Do Atheists Have a "God-Hunger" and a "thirst" for the eternal?

Unbeknownst to most people, many of the world famous atheists of the past (Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Auguste Comte,etc...) have made incredible admissions in their writings, that they too, have a hunger for the eternal and transcendent.

As Ecclesiastes 3:11 states, God seems to have put a hunger for eternity into the hearts of men, even the Atheists.  Watch this video, and see how man's hunger for God, points back in a powerful way to his Creator and Maker....

- Pastor J.

Famous Atheists Admit They Hunger for God?

Has Jean Paul Sartre ever admitted his personal

need for the eternal?

Did Aldous Huxley or Auguste Comte evidence a longing 

for the transcendent and spiritual?

Well, as we look at their writings and letters, this is exactly what we find.  Tune it to part 3 of our "Anthropological Argument for God's Existence" and read for yourself that even the most famous atheists of modern history have betrayed their hunger, longing, and need for God and the eternal.

Also, if you haven't seen our new Itunes podcast "Intelligent Faith", take a second to check it out and feel free to subscribe to it.  Follow along with us in the future, as we continue to discuss many of the most important apologetic and evidential topics for Christians in today's society.

Keep growing in your passion to defend the Christian Worldview...and have an Intelligent Faith!

- Pastor J. 

The Concept of God

Firstly, I would like to say that, despite the fact that I'm agnostic, you are one of my heroes. In all of the debates that I've watched, you've been the sole provider clarity and rigor to the discussion.

My question regards whether or not your definition of "God" is a proper definite description. Among other things, he's posited as a being which is omnipotent and omniscient. However, is there good reason to think that there are upper-bounds on power and knowledge, so as to allow this to be feasible?

Let's look at one area in which any being's abilities and knowledge is necessarily finite and incomplete. For example, it is obvious that there's no greatest natural number, as this set is an infinite one. Now, we know that no possible being can know all of the elements of this set, since it's uncountable. We can also say that if one being knows or can know more natural numbers than another, then that being is more knowledgeable or capable, respectively, in this area. This means that since the set of natural numbers is infinite, there cannot, in general, be a single greatest-possible being, because we can always conceive of a being with greater cognitive capabilities or knowledge (i.e, the ability to know n + 1 elements of the set). Since there are certain areas pertaining to knowledge and power which do not have an upper-bound, it is necessarily the case that any possible being's net knowledge and capabilities are limited and imperfect. Hence, there cannot be a being possessing the properties that are ascribed to God.

Thank you,

Ian

Canada

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

"Why Does God Allow Evil? - The Atheist's Best Question

"How can an All-Good, All-Powerful, and All-Knowing God allow evil and suffering in the world?"

There are basically 2 components to the question of "Evil and Suffering": 

1. The Emotional Response - This involves loving, caring, praying, counseling someone who is going through a tragedy.
2. The Intellectual Response - This involves the logical answers raised by the existence of evil and suffering in a world that has been created and is sustained by an All-powerful, All-loving, All-knowing God.  This is the version of the problem that I will give you some answers to below.  If you are seeking help regarding the emotional aspect, please come talk with me at Calvary and I'd love to pray for you, ok?

In regards to your question about Sudan/Darfur/Egypt, here are some of the answers that we know to be true from the Scriptures and solid Christian Theology/Philosophy:

• "Evil" isn't an actual thing, in and of itself -  "Evil" isn't a substance, but rather the lack of good substance; "Evil" is simply "the absence/corruption of a good that should be there."  This is the view of St. Augustine based upon Scripture.
• "Evil" actually demonstrates the existence of an All-Good God - The idea of "evil" implies an objective, transcendent Moral Law, the violation of which is "evil."  But there could never be an objective, transcendent Moral Law unless there was a transcendent Moral Lawgiver - God.  Therefore, our perception of "evil" implies the existence of the Moral Lawgiver, God. 
• "Good" could never exist, unless the possibility for "Evil" did as well - For example, unless a life-threatening situation existed, the good of self-sacrifice and heroism would never come to be.  If there was not potential for "evil" there would likewise be no potential for the "good".  
• Evil human choices MUST be allowed by God - Even God can't do anything (sin, evil, lie), especially that which is logically contradictory such as creating a "square circle" or a "married bachelor".  Making someone freely choose Him, or forcing someone to freely choose to do good are both logically incoherent and contradictory.  Therefore, if God is truly Perfect and Good (which He must be) He cannot force people to do good.  This creates the possibility for evil and suffering in the world.  This is known as the "Free Will Defense" by Dr. Alvin Plantinga, a renowned Christian Philosopher.  As God is the Sovereign of the Universe, He has created us in His Image with human sovereignty as well (Genesis 1:26,27).
• Some evils are permitted in order to produce a greater good  - Some goods would plausible never come to be unless a certain amount of evil was permitted.  For example, a child experiences a bit of pain in order for them to receive a shot of vaccine in order to prevent their infection and death.  God may allow temporary pain, if it is the only thing that will lead a person to an everlasting relationship of peace and joy with him.  The eternal good outweighs the temporary pain (2 Cor 4,5)
• Some evils are permitted in order to prevent an even greater evil - The above example will function here as well.  In order to prevent the countless billions of humanity spending an eternity apart from Him, the Lord allowed one Man Jesus Christ, to suffer the evil that they rightly deserved.  It is better to spank a child and so teach him to obey authority, that to never correct him, and allow him to grow up and become a law-breaking criminal, inflicting pain upon others and himself in the process.
• Just because God has not stopped evil yet, doesn't mean He never will - This kind of thinking imposes an unjustified time constraint upon God.  Who is to say that He must stop evil by this day or that day?  We do know that if He is a Good and Perfect God (which He is) that He MUST step in eventually and vanquish evil and suffering.  The Scriptures actually tell us that this will happen, and then the final triumph of the Perfect and Good God over the forces of Evil will be complete (Rev 19-22).
• God, being Perfect and Loving, is being Merciful in tolerating evil presently - Although this is not usually mentioned when this issue of "Evil and Suffering" is discussed, it is very relevant.  If the complaint is that God needs to wipe out all evil in order to show His existence and reality, then this puts the questioner in a very awkward position - the questioner himself would thereby be eliminated!  The reason for this is that every human being is morally imperfect, and has violated objective morality in some way.  This is what the Scriptures refer to as "sin", coming from the old English word meaning "to miss the mark."  We have all missed the mark of God's Moral Perfection, whether it is Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, and therefore all of humanity deserves God's wrath for our "cosmic crimes" against him (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9,10).  It is only in his mercy and longsuffering that He has not yet destroyed all evil.  He is graciously extending His grace and patience to humanity, hoping that we will come to our senses and return to our Creator, through the God-Man, Jesus Christ. 

These 8 answers are but a small number of the intellectual responses to the problem of Evil, that we can offer from the Christian Worldview.  There are many more answers and possibilities we can give in addition to these mentioned here.

Also, please remember that it is not only the Christian that must answer the Problem of Evil, but also the other 6 Worldviews that people may hold to: Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Finite Godism, Polytheism, or Deism.  Other than Christian Theism, no other Worldview or philosophy can give as coherent, comprehensive, and intellectually compelling response to this problem of suffering and pain within the world.

Emotionally, this problem is always difficult and painful for all of us as people.  If we will turn to the One True God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, He can comfort and strengthen us in the midst of our trials, tribulations, and pain (2 Cor 4,5; Romans 8).

Intellectually, the Lord has made possible for us to navigate these evils in the world, having provided us with a great variety of possibilities that may be the reason for some pain or suffering.  As we get the know the Persons and Nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit, we can logically and relationally trust that the Lord has good, moral, reasons for allowing some pains in our lives and in the world around us.

For further research I encourage you to search our site under the word "evil" and examine that articles that we've already posted in the past on this subject.

Feel free to send me you questions or comments to our "Intelligent Faith 315" Email.

- Pastor J. 

What is the "Genetic Fallacy"? - Interview with Dr. William Lane Craig

" You only believe Christianity 

because you were raised in America!"

"The only reason that you believe in Jesus 

is because you parents are Christians!"

These are textbook examples of the "Genetic Fallacy", a well know informal logical mistake, which means to disbelieve something based upon where the belief originated from.  No matter whether it comes from a comic book or from a Phd professor, the truth is the truth.  Listen to Dr. Craig as he gives a concise description of the "Genetic Fallacy", and hopefully it will help you to spot it the next time it is thrown at you.

- Pastor J. 

The First Cause

A number of theories have been proposed to explain a materialistic origin of the universe.

Self-creation

Some materialists have claimed that the universe created itself. As Stephen Hawking argues, "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." But for anything to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created. Most people would agree this is logically absurd. Oxford mathematician John Lennox observes that Hawking confuses physical laws -- which merely describe how the universe works -- with ultimate explanations:

The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics... Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved. What options are left for materialists? Since they are unwilling to accept intelligent design as a first cause, materialists hold that ultimately the universe came into being by chance for no reason at all.

Betting on Chance

Oxford University scientist and author Peter Atkins parodies the book of Genesis with a summary of the materialistic view:

Continue reading --->

Critical Questions

Dear Dr. Craig,

I am an atheist from, and living in, the United Kingdom, a place where Christianity is in pretty sharp decline at the moment. I have viewed some of your debates online with some curiosity. I would like to ask you some critical questions.

1) Don't you agree that the whole time-limit debate format is an extremely poor way of determining the truth? There are numerous flaws. For instance, the fact that a debate can be "won" by tactics and rhetoric alone does not make this seem like a very constructive use of time. Also, the fact that timing is such an important factor means that certain points raised aren't answered by one's opponent, not because they cannot answer them, but because they don't have time to, which gives the audience a misleading impression. Also, heck, anyone who thinks a question like the "existence of God" can be answered in just 2 hours seems pretty dashed overconfident to me!

2) Aren't you a little too arrogant in your approach to atheism and non-Christians? I've seen you describe followers of Dawkins and Hitchens as "ignorant and arrogant" (a little ironic, as some of your acolytes wouldn't exactly qualify for Mensa membership), I've heard you dismiss atheistic arguments as "unimpressive", and I think I've also heard you affirm that there are "no good reasons to disbelieve in God". To me, this sounds like extreme over-confidence. If all of this is true, then why do so many perfectly intelligent and reasonable people disbelieve in God's existence? Arrogance is a luxury you can ill afford if you want your religion to survive nowadays, given the huge increase in intellectual scepticism about theism in Europe and elsewhere. I think you could do with being a little more civil and courteous in your discourse sometimes.

3) Is philosophy ultimately a waste of time? I've heard you say that, even if all the arguments for God's existence fail, God may still exist. This is perfectly correct, and is also true the other way around; they may all be perfectly logical and God may still not exist. So, why bother with philosophical arguments at all if it's so inconclusive? Why not just stick with the facts of science?

4) Is the alleged rise in Christians in philosophy as significant as you think it is? Irreligion is on the rise in the population as a whole, and the statistics indicate that atheism and agnosticism are the majority viewpoint in science, lest we forget.

I ask these questions, not out of pure hostility, but out of concern and a genuine desire to understand where you are coming from. I just worry that your approach will create more division and anger rather than constructive discussion.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

United Kingdom

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

How Strong Is "The New Atheism"? - Dr. Norman Geisler (downloadable)

            


Download this presentation from Dr. Geisler, one of the greatest Christian apologists of our day, and become equipped on how to answer the "New Atheists".

Feel free to pass it on, forward it, or to embed it into your Facebook.

- Pastor J.

"In the Image of God" - The Anthropological Argument for God's Existence" - part 1

Is there any way to objectively test the idea 

that humanity was created by God?  

Is there anything that we can look at that might show us 

a "signature" of God upon mankind?

This is where the "Anthropological Argument for God's existence" comes in.  In this first instalment, we will be examining the acronym I.M.A.G.E. and the 5 areas that give strong and plausible evidence that mankind was indeed fashioned by a Creator, and "made in the image of God." 

Over the course of this mini-series, we will be examining mankind's capacities/properties:

1. Intellectually - Humanity's impressive mental abilities.

2. Morally - Mankind's hunger for justice and perceptions of moral values and duties.

3. Artistically - Humanity's ability to create and appreciate beauty.

4. God-hungry - Mankind's hunger for the transcendent, including famous atheists.

5. Empirically - The evidence empirically that our bodies have been intelligently engineered.

I hope you will join us for the duration of the series!  

Feel free to check out our main site at www.intelligentfaith315.com and to send your questions and comments to intelligentfaith315@gmail.com

- Pastor J.

Misconception Clarified: Hinduism and Christianity

by Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

Not long ago as I was discussing religion with my friend. He being a Hindu, told me that Hinduism is a way of life, whereas Christianity is just a set of beliefs. Again as I was scanning through the latest issue of Hinduism today and I saw the same claim that Hinduism is a way of life whereas Christianity is just a set of beliefs.
Well it’s true that Hinduism prescribes a way or even many ways of living. But it is equally true that Christianity also is a way of life. The belief is always coupled with prescribed behavior. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is a call to a new lifestyle, kingdom lifestyle or way of living. Jesus, at the end of the sermon, warns his hearers that if they just hear and don’t live according to it, they will be considered foolish, whereas those who hear and live according to it are wise in God’s sight.
The earliest Christians were called followers of the ‘WAY’. They had a particular way of life, moral life, which was in accordance to the teachings of Christ.
The apostle James writes in his epistle that faith without deeds is dead. Faith or belief without the right behavior or way of life is dead faith. The apostle Paul in one of his epistles writes that the right expression of faith is love.

Christianity does not prescribe external neutral things, like what to eat, what not to eat, what to wear, hairstyle, whether you can have a beard or not. These are up to the Christian to decide. He is free in this aspect. But what it does prescribe the morality that he should possess. So a Christian can be in any culture, he can wear any dress, he can eat any food but his moral life should be in accordance with the teachings of Christ, his faith should be in Christ alone for salvation. Thus an Arabic Christian can wear the pajamas, wear turban, have long beard and yet live his life according to the teachings of Christ. A tribal Christian can wear his tribal outfits and still go to church and live according to the teachings of Christ.
So it’s a erroneous to assert that Hinduism alone is way of life whereas Christianity is a just a set of beliefs.
Christianity is also trans cultural. It is not culture bound. Whereas popular Hinduism, is caste and culture bound.

Correspondence

Mr.Mohan, a Hindu, Responds to the above:

Mr. Mohan: God cannot be limited by time or locality. His love can only be all inclusive and impersonal. It’s unjust to believe that a good (great) human being will be condemned to hell eternally just because he is an atheist or devoted to another god with pure thoughts.
Christian response
Me: The reason why God sends people to hell is not because he does not love them. God loves everyone. His love is inclusivistic.
He sends people to hell because they don’t love him and have rejected the free offer of forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
For example if you love someone and that person doesn't love you, can you bring him/her to your house and live with him/her forever? You cannot because, in doing so you will be violating their free will. If you love someone you will not violate their free will. God does not violate anyone’s freewill because he really loves them, and only when individuals choose to love him can he take them to heaven.
Love cannot be impersonal. You need at least two persons in a relationship to call it love.
God’s standard for accepting anyone into heaven is not goodness but holiness. That’s why God in his love comes as Jesus and took the punishment due for us on himself. That’s God expressing his Love for us. Now when I repent of my sins and believe that Jesus died for me then I enter into a relationship with God. If I continue in that relationship, allow him to change me and help me live according to his commands without breaking up then I can reach heaven.
Dear Mohan if you are a Hindu, then you come from a very different system from that of Christianity.
Hinduism rolls on karma and reincarnation. There is no place for forgiveness and restoration. You keep getting rebirths and you keep paying for what you did in your previous births. It is about what you do and that alone.
Christianity on the other hand is based on the Gospel. The Gospel is about what God in His love did for mankind. God pays for what I did during my lifetime. When I accept that act of love and respond in repentance and faith that he indeed died for my sins, in my place, then my sins are forgiven, wiped clean and I am saved from what I really deserve. Now that’s called grace.
Hope you understand the difference between karma and grace.

A Muslim Considers Christianity

Hello Dr. Craig,

I would first like to acknowledge your intellectual and humble manner in defending Christianity. I am Muslim though and I have a few questions for you about Islam that you might answer. I would tremendously appreciate it if you could answer back, I am on the brink of considering Christianity but I want answers:

1) is it true Mohammed took the Gospel of Jesus from the Bible and twisted/perverted it for his own benefits?

2) does Islam have an experiential reality (like modern day miracles, visions from Muhammad) if so what is the best explanation for that?

3) if I became a Christian and asked God sincerely to reveal Jesus to me in a supernatural form, will it happen?

Warm regards

Alex

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Interviewing an Apologetic Master - Dr. Norman Geisler

Who was mightily used to reinvigorate Christianity's interest 

in Apologetics in the 20th century?

Who was the teacher and mentor of world class apologists William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias?

His name is Dr. Norman Geisler and he is a "Grandfather of Christian Apologetics" to so many of us who study and labor within this field of Christian ministry.  Currently, many apologists such as Craig and Zacharias write many a book that is dedicated to their mentor and teacher, Dr. Geisler.

Sit back and enjoy this 15 minute interview with one of the greatest minds and intellects of the Christian Worldview.  

- Pastor J. 

"How do you know that Christianity is the one true worldview?" - Dr. Ravi Zacharias

It is not only the Christian Worldview that claims exclusively to be the truth, as is commonly (and erroneously) thought. Rather, all major world religions and worldviews claim to be exclusively true in their perspective on reality. Atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Polytheism, etc all claim to be the sole possessors of truth.

How then can we know which one is correct (if any)? By subjecting them to WORLDVIEW TESTS in which we investigate how the different systems of thought seek to answer the questions of: 

• Origin - Where do we come from?
• Meaning - What is the purpose of life?
• Morality - Is there really a standard of "right and wrong"?
• Destiny - What happens when we die?

Other worldview test will include: 

• Internal Consistency - Are there any internal contradictions?
• Experiential Relevancy - Does it adequately function in my experience?
• Scientific Adequacy - Does this system reflect proven scientific truths?

Of all the Worldviews, philosophies, and world religions that exist/have existed, which one best explains the known features of our reality with the most COMPREHENSIVE and INTELLECTUALLY SATISFYING ?? 

The Worldview of classical Christian Theism.

- Pastor J.

Is LOGIC important, as we defend the Christian Worldview? - Dr. Norman Geisler

Why should Logic be a subject of interest to Christians?

As you will hear from Dr. Norman Geisler, logic is fundamental to all we think about intellectually as Christians.  Logic, being the rules for right thinking, flows from the very being of GOD Himself, and is "hardwired" into the fabric of our Reality.

The only way to try and "disprove" the importance or reality of the Laws of Logic, is to use them in doing so.  There is no "getting behind" these laws of thinking, since they are basic and self-evident in our experience as human beings.

If you have never studied the Laws of Logic, I would highly encourage you to do so, since they are very helpful as we discuss and defend our Worldview to those around us.  Here are some major examples of the Laws of Logic:

1. Law of Identity:  (A is A) Something is what it is.  Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction:  (A is not A and -A) Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
3. Law of Excluded Middle:  (Either A or -A) A statement is either true or false.  Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

For an interesting article on the Laws of Logic and how Atheism/Naturalism CANNOT rationally account for them click HERE for an article by Dr. Matt Slick at www.carm.org 

- Pastor J. 

Swami Vivekananda’s Christ,The Messenger Part 2

By Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

Swami Vivekananda on the message and mission of Jesus Christ

“He had no other occupation in life , no other thought except that one, that he was a Spirit. He was a disembodied , unfettered, unbound spirit. And not only so, but he with his marvelous vision, had found that every man and woman, whether Jew and Gentile, whether rich or poor, whether saint or sinner, was the embodiment of the same spirit as himself. Therefore, he one work of his whole life showed was to call upon them to realize their own spiritual nature. Give up he says, these superstitious dreams that you are low and that you are trampled upon and tyrannized over as if you were slaves , for within you is something that never can be tyrannized over , never be trampled upon , never be troubled and never be killed. You are all  Sons of God , immortal spirit. ‘Know’ , he declared , ‘the Kingdom of God is within you’. ‘I and my father are one’……………………………he wants to get rid of the whole world as it is a, give it a push and drive it forward and onwards until the whole world has reached to the effluent light of God, until everyone has realized his spiritual nature, until death is vanished and misery banished.”

Let me at the outset inform you that swamiji did something he should not have done. It is a big mistake and error to say that “but he with his marvellous vision, had found that every man and woman, whether Jew and Gentile , whether rich or poor , whether saint or sinner , was the embodiment of the same spirit as himself.” Swamiji by saying so has read advaitha, monism and vedanta into Jesus .What I mean is he has made Jesus say what Jesus did not say or mean. This is not the biblical Jesus, this Jesus is a product of Vivekananda’s mind and imagination.

If so then what did Jesus say that makes me make these conclusions:

1.  John 8:23  He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
2. 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.”
3. Jesus says very clearly , he is from above , they are from below. He continues that they will die in their sins if they do not believe in him as their messiah.He does not say heand his hearers are in the same spiritual state or have the same spirit.He commands faith in him , which means , he is of different spiritual state which is higher than theirs.
4. John 8:33  They replied to him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves to anybody. So how can you say, ‘You will be set free’?”
5. John 8:34  Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly I tell you that everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
6. John 8:35  The slave does not remain in the household forever, but the son does remain forever.
7. John 8:36  So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!”

Jesus in the passage which continues and which is quoted above gives his diagnosis of humans. He says very clearly that 1.They are , “slaves of sin”. 2. They should become his disciples and be set free from their sinfulness .

This clearly shows Jesus’ teaching that he is the savior who will save them and us and Vivekananda from our sins. But Swami Vivekananda  has missed his chance.

John 5:24  “Truly, truly I tell you, the one who hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Here Jesus very clearly teaches that anyone who believes in him as the messiah will not come under the judgement of God , will have eternal life.

So Jesus did not teach that the people have the same nature as himself. He very clearly and repeatedly taught that they are sinners and he is their and our only savior which is the exact opposite of what swamiji suggested.

“Therefore , the one work of his whole life showed was to call upon them to realize their own spiritual nature.” –S.Vivekananda

 

This is not what Jesus called people to do . The eyewitnesses very clearly record what Jesus called people to

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near! Repent, and keep believing in the gospel!” mark 1:15

Jesus never called people to realize their spiritual nature. Jesus always called  them to repentance and faith. This goes in line with the biblical teaching that people are sinners. So Jesus never did what Swamiji claims he did .

Swamiji quotes bible verses to substantiate his teachings .

He quotes , “Know the kingdom of God is within you” and “I and the father are one”

It is very tragic that someone of the stature of swamiji has got it all wrong . But what is more tragic is more people will  also get it wrong through him.  Swamiji rips these two lines out of context from the bible to make Jesus look like an advaitin, preaching what Vivekanada and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa would preach i.e Vedanta.

Jesus said , “I and the father are one” but he never said , “You and the father are one”. Jesus never compared people with the father or himself. Here  again Swamiji goes grossly wrong on an important theme.

The kingdom of God is within you means that God wants to make his rule, as a king in the hearts of the believers. This happens not by self realization as Swamiji suggested but by submission to God through obedience to his commands.

Swamiji’s depiction of Jesus is pathetically incomplete, grossly wrong  and highly misleading. He should not put his philosophy into the mouth of Jesus . It is in no way correct or compatible. So Swamiji through these teachings has mislead millions  away from the real Christ of history, who is the biblical Jesus, our only God and Savior.

Free Will

I come from a devout Jehovah's Witness/Catholic household (doesn't that sound like an exciting mix!) and am myself implicitly atheist. Despite this though, I remain quite interested in theological questions. After much soul-searching, I have finally found myself prepared to embrace a world absent divinity, but nevertheless keep my heart open to the alternative.

Firstly, I want to thank you for doing what you do, because you are perhaps the most refreshingly clear thinker I know who is easily come across on YouTube. People today are not clear-minded, and movements like new atheism and the people one is generally surrounded by (at least in my neighborhood) will absolutely pollute the mind. Even as an atheist, though, I was brought to euphoria the day I watched you debate Sam Harris. Despite what was for me an unsettling conclusion, your argument was so crisply delivered, I could not help but after joyously reflect, "I was wrong! And I know why!" In all the arguments I've engaged in others with, people tend to reason so murkily that regardless of who is "right", the arguments they offer are so fraught with fallacy that their position is not logically comprehensible, thus leaving their opponent either frustrated or confused rather than intellectually up built.

As for my question, it concerns the nature of free will...what is it? Everywhere I have looked for arguments defending the existence of free will, I seem only to find it argued that free will has not been ruled out by determinism or that the concept is necessary for some social reason. To my surprise, it seems no attempt has ever been made to actually describe what a choice is. Whatever it is, at the least it can be said to be an event that can influence physical events, do you think? If the nature of choice admits at present no description whatsoever, how can one be held accountable for the event of a choice they make when, fundamentally, they literally have no clue what happened?

Furthermore, on a more personal note, the thought that my actions originate from some ethereal and unintelligible source robs my actions of any genuine meaning, in the sense that there is no meaningful way to understand what I have done.

Thank you very much for your time!

Sebastian

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer