this life but something higher; and, like the true son of the orient, he is practical in that.” -Swami Vivekananda.
Here Swami Vivekananda does a service to us by portraying Jesus as a true son of the orient. Many times the Hindus decry Christianity as foreign, but Swami Vivekananda doesn’t do that he actually finds common ground and looks at Jesus and the culture from which he came as something compatible, similar and familiar. But Swami Vivekananda doesn’t stop there . He attributes the spirituality of Jesus, the other worldly teaching of Jesus as coming because of his location in Asia. Swami Vivekananda concept is , “He is Asian , so he is religious”. Jesus’ teachings do not find their source in location or culture. John 7:15 The Jews were astonished and remarked, “How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?” John 7:16 Jesus replied to them, “My teaching is not mine but comes from the one who sent me. John 7:17 If anyone wants to do his will, he will know whether this teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own. God was the source of Jesus’ teachings and it was not his orientalism as Swami Vivekananda suggests in his writings.
2. “The best commentary on the life of a great teacher is his own life . ‘Foxes have holes , birds of the air have nests , but the son of man has no place to lay his head’.That is what Christ says as the only way to salvation; he lays down no other way. Let us confess in sackcloth and ashes that we cannot do that . We still have fondness for ‘me and mine’.We want property ,money and wealth. Woe unto us!” Swami Vivekananda
Again SV startles me with his grasp of the central concept which even many Christians have not learned. He rightly quotes Jesus , then he says something which Jesus did not say and then gives a good comparison with a humble confession that ,we are not like that. The problem is with the underlined part. Jesus did say “self denial” is the only way anyone can become his disciple and be saved but he said so much more which leaves SV providing incomplete information .
3.
What important things did Swami Vivekananda leave out about Jesus’ teaching on salvation? John 6:40 For this is my Father’s will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.”
John 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent.”
John 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live. John 11:26 Indeed, everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe that?”
In all these passages the central teaching is very obvious.Jesus is asking people to believe in him as the messiah, to obtain eternal life.
   Swami Vivekananda says in the same book , ‘Suppose Jesus of Nazareth was teaching, and a man came and told him,
“What you teach is beautiful. I believe that it is the way of perfection, and I am ready to follow it; but I do not care to worship you as the only begotten son of God.” What would be the answer of Jesus of Nazareth ? ‘Very well , brother, follow the ideal and advance in your own way’’. Swami Vivekananda clearly articulates things contrary to the teachings of Christ. Jesus very clearly preached himself as the messiah, the ‘Son of God’. He very clearly taught that believing him as the messiah is the first prerequisite for having eternal life.Now after believing that Jesus is messiah one should follow his other teachings also . But without accepting Christ as Lord and worshiping him no salvation is possible.

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

Continue reading --->

Why Atheism Is Nonsense Pt.5 - "Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea"

 How does the idea of Naturalism, 

kill the idea of Naturalism?

Well, according the Naturalism, if Evolution is responsible for the origin and development of mankind's brain, then it doesn't select development features based upon truth value, but rather based upon the survivability fitness of the organism (this is central to the idea of Natural Selection).  

That means, if one is consistent in their reasoning, there is no reason to trust the ideas and beliefs that are formed in my evolved brain/mind, since they have not developed in order to detect truth.  This ends up being a self-defeating belief to hold, since the belief in Atheism and Naturalism, is held by my self same brain/mind - but this mechanism cannot itself be consistently trusted.

If true, Evolution undermines the reliability of your intellectual faculties, including the belief of Atheism and Naturalism.  Therefore, Naturalsim is a self-defeating idea for an Naturalist or Atheist to hold to.

- Pastor J.

Why does a good God allow evil to exist?

If He is powerful enough to stop wrongdoing, then He Himself must be an evil God since He’s not doing anything about it even though He has the capability. 

Is He a bad God or a God that’s not all powerful?

One of the most haunting questions we face concerns the problem of evil. Why is there evil in the world if there is a God? Why isn’t He doing something about it? Many assume that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God.

Sometimes the problem of evil is put to the Christian in the form of a complex question, “If God is good, then He must not be powerful enough to deal with all the evil and injustice in the world since it is still going on.” Even the biblical writers complained about pain and evil. “Evils have encompassed me without number” (Psalm 40:12, RSV). “Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?” (Jeremiah 15:18, RSV). “The whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now” (Romans 8:22, RSV). Thus we readily admit that evil is a problem and we also admit that if God created the world the way it is today, He would not be a God of love, but rather an evil God.

However the Scriptures make it plain that God did not create the world in the state in which it is now, but evil came as a result of the selfishness of man. The Bible says that God is a God of love and He desired to create a person and eventually a race that would love Him. But genuine love cannot exist unless freely given through free choice and will, and thus man was given the choice to accept God’s love or to reject it. This choice made the possibility of evil become very real. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they did not choose something God created, but, by. their choice, they brought evil into the world. God is neither evil nor did He create evil. Man brought evil upon himself by selfishly choosing his own way apart from God’s way.

Continue Reading --->

Why Atheism Is Nonsense (Pt.4) - "Our Intellect Wouldn't Be Trustworthy"

Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who occupied the chair of Philosophy at Notre Dame, demonstrates yet another reason why the "Intellectual Price Tag" of Atheism is too high:  Our intellectual faculties (thoughts, conclusion, ideas, etc...) cannot be trusted.

Why?  Simply put, if Evolution is responsible for the origin and development of mankind's brain, then it doesn't select development features based upon truth value, but rather based upon the survivability fitness of the organism (this is central to the idea of Natural Selection).  

That means, if one is consistent in their reasoning, there is no reason to trust the ideas and beliefs that are formed in my evolved brain/mind, since they have not developed in order to detect truth.  This ends up being a self-defeating belief to hold, since the belief in Atheism and Naturalism, is held by my self same brain/mind - but this mechanism cannot itself be consistently trusted.

If true, Evolution undermines the reliability of your intellectual faculties, including the belief of Atheism and Naturalism.  It is a self-defeating idea for and Atheist to hold to.

- Pastor J. 

Evolutionary Creationism and the Image of God in Mankind Read

Dear Dr. Craig,

First off let me congratulate you on your amazing defense of Christianity as you travel about the world, debate, and lecture. I am a major fan, to say the least. However I have a question that has been put on my mind lately, concerning your views about creation and evolution. First off, I think you are spot on when you say evolution (in its many meanings) is not incompatible with Theism, rendering it useless as a objection to the concept of God. Aside from this, if I understand you right, you hold that views such as evolution[ary] creationism are compatible with the account of Genesis in the Bible. What bothers me about this is that I think, by holding this view, that God used evolution to bring about the diversity of life upon the Earth, including humans, you weaken and eliminate the notion that mankind was created in God's image, or at least make it problematic. Now hopefully I understand you to mean by evolutionary creationism that you think God created life at a basic level, that being cellular, and directed it to create the diversity we see everywhere and at some point on the evolutionary timeline humans came about and where then chosen to be special to God. If I characterize your view wrongly, please clarify in detail. So that brings me to the question, how do you hold the view of evolutionary creationism while holding firmly that man was created in the image of God?

Andrew

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

"What is Evil?" - Dr. Norman Geisler

How should a Christian answer questions 

regarding the existence of "Evil"?

This is one of the most challenging questions that any Christian will be confronted with.  It is fitting for us to have a good answer when a skeptic inquires concerning the Christian Worldview's answer to these questions:

• "What is Evil?" - The absence of a good that should be present.
• "Where did Evil come from?" - Creatures with Free Will departing from God's perfect being.
• "What is the purpose of Evil?" - Allows for Moral Good, genuine Love, and God's preordained plan to manifest themselves throughout history.
• "What is the ultimate solution to Evil?" - In time, Evil will be conquered and removed by the Perfect Good - God. 

If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, I encourage you to listen to Dr. Geisler's teaching, entitled "If God, Why Evil?" here on our site.

- Pastor J.

Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.3: "Human Reason & Love are Mere Matter and Chemicals"

Another reason why the intellectual price-tag is much too high, in order to go along with the atheistic & naturalistic worldviews:  Human reasoning, consciousness, love and emotions are reduced to mere chemical reactions and random atomic combinations.

Of course, if a person is to be consistent with this line of thinking, then this as (as Dr. Alvin Plantinga puts it) a very strong "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism".  If Evolution selects features, such as intellectual development, on the basis of survivability fitness - it makes no selection based upon truth detection in the human brain/mind.

In other words, if our brains/intellect evolved only to help us survive, then they are unreliable for gathering truth about reality (since they didn't evolve to select and recognize truth), and therefore the evolutionary man must doubt his belief in the truth of naturalism, evolution, atheism, etc....  

This "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" shows that, if consistently analyzed, the process of the evolution of the human brain/mind is itself a self-defeating concept to the idea of Naturalism.

The question is, however, are there any Evolutionists or Naturalists that are intellectually honest enough and consistent enough in their reasoning, to admit it???

- Pastor J.

Scientific Evidence for God

Are there revolutionary discoveries in 20th century science 

that point towards God's existence?

Just ask Einstein, Hubble, and many Astrophysicists...

(pt.6) While most scientific discoveries have little to do directly with the doctrines and teachings of the Christian worldview, there are about 5% of the discoveries that lend VERY strong support for belief in a Creator of the universe.  We will also go over various quotes of more that  a dozen highly qualified modern scientists who hold very strongly to belief in a Creator God.

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.  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.

Politically Incorrect Salvation

William Lane Craig

Contemporary religious pluralism regards the traditional Christian doctrine of salvation through Christ alone as unconscionable. The problem seems to be that the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God seems incompatible with the claim that persons who do not hear and embrace the gospel of salvation through Christ will be damned. Closer analysis reveals the problem to be counterfactual in nature: God could not condemn persons who, though freely rejecting God's sufficient grace for salvation revealed through nature and conscience, would have received His salvific grace mediated through the gospel. In response, it may be pointed out that God's being all-powerful does not guarantee that He can create a world in which all persons freely embrace His salvation and that His being all-loving does not entail that, even if such a world were feasible for Him, God would prefer such a world over a world in which some persons freely reject His salvation. Furthermore, it is possible that God has created a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost and that God has so providentially ordered the world that those who fail to hear the gospel and be saved would not have freely responded affirmatively to it even if they had heard it.

Introduction: The Problem of Religious Diversity

"Diversity" is the shibboleth of the post-modern age. Nowhere is this more so than in the realm of theology or religious studies. The Harvard theologian Gordon Kaufman, observing that throughout most of Christian church history "the fundamental truth of the basic Christian claim was taken for granted, as was the untruth . . . of the claims of the church's opponents," says that by contrast today there has been "a striking change" among many Christian theologians:

Continue Reading --->

Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.2 - Ignorant of the Definition of "Atheism"

Is Atheism simply "the lack of belief in a god"?

Is Atheism "the lack of belief in a god" as many contemporary atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, would have you think?

Or is it a POSITIVE CLAIM TO KNOWLEDGE that needs justification to be accepted and believed?  If the claim of Atheism is a that the idea "God exists" expresses a false proposition, then it is a truth claim that must be defended rationally. Sadly, most atheists aren't even aware of this, and like Christopher Hitchens, simply attempt to dodge the question rather than giving positive arguments and proof for Atheism.

Remember: "The Absence of Evidence, is not itself Evidence of Absence."  One only need to reflect upon scientific investigations, and criminal detective work to see this.  In addition, there is not an "absence of evidence" with Theism, as there are great and robust intellectual demonstrations of God's existence. 

A few examples would include the following philosophical proofs:

- The Moral Argument

- The Kalam Cosmological Argument

- The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

- The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

- The Design Argument

- The Argument of Mathematical Applicability

- The Argument of Logical Applicability

- The Conceptual Argument

- The Argument from Desire

- The Argument from Beauty

- The Modal Ontological Argument 

- The Historical Argument of Jesus of Nazareth's Life, Death, and Resurrection

As I've said before, I simply don't have enough "blind faith" to be an Atheist.  I need to have good logical and rational reasons, that are compatible with reality, in order for me to subscribe to a particular philosophy or worldview.  Only the Christian Worldview passes the test!

- Pastor J.