Ichthus77

Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics" ch.2 favorite quotes

2012-02-28T11:26:00.003-08:00

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervour of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." --J. Gresham Machen, p 28

"The claim that no one is argued into Christianity is simply false. Although reasoning with unbelievers can prove frustrating, this may be more the fault of poor arguments, poor presentations or poor character than of the fruitlessness of apologetics per se. ... Moreover, noteworthy individuals such as John Warwich Montgomery and C.S. Lewis trace their conversions to key transformations in their thinking wrought through rational arguments." pp. 29-30

Also, his mention on page 43 of retreating and restrategizing if the conversation is just counter-productive, then referring in a footnote to Jesus' discussion of not casting pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), helped me to better understand what Jesus was getting at. That passage bugged me for a long time. It is only taken as an insult by someone who thinks they know it all and is offended at the thought they may need to change their mind upon learning the truth. One is swine if one rejects evidence and good reasoning (pearls) only on the basis that it does not line up with their worldview. As long as they are more attached to their worldview than to an honest examination of those pearls, they will just trample them under their feet into the mud of their beloved worldview. It's true of all of us. It's the same message communicated in Jesus' talk of new wineskins.

Recommended iPhone apps...

2012-02-28T10:43:00.003-08:00

As you are visiting this blog you might find these apps interesting:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Think Christianly (Jonathan Morrow)
Stand to Reason (this is Greg Koukl’s stuff)
RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries)
Reasonable Faith (that’s all William Lane Craig’s stuff)
Apologetics Study Bible

Feel free to reply with similar apps :)

(Check this out for iTunes U, but...I have very little patience to let it load or take up space on my phone.)

Wilkins and the EAAN -- a reply by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

2012-02-24T17:01:00.012-08:00

The January 30 Philosophers' Carnival featured Classical Global Skepticism and the EAAN by Jim S. at Agent Intellect. January 31, John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts responded with Plantinga's EAAN. I volunteered to host the next carnival, inviting submissions with an emphasis on dialogue, being sure to email Professor Plantinga regarding these developments. I said I would be happy to host his reply on my blog, knowing he does not have a blog of his own. He answered that he would reply to Wilkins in roughly a week. I was hoping to have his reply posted in time to include it in the February 20 carnival I just hosted, but I received his reply today and am honored to post it below. I will submit it to the next carnival, which will be hosted at critique my thinking (you can submit articles to that carnival using the form on this page).

The rest of this post is written by Dr. Plantinga.

***

Wilkins and the EAAN

John Wilkins represents my evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) as follows:

P1. If evolution is true, then we have modified monkey brains.

P2. Modified monkey brains are not evolved to find out the truth.

P3. Evolutionary naturalism (the view that everything about humans, including their cognitive capacities, evolved) is the output of modified monkey brains.

C1. Therefore evolutionary theory is unreliable and should be rejected.

C2. Therefore evolutionary naturalism should be rejected.

P1 – P3, I take it, are supposed to be premises of my argument, and C.1 and C.2 its conclusions. Wilkins then objects to this argument. I agree with him: this argument is objectionable. I am happy to say, however, that it is not even remotely recognizable as my argument.

I have no objection to P1 to P3 (taking ‘naturalism’ the way Wilkins take it); neither, however is a premise of my argument. While I have no objection to P1 and P3, I do reject P2 (and of course it is not a premise of my argument). I’m inclined to think that in fact our brains have evolved from something like monkey brains, but it certainly doesn’t follow that they haven’t been evolved to find out the truth. Like other Christians, I believe that God has created us, and created us in his image. That means that he has created us in such a way that we too can have at least some knowledge: of the world around us, of ourselves; and also of God himself. So if, as seems likely, we have come to be by virtue of an evolutionary process then God has created us by way of such a process—an evolutionary process has been guided and orchestrated by God. But then P2 is false.

Thus the first main problem with Wilkins’ reconstruction of my argument is that none of the premises he ascribes to me is in fact a premise of my argument. And the second main problem is that in attempting to state my argument, he uses the term ‘naturalism’ in a way completely different from the way I use it. In my argument I take naturalism to be the claim that there is no such person as God or anything like God—no angels, demons, or anything else supernatural. Naturalism is therefore stronger than atheism; you can’t be a naturalist without being an atheist, but you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (or descending to the murky depths) of naturalism. Wilkins, however, takes naturalism to be something entirely different: “the view that everything about humans, including their cognitive capacities, evolved”. I reject and argue against naturalism taken my way; it is naturalism taken my way that I argue against. On the other hand, I have no objection to naturalism taken Wilkins’ way: since I have no objection to the view that we have come to be by an evolutionary process (one guided or orchestrated by God), I also have no objection to the view that everything about us, including our cognitive capacities, has evolved.

This second problem—his using ‘naturalism’ in a way completely different from its use in EAAN—leads to the third major problem. This problem is that neither of the conclusions he ascribes to my argument is in fact a conclusion of the argument. According to Wilkins’ C1, “evolutionary theory is unreliable and should be rejected”; according to his C2 “evolutionary naturalism should be rejected”. Neither of these is a conclusion of my argument; furthermore, I don’t believe either one. It is not a conclusion of my argument that evolutionary theory is unreliable and should be rejected; as I say, I have no objection to current evolutionary theory. It is also no conclusion of my argument that evolutionary naturalism (naturalism taken Wilkins’ way) should be rejected. Taken his way, ‘evolutionary naturalism’ is just the view that everything about humans, including their cognitive capacities, has evolved; I don’t argue against that thought and have no objection to it.

So I’m sorry to say Wilkins gets my argument really wrong; none of the premises he ascribes to me is in fact a premise of the argument; and neither of the conclusions he ascribes to me is in fact a conclusion of my argument. Furthermore I don’t believe either of the conclusions he ascribes to me.

If Wilkins has the argument wrong, how is it supposed to go? First, the conclusion is that you can’t sensibly accept both current evolutionary theory and naturalism as I defined it; the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God. That’s the conclusion: I am certainly not arguing that evolution is false or can’t sensibly be accepted. What I am arguing is that the conjunction of naturalism with current evolutionary theory is self-referentially inconsistent; it shoots itself in the foot, you can’t rationally believe it. That is because if you believe that conjunction, then you get a defeater for that conjunction—a reason to reject it, to refrain from believing it.

The argument has at least two forms, one with a stronger conclusion and one with a weaker. The stronger conclusion is that a person who accepts (believes) N&E has a defeater for all of his beliefs, of whatever kind. The weaker argument has the conclusion that one who accepts N&E has a defeater for any philosophical or metaphysical beliefs he has—beliefs such as that Plato was right (or wrong) about the forms, or that there is (or isn’t) such a thing as objective right and wrong, or that there is no such person as God, or (Darwin’s example) that “the Universe is not the result of chance”—or naturalism itself. These beliefs are of such a sort that it doesn’t seem to matter, for fitness, for survival and reproduction, whether you hold the belief. (After all, it is only the occasional member of the Young Atheist Society whose reproductive prospects are likely to be enhanced by his accepting naturalism.) Since Wilkins takes Darwin to be offering an argument of this weaker sort, I’ll confine myself to the argument with the weaker conclusion.

The argument goes as follows. First, I’ll use ‘N’ to abbreviate ‘naturalism’, ‘R’ to abbreviate ‘our cognitive faculties are reliable with respect to metaphysical beliefs’ and ‘E’ to abbreviate ‘we and our faculties have come to be by way of the processes appealed to in contemporary evolutionary theory’). Then we can state the argument as follows:

P1 P(R/N&E) is low

i.e., the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable when it comes to metaphysical beliefs given the conjunction of naturalism with evolution is low.

P2 One who sees that P1 is true and accepts N&E has an undefeated defeater for R.

P3 One who has an undefeated defeater for R has an undefeated defeater for any of her metaphysical beliefs.

P4 N&E is a metaphysical belief.

Therefore

C One who sees that P1 is true and accepts N&E has an undefeated defeater for N&E and hence can’t rationally accept N&E.

So if she accepts E, she can’t rationally accept N. We can therefore speak of an evolutionary argument against naturalism: if you see that P1 is true, you can’t rationally accept both evolution and naturalism. Evolution is often thought of as a pillar in the temple of naturalism; that’s a whopping error: you can’t sensibly accept both evolution and naturalism.

A couple of comments on the argument. First, P1 is conditional (and a fourth problem with Wilkins’ presentation of my argument is that he seems to have overlooked its conditional character); the claim is on the assumption of naturalism and evolution, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low. The claim is not that in fact our cognitive faculties aren’t reliable, or that the probability of R just on evolution is low; the claim is that this probability is low given naturalism and evolution.

Second, according to P2, one who accepts N&E and sees that P1 is true has an undefeated defeater for R. For the argument for thinking this defeater is undefeated, see chapter 10 of my Where the Conflict Really Lies.

Third, the conclusion of the argument is that (if you see that P1 is true) you can’t sensibly accept both evolution and naturalism. It doesn’t follow, of course, that you should accept theism, belief in God: you could just be agnostic about theism and naturalism. But it does follow that if you believe in evolution, then for you theism is much more sensible than naturalism.

How strong is this argument? It’s clearly valid; so what about the premises? Perhaps P1 is the premise most needing defense; but surely P1 has a lot to be said for it. According to Wilkins, “what Darwin is arguing is that evolution gives us no confidence in metaphysical conclusions . . . .”[1] Of course the probability of R on evolution alone (without the addition of naturalism) may not be particularly low; the probability of R on E and T (where T is the proposition that God has created us by a process of evolution) will presumably be high. But Darwin was probably assuming something like naturalism as a background condition; his thought, I suggest, is that P(R/N&E) is low. And if that was his thought, he seems to be right. It makes sense to think that natural selection would mold cognitive faculties in the direction of greater reliability when it comes to beliefs relevant to survival and reproduction; but natural selection presumably doesn’t give a rip about beliefs which, like metaphysical beliefs (naturalism, for example), seem not to matter to fitness.

As far as I can see, therefore, the argument is very strong. P1 is true; once you see that, then if you accept N&E you have a defeater for R; if you have a defeater for R, you have a defeater for all your metaphysical beliefs, including N&E itself; but then you can’t sensibly accept both evolution and naturalism. Since there is powerful evidence for evolution, therefore, you should give up naturalism.

[1] In this connection, note that Wilkins construes my argument as for the conclusion that one can’t sensibly accept supernaturalism: “Plantinga’s EAAN is actually an EAAS (supernaturalism)”. In a way, that’s true: if you accept N&E, then you have a defeater for R and hence for supernaturalistic beliefs such as theism. Of course you’d have to be pretty benighted in the first place if you accepted evolution, naturalism, and also supernaturalism.

Philosophers' Carnival #138

2012-02-20T12:37:00.004-08:00

Welcome again to Philosophers’ Carnival, “which aims to showcase the best philosophical posts from a wide range of weblogs. We invite submissions from bloggers and readers, and collate the submitted posts into one big round-up (or ‘carnival’) every three weeks, offering a brief summary of each entry, and a link to the complete post.” This is carnival #138.

We begin with…

Ethics

Social Morality’s random walk through time posted at Morality’s Random Walk by Mark Sloan. Game theory is intrinsic to reality, therefore morality based on game theory is intrinsic to reality, using a very broad definition of altruism that Ayn Rand could get along with. Very cool picture of galaxies. In walks Joshua Harwood:

Philosophical Amputations: 2: Loaded Language and Reification posted at A Yangist’s Musings by Joshua Harwood. In the tradition of David Hume, who cautioned against the reification of deriving oughts from ises (a favorite topic of your hostess), Harwood takes apart what at first blush might appear to be a well-formed question but turns out to be full of assumptions which cannot simply be considered ‘given’ in authentic philosophical discourse. “They're drawing elaborate maps of assumed territories that they don't prove exist.” Reminds one of Sam Harris’ “The Moral Landscape” (the topic of Philosophers’ Carnival CXV).

The Origins of Property: A Parable with Morals posted at and by Tomkow. We’re talking about ownership. In the tradition of John Rawls, who suggested the distributive-justice thought experiment that we imagine how a society would form if it were just starting out (I touch upon distributive justice in my work-in-progress), Tomkow employs parable (or fable) to tease out his (somewhat disjointed) conclusion (moral) that justice is all about permission, property is all about permission (though, somehow people are excluded from giving permission to be owned), but property does not have to be just (moral). Yep, it’s all in there, and I found it an enjoyable read. Relevant to this is:

The Separateness of Persons: Commensurability without Fungibility posted at Philosophy, et cetera by our founder Richard Yetter Chappell. Richard corrects the error in assuming consequentialists feel that because the value of persons is commensurable (“ones that can be compared and traded off against each other”) they are fungible (the loss of one is cancelled out by the gain of another). Rather, “a fitting consequentialist agent would desire each good (separately), …will have distinct intrinsic desires for each person's welfare, … They will be pulled in both directions, torn by the distinct importance of the two lives (only one of which can be saved), and whichever one they do save, they will still see something regrettable about the loss of the other.” Moving away from consequentialism:

You Kant Be Serious posted at and by Vroomfondil. If you can wade through the politically-charged vitriol, this is a nice addition to the carnival. V points out that ‘intended’ consequences matter over actual consequences, then s/he juggles the implications of favoring duty over inclination and makes them comically collide in an inclination to duty. It is something I actually wonder about Kant’s valuing a virtuous disposition despite his emphasis on duty. But ask yourself, V—who is physically stronger—the scrawny person who lifts 100 pounds because they tried really hard, or the ‘built’ person who lifts it effortlessly because they trained really hard? Same consequences. Same intentions. The obvious answer is the muscularly virtuous one—the scrawny one would readily admit s/he is not as strong as the built one, which is evidenced in how much effort went in to the endeavor. The same is true regarding moral strength. That isn’t to say that morally weak people are not doing something morally excellent and worthy of praise when they go against all inclination and do the right thing. It is only to say that having an inclination to do the right thing does not necessarily cancel out the rightness of the thing one is doing. Guess I’ll count that as my submission to this carnival. Somewhat related to this is:

The Concept-Deployment Asymmetry Objection posted at The Space of Reasons by Avery Archer. “Believing that ϕ is good requires that one deploy the concept of the good because it entails apprehending that ϕ is good. By contrast, desiring that ϕ does not require that one deploy the concept of the good because it entails apprehending ϕ as good, but does not entail apprehending that ϕ is good. This, I claim, represents a fundamental asymmetry between desiring to ϕ and believing that ϕ is good. Consequently, the Desire-as-Belief Thesis, which holds that the two are equivalent, must be false.”

Shifting into Metaphysics, Etc.

“Modal Ontological Arguments” and meta-modality posted at Critical Rationalism by Tony Lloyd. Lloyd replied to my relevant blogpost (the content of which is owed to William Lane Craig), “I reckon that standard Modal Logic can't express ‘it is possible that a maximally great being exists’ and, so, I extend it” (in his submission). This statement from his submission shows that his submission is not in reply to my blogpost, as it indicates he never read my blogpost, which answers him: “That there is a fault can be shown by running the argument for other entities we are quite sure do not exist but will accept that they could possibly exist; such as The Golden Mountain, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Decent Pint of Mass Produced Lager.” However, that is not the ‘meat’ of his argument, which reminds me of an argument by Richard M. Gale (I’ll let you digest that!). He ends his submission with reference to an Evil God Modal Ontological Argument—my thoughts on the Evil God here. Jason Streitfeld also replied to the aforementioned relevant blogpost, replacing premise one with “It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist,” and this is the second time I've edited this section of the carnival: much discussion in the comments section! :0) Jason brings us our next submission:

Stanley on Ryle: A Criticism posted at Specter of Reason by Jason Streitfeld. This is the third in a series of posts in which Jason responds to Jason Stanley's chapter on Ryle in his recent book, "Know How" (Oxford University Press, 2011). The other posts in the series, since they all fall within the appropriate time frame: 1. Jason Stanley's "Know How" 2. An Objection to Stanley's Accusation That Ryle Appeals to Verificationism 4. Ryle and Behaviorism 5. Stanley's Great Error

Factive Verbs and Protagonist Projection posted at Experimental Philosophy by Wesley Buckwalter. This post delivers the results of a philosophy experiment conducted “to see if the linguistic evidence collected so far is better explained by (i) the folk tendency to adopt the perspective of the putative ‘knower’ when attributing or (ii) an underlying folk concept which really does allow for knowledge of false things. …it looks like people may be engaging in projective readings, rather than actually attributing knowledge to subjects with false beliefs.” Interesting experiment.

Group Consciousness: Is the US a Candidate? posted at critique my thinking by Nick. This one reminds me of this submission on the extended mind hypothesis (written by Chris Norris and hosted on my blog) from the last carnival I hosted. In fact I believe Nick is just calling Eric to clarify whether his understanding of group consciousness includes extended mind (it sounds to me like Eric is extending ‘extended mind’ from inanimate objects to other people, then labeling it group consciousness) and if so “point to salient evidence of inanimate objects hosting consciousness. // Because if the network of stuff between conscious persons does host consciousness, then the panpsychists might be on to something. Also, it would imply the possibility of mereological composition of consciousness-hosting parts—that is, the ability to consider any set of objects and conscious persons a conscious entity. For example, [Your next-door neighbors] + [television] + [The People's republic of China] = [a single conscious entity]. This too seems bizarre. // And if the intermediaries fail to be feasible hosts of consciousness, then all we have are sophisticated and patterned interactions between conscious members of a group. That might instantiate something like 'culture', but it is a far cry from group consciousness.” Read Eric’s recent blog posts on that here and here.

*News Flash*
By the way, did you know there is an on-line consciousness conference going on until March 2^nd? Check it out! It is the fourth year for this conference hosted at Consciousness Online.

That’s it for this carnival. I was hoping to receive a submission from Professor Alvin Plantinga answering John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts, who was replying to a submission to the last carnival. Professor Plantinga is a busy man though, and I will host his reply on my blog when he gets the time for it (update: here) and will submit it to the next carnival. Thanks to those who contributed and to those who are just stopping by to check things out! :)

Be sure and submit to the next carnival using the form here (not the blogcarnival widget or email), and do consider hosting (guidelines found here). The next carnival will be at critique my thinking. See you then!

Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew

2012-02-10T22:28:00.001-08:00

Lecture notes and accompanying chart can be downloaded here. You can click on each blue checkmark to see the evidence.

Call for submissions to February 20's Philosophers' Carnival

2012-02-06T22:23:00.000-08:00

On February 20, Ichthus77 will be showcasing philosophy blog posts for Philosophers' Carnival. I will display whatever is submitted, within reason, but am hopeful to receive responses to posts featured in past carnivals, or even just responses to posts featured on other philosophy (or related) blogs. The emphasis here is on dialogue. For example, I am already seeing some dialogue about Plantinga's EAAN, mentioned in a post submitted to the last carnival. More of this, please! :)

Genuine faith is never blind

2012-02-05T12:05:00.001-08:00

I grew up believing that reason can only take you so far--after that, faith takes over. In one sense this belief is true: Intellectual faith/belief, if it isn’t blind, comes ‘after’ good evidence. However, in the sense that faith persists independent of reason or even in spite of evidence to the contrary (the sense preferred by New Atheists) this belief is false.

One cannot trust God and his promises unless one already knows (with good evidence) God and his promises exist--and simply knowing does not equate to trusting. Compare this to having faith in the faithfulness of one's spouse. Whether or not they exist or have made promises of faithfulness is not a matter of faith. Trusting them and their promises is where faith comes in.

Some doubt, like Thomas did, even though he was daily in the presence of the miraculous before Jesus was crucified. Some all out reject Jesus and everything (they think) he is about, as did most of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, who would rather claim his signs were demonic than change their worldview. So even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, faith can be lacking. Genuine, biblical faith is more than just knowing, it is more than mere intellectual assent. It is trust, and is never blind.

WLC makes plain the Ontological Argument

2012-01-23T06:24:00.000-08:00

The ontological argument finally clicked for me. Thankyou Dr. Craig!

Begin forwarded message:

From: William Lane Craig <info@reasonablefaith.org>
Subject: Question of the Week - Misunderstanding the Ontological Argument

-----------

Question:

Good Day from Nepal. We badly need apologetics in Nepal so please keep in your prayers. I work in translating apologetic material in the language of Nepal where secularism and Hinduism are quite strong. Thank you for your work Dr. Craig. My question is on the ontological argument and I do not fully understand it. Can you help clarify? I recently asked a philosopher here and was told the following exchange:

My question to the professor:

...question concerning the reading packet in our resouces on Descartes and the Ontological argument. Most non-philosophers seem to think the argument is not credible while most philosophers do not it seems - could you help me by offering your own insights to its merit? For example - Alvin Plantiga seems to have developed the folowing:

The version below comes from Alvin Plantinga, one of America's premier philosophers. It's formulated in terms of possible worlds semantics. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology of possible worlds, let me explain that by "a possible world" one doesn't mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be. To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement "God exists" as part of that description.

Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being which is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." So Plantinga argues:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Premises (2)-(5) of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then He must exist. The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga's ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premiss "It's possible that a maximally great being exists" to be true.

The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. But the concept of a maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Would you agree that premises 2-5 are relatively non-controversial? In other words if premise 1 is "true" then would you say all 5 premises must therefore be logical true? Any thoughts/comments would be greatly appreciated.

Professor Messick:

Number 2 is not uncontroversial.

Just because it is possible for something to exist doesn't mean that it does or must exist. Essentially no. 2 is stating "If it is possible, then somewhere it must be." Not only is that not practical, it doesn't even follow logically. Possible things do not automatically translate into actual things. I'd also dispute item no. 3, on the grounds that an example in one possible world doesn't translate automatically into every possible possible world -- were that the case, then all possible worlds would have to be identical, and full of mutually exclusive elements. Unless, that is, there is something special about the "maximally excellent" being that makes it unique and unlike other things, in which case, logic falters again.

This goes back to Anselm for the greatest formulation, and back even further than that. It has always been problematic.

I recall a professor of mine saying once that every philosopher sooner or later comes to the conclusion that the proof is right, but we don't know how, and later comes to the conclusion that the proof is wrong, but we don't know why.

Would you say he is mostly correct Dr. Craig? There are a lot of apologist who struggle with the ontological argument so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kamal
Nepal

Dr. Craig responds:

Kamal, receiving a letter from a Christian brother in a place as far-flung and as hostile to Christian belief as Nepal made my day! So even though your professor's objections are based on pretty elementary misunderstandings, I wanted to share your letter with others.

I'm afraid that your professor is mostly incorrect in what he says, Kamal. Your prof errs in thinking that the ontological argument goes back earlier than Anselm and in thinking that Anselm's version is the best version of the argument. As Plantinga (as well as Leibniz) has explained, Anselm's version needs reformulation; moreover, Plantinga's version is not susceptible to your prof's objections.

For example, his objection to (2) is based upon an apparent unfamiliarity with possible worlds semantics. To say that some entity exists in a possible world is just to say that such an entity possibly exists. It isn't meant that the entity actually exists somewhere. Look again at my explanation: "To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement 'God exists' as part of that description." Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.

Again, (3) is virtually definitionally true. A maximally great being is one that has, among other properties, necessary existence. So if it exists in one world, it exists in all of them! In that sense, such a being is different than contingent beings, which exist in only some possible worlds. A unicorn, for example, exists in some possible world, but not in all of them, for its existence is possible but not necessary. So your prof is right that there is something special, not about a maximally excellent being (which, you'll recall, is defined to be a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good), but about a maximally great being, which is defined as a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. If such a being exists in any world, that is to say, if it is possible that such a being exists, then it exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

Logic doesn't falter here. It all hangs on whether you think that (1) is true. (2)-(5) are true whether or not (1) is true. But if all the premisses are true, the conclusion logically follows.

There is a lesson to be learned in this. Students rightly have respect for their professors. We should learn from them in humility. But the fact is that many professors, both in the Anglophone world and especially outside the Anglophone world, are nearly clueless when it comes to Philosophy of Religion. I have been mortified by the simplistic and misconceived refutations of theism and theistic arguments that students often share with me from their Intro to Philosophy classes. You are well-advised to be quite critical about what your professors say about this subject, especially if they do not evince familiarity with the philosophical literature and are not interacting with other philosophers in the field who do not share their positions.

Print friendly version:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/R?i=oBp8bWUAxDQYthdad62cMg

© 2012 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide.
P.O. Box 72888 Marietta, Georgia 30007 (403) 348-6301

Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics" ch.1 favorite quote

2012-01-14T17:10:00.000-08:00

At my church we just started a book discussion of Douglas Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics". Wanted to share my favorite quote from chapter one, page 16:

"In one sense, we are alone. No one else will live our life or die our death. Each self is unique, responsible and indissoluble. Yet our fate is bound up with our world and our fellow travelers, each of whom has a particular way of coping with—or avoiding—these insistent immensities. We are alone—together."

Check out a few new tags...

2012-01-13T18:34:00.000-08:00

Poetry and Fiction

Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics"

Divine Essentialism

Christian Carnival

2012-01-11T17:35:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the January 11, 2012 edition of christian carnival ii. We have so many great submissions this week, and I’ve also gleaned from the recent offerings of fellow members of Christian Apologetics Alliance.

problem of pain, suffering, evil

It was interesting to find a few submissions on this topic so I decided to make a category out of it for this edition. I also added a few I gleaned from recent Christian Apologetics Alliance offerings.

Richard presents "Don't You Want To Be Healed?" posted at Mission Blog.

Rodney Olsen presents Losing Everything posted at The Journey - Life : Faith : Family.

Sarah presents Suffering and Death posted at This is what Sed said.

From Christian Apologetics Alliance members:

Christiana Szymanski blogged Quote of the Week: Ravi Zacharias On The Problem of Evil posted at In Defense of the Christian Faith.

Wintery Knight blogged Why does God allow his creatures to suffer? posted at Wintery Knight.

other apologetics from The Alliance

Brian Auten blogged 10 Pitfalls of the Foolish Apologist posted at Apologetics 315.

Mikel Del Rosario blogged William Jessup University Student - Understanding Apologetics was a Turning Point in My Life posted at Apologetics Guy.

Stephen Bedard blogged Religion as a Quest for Afterlife posted at Hope’s Reason.

Cory Tucholski blogged Contradiction Tuesday: Jesus in the Pecking Order posted at Josiah Concept Ministries.

Blake Anderson blogged The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Expanding Atheist Clubs, Bad Religion, & A Washington D.C. Rally posted at Ratio Christi.

Rob Lundberg blogged Sunday Morning Quote posted at The Real Issue.

Glenn Peoples blogged “God of the Living” – William Tyndale and the Resurrection posted at Say Hello to My Little Friend.

Greg West blogged J.P. Moreland: The Prophets Appealed to Evidence posted at The Poached Egg.

Melissa Travis blogged Book Review: John Lennox's Seven Days That Divide the World posted at Hard-Core Christianity.

other ‘than’ apologetics from The Alliance

Tom Gilson blogged Sherlock Holmes vs. Hugo (and Why Hugo Should Win) posted at Evangel | A First Things Blog.

Austin Gravley blogged The Spirit, Isaiah 6, and God's Timely Calling posted at Another Ascending Lark.

Holly Ordway blogged A Sonnet for The Kilns posted at Hieropraxis.

devotionals

Annette presents Psalm 108 posted at Fish and Cans.

Josh presents Easter Bible Verses – 20 Awesome Scripture Quotes posted at What Christians Want To Know, saying, "Check out these inspiring Bible verses about Easter and
the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Justin Raby presents Day 5: Not So Pink posted at Bible in a Month.

Jim Klingenberger presents Unions posted at Xulonjam's Blog, saying, "Not sure how to categorize this. It came out of a couple of interactions, one on a secular board and another on a Christian board. I am defending Unions from the charges which are popular these days, particularly the idea that Unions are anti-Christian." By the way, we’re talking ‘labor’ unions here.

Zowada presents what are you passionate about? posted at Zowada Blog, saying, "Our words reflect our passions." Matt, you are a very insightful 16-year-old!…assuming you are still 16.

For the Tim Tebow fans, Rebecca LuElla Miller presents Platforms And Purpose posted at A Christian Worldview of Fiction, saying, "The topic is actually Christian living, not really a devotional, but none of the other categories fit. Here's a key excerpt: "The size of the platform does not dictate the value of the ministry or reduce the importance of the purpose God has given to each. ""

Ridge Burns presents Telling God the Whole Story posted at Ridge's Blog.

Chris Price presents Study on American Religion and the Community posted at American Church History.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of christian carnival ii using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

What being is described by a without-God good?

2012-01-09T11:02:00.000-08:00

From a discussion in a Veritas forum:

If you ask:

To what does a real ought correspond?

...or...

What does a real ought describe?

...you will notice that science will have as easy a time answering that as answering:

What began the universe?

...or...

Why is there something rather than nothing?

***

This to me gives new meaning to "Alpha and Omega"--he began it all and he is its ultimate End.

Is-ought discussion with WLC

2012-01-07T13:36:00.000-08:00

I had a discussion with Dr. Craig in a note I posted on Facebook, but I am deleting Facebook Sunday and the discussion was never resolved, so I am moving it to here. Hopefully he can reply here or in one of his weekly Q&A on his Reasonable Faith site.

***

Dr. Craig,

In "Question of the Week #222: Why Is God the Foundation of Moral Values?" you said, "these qualities are good because they are found in God's nature." Doesn't that commit the is-ought fallacy? I was wondering if I could get some feedback on a resolution to this I've been chewing on for years (since roughly 2007). There are two issues here. 1) Whether or not there 'is' moral truth, and to what it might correspond (metaphysical/ontological), 2) What we truly 'ought' to do, and how we justify that (epistemological/justification). God's nature grounds the first option ("is"), but can not ground the second ("ought") (Hume's is-ought fallacy). And if we have justification for the second ("ought"), that does not necessarily mean we've satisfied the first ("is") (antirealism/postmodernism) (reverse is-ought). So--we must have both, independently--Plato's "Justified-True-Belief" requirement for knowledge (including moral knowledge) (I answer Gettier elsewhere if you'd like to examine that and offer feedback see the first link below). The Euthyphro Dilemma and Hume's is-ought fallacy are basically saying the same thing, and apply to moral knowledge as much as they apply to other knowledge: a (moral) belief is not true because it is justified, and it isn't justified because it is true. So the good cannot be justified by its corresponding to God's nature, for that commits the is-ought fallacy and does not escape the Euthyphro Dilemma. Instead, we must use reasons to show that the good is justified. Still, reasons alone do not show that there is a 'real' good--there must exist a being to which it may correspond (God). No God, no 'true/correspondent' good. No plants, no 'true/correspondent' formula for photosynthesis. So--how do we use reasons to show that the good is justified? We consider the questions that all the theories on-offer are considering, we rule out any inconsistent theories, and we see the theory/answer with which we are left (I believe that is where plausibility can then come in). I believe that most-plausible theory is the Golden Rule (self=Other) as demonstrated by Christ in switching perspectives with us on the cross. I discuss the common questions and inconsistencies of other theories, et cetera, elsewhere and would love for you to offer feedback on my thinking if you would like to examine the link below (2) which is a bit of a nutshell-version (still pretty rough). I hope you are doing well and I'll end this here. Oh, also, I have other questions in the third link below.

Respectfully,

Maryann/Ichthus77

(1) http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/01/answering-gettier.html

(2) http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/appendix-g-synthesizing-golden-rule.html

(3) http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-regarding-first-chapter-of.html

Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 3:06pm

***

William Lane Craig: Take a look at QoW #165 for my take on this, Maryann.

August 6, 2011 at 3:58pm

Maryann Spikes:
Thankyou so much for referring me to that question. I looked it up here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8215 If you feel you are 'really' deriving an 'ought' from an 'is' (at first you say you do, and then you say you don't) how can you consistently call others on it, like in your debate with Sam Harris? But, I don't think you really are committing that fallacy (although, I think you did in QoW 222, when you said "are good because" instead of "exist, as")--since we both agree (myself above, yourself in QoW #165) that there is a distinction between "justification" and "ontological foundation". I agree with you when you say in QoW 165 that it is wrong to say “because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways.” You are right, and it is wrong, because it commits the is-ought fallacy. But then you go on to say "our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God’s commands to us." If God's commands are not in accordance with his nature, then your statement amounts to voluntarism--to God making things up arbitrarily. So, our moral obligations and prohibitions, if God is not just making things up, are in accordance with his nature--but are not "justified by" the mere fact of his nature, for that would commit the is-ought fallacy, no?

This arises because you do not in your mind connect "these qualities" with "moral obligations and prohibitions". In #165 and elsewhere (On Gaurd, Reasonable Faith), you do not equate moral goodness with the purpose of the universe, and you do not equate our hunger for meaning with our sense of obligation...these things are actually equivalent. On the cross, when Christ switched perspectives with us to show us God loves us as himself (imputing his own righteousness on whomever accepts it), Christ was demonstrating both 'ultimate goodness' and 'utlimate meaning' (that which satisfies our hunger for true meaning)--the Golden Rule (self=Other), which corresponds to (describes) his nature, though is not justified by it (is-ought fallacy). See above for the justification part. I am hoping this is received well, this is kind of freaking me out. I'm so honored that you have read and responded to my note. Blessings. :)

August 6, 2011 at 7:54pm

William Lane Craig: Briefly, I was very careful in the Harris debate to say that one can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is' scientifically, as he claims to do.
August 7, 2011 at 5:18pm

Maryann Spikes:

Dr. Craig, so you think one 'can' derive an ought from an is (just not scientifically), and that the is-ought fallacy is not a real fallacy. Do you explain this anywhere? I think Sam Harris departs from science, into philosophy. Richard Chappell writes, “Sam Harris' views on morality would make a lot more sense if he didn't use the term 'science' to mean, apparently, 'rational inquiry'. I agree with him that there are moral truths, just as there are logical and epistemic truths. But it's unhelpful to call these 'scientific' truths. The empirical sciences can of course help us to identify effective means to some presupposed ends. But to work out what ends are worth aiming at in the first place is a distinctively philosophical — not empirical — endeavour.” http://www.philosophyetc.net/2010/10/sam-harris-on-morality.html Note that I do not agree w/ all of Chappell's thoughts in the rest of that post.

August 8, 2011 at 9:41am

"God and Evolution" reading log from Facebook

2011-12-31T17:43:00.001-08:00

Some months back, Wintery Knight generously (though with the ulterior motive of converting me from BioLogos to I.D.) sent me "God and Evolution" edited by Jay Richards. I determined to finish it by the end of the year and did so today. I present to you my Facebook play-by-play...with some new content in the "after action review".

December 17:

1. Nothing New Under the Sun by John G. West
2. Having a Real Debate by John G. West

"How could God 'direct' an 'undirected' process?" p. 40. The answer is a combination of how he performs miracles within the ordinary (miracle) and is sovereign over our free choices. He occasionally directly interacts with that which he always sustains in existence/operation, all without ever violating free will or natural law.

Is "free will" an example of God delegating the task (of creation) to an undirected third party? If no, why is theistic evolution such an example? If yes, how does such delegation defy His sovereignty?

Interesting that Collins (Christian) thinks things appear "random and undirected" while Dawkins (atheist) thinks things appear "designed for a purpose".

Regarding the fall and whether we started out good...instincts are neither good nor bad and of course there was a first sin...for mankind in general, and for individuals. And every sin poisons the well as much as the first and we all need redemption.

Before the first sin we are without imperfection and therefore good. Even with all of our instincts. However we are not the sort of willful good that God is, which is more than just being "without imperfection".

I am flabbergasted that rather than present theistic evolution in its strongest form and addressing it, West spins a version and poisons the well of discourse by equating it to Gnosticism. Is this desperate attempt repeated by very many? I certainly hope not.

Regarding my 3rd reply: I will have to review Collins' comments bcuz I know he sees design in the universe's beginning and fine-tuning.

Ug. On the moral sense... Just bcuz we evolve a sense doesn't imply "that which is sensed" evolves.

Done w West's contrib. lots of fallacious propaganda. 3 references to science upon which to follow up. Douglas Axe, Ralph Seelke, Stephen Meyer.

3. Smelling Blood in the Water by Casey Luskin

Although Luskin has not repeated the charge of Gnosticism, he is using the same arguments and sources as West. Genetic fallacies and straw men abound.

Yes there are no NOMA and I think Collins would agree. I think this may be the second time he was misrepresented. P.86

Done w Luskin's contrib...zero science upon which to follow up.

4. Death and the Fall by William A. Dembski

Well...Dembski gives a good counter-argument to blaming genetic defects (etc.) on evolution--God is still sovereign. Still, the actual solution to the problem of evil/suffering works fine and does not refute evolution. P.98

He gives no solution to the problem. Done with Dembski's contrib.

Oh yeah, and no science.

5. Random Acts of Design by Jonathan Witt

Finally a contribution charitable to Collins and discussing the science! Ty Witt.

Hm. I wonder what Collins would say about his design arguments defying methodological naturalism? P112.

Good point countering Collins' "clumsy God" objection to ID p.114.

To add to my first reply--free will, though not random, is still free--this is comparable to Darwinian randomness. God sustains random outcomes like he sustains our free choices.

Five chapters down. Time for a break.

6. Darwin of the Gaps by Jonathan Wells

Back at it. Strong intro for Wells but no cosmologist who believes in the cyclical model thinks there is no first cycle. There is also published work showing any model requires a beginning.

Need to double check if Collins ignored naturalistic theories of morality.

Plenty of science to follow up on.

Ironically, junk dna and silent mutations are conclusions of arguments from ignorance (gaps in knowledge). Done with Wells, on to Richards :)

December 28:

7. Making a Virtue of Necessity by Jay W. Richards

Richards is critiquing Van Till's "Robust Formational Economy Principle". It makes sense to me that in order to say one has discovered the RFE, it cannot simply be assumed, it's alternative must be granted as at least possible, and it would not rule out the possibility of the alternative's intervention. I am curious about the arguments which suggest an RFE is impossible. I also find VanTill's "divine propriety" unconvincing.

At present my position is that an RFE is possible and does not require, but does not rule out, divine intervention. As concerns divine propriety, God is both immanent and transcendent--interacting but not locked in. His creation was eternally complete from beginning to end, including our free contributions to it and the results of 'chance'.

8. The Difference it Doesn't Make by Stephen C. Meyer

I agree with Meyer that it doesn't make sense to write off I.D. Theory as a "God of the gaps" theory while ascribing design to fine-tuning, etc.

Apparently there are those who think certain physical or chemical laws make life inevitable--both supernaturalists and naturalists. Meyer shows how it is only possible for a law to transmit--not generate--information. Information requires wiggle room to come into being. And "there are no self-organizing forces of attraction that can account for the sequence of specificity of DNA and RNA bases" (160). Will have to explore that.

9. Can a Thomist Be a Darwinist? by Logan Paul Gage

Skipping Catholic chapter. Skimming Thomist chapter (already caught the essence implication years ago).

Hm. Gage thinks Darwinism rules out essence. However, being made in God's essence is not a physical thing, for God is spirit. Any being that, when matured enough, understands and can follow the Golden Rule is in God's essence. Something said about Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" regarding oughts coming from ises...seems to defy the fallacy. But it is because the fallacy 'is' a fallacy that the final cause cannot be rooted to the formal cause. "A thing’s virtue is its final cause in Aristotle’s theory of the four causes. A material cause is what a thing is made of. An efficient cause is the creative force acting upon the material. A formal cause (remnant of Plato's theory of forms) is the shape or idea of the affected material. A final cause is the purpose of the affected material. In the theory of evolution, which Aristotle did not anticipate, the first material cause would have been the singularity, and it is hard to say what would have been its efficient, formal, and final cause, from Aristotle’s perspective. Starting from now, the human body and all its systems is the material cause. The efficient cause is the environment which shapes (like sandpaper to wood) the body and what it is used for. The formal cause is what the body is shaped into; how it changes to better suit its environment. The final cause is how the newly shaped body is actually used in its environment; the reason it was shaped. So the formal cause becomes the material cause, and the final cause becomes part of the efficient cause. As the universe was complete before it started, the final cause is Golden Rule love. However, there is a problem with rooting the final cause to the formal cause—the is-ought fallacy" (SSP).

I guess Behe is one of those who thinks God could have stacked the deck. Whereas Meyer showed this is impossible, Gage accepts it as a possible concession to non-interventionist Thomists.

11. Straining Gnats, Swallowing Camels by Jay W. Richards
12. Separating the Chaff from the Wheat by Jay W. Richards

I guess Richards is saying Meyer represents specified complexity and Behe irreducible.

The section in chapter twelve, Richards' "Nature and Art: Thomas or Aristotle" is good.

December 31:

13. Understanding Intelligent Design by Jay W. Richards

"Evolutionary theory is largely historical and abductive, and most contemporary design arguments focus likewise on the historical sciences in cosmology, origin of life research, and biological evolution." Jay Richards, "God and Evolution" p. 268. If ID is philosophy, so is Darwinism. If Darwinism is science, so is ID.

Skipping the part written for Jews and considering this book "read". Looking forward to Groothuis' chapter on it. Next I would read Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". Summer perhaps.

After action review:

A few things linger that I didn't mention on Facebook. I wish the use of the word "random" would have been explored further, as it isn't all that random. And Richards didn't really refute Bagley's take on how things can appear random to us that do not appear so to God, a topic touched upon further up in my notes.

A couple final questions: Richards says on page 256 (same page where he mentions my 58th birthday, haha...that date, anyway):

"Of course, while Darwin proposed variation and natural selection as a 'mindless' substitute for design, it doesn't follow that these processes could not be features of the world God has created. To some degree, they obviously are. We have several good though modest examples of natural selection preserving survival-enhancing variations."

1. What about the idea that some mutations are not survival-enhancing and just persist because they don't kill the organism? That was never addressed. Would that account for the seeming need of foresight mentioned in the neighborhood of page 258?

2. Will any/all of the references to science, on which I will eventually follow-up, answer why new species could not eventually result from many, many variations?

And the thoughts on BioLogos.com on what this would imply about being made in the image of God were never properly addressed (I did skim the final chapter enough to see too much emphasis was placed on physical appearance, whereas God is spirit). In sum, being made in the image of God means being made capable of Golden Rule love. If other beings evolve (or otherwise gain) the capability, they will be made in the image of God as well--even if they are artificial intelligence.

I do however look forward to further exploring the science behind I.D. theory.

Thankyou, Wintery, for sending me the book. :)

Bible Narrative Project year-in-review :)

2011-12-25T15:50:00.000-08:00

Those of you familiar with my Bible Narrative Project, which began January 1 of this year, might be interested in seeing the fruits of 2011's labors. I'm pretty happy about it, because I actually stuck to it and finished one of my huge projects for once! I've cleaned the "blendings" up for a year in review presentation. Plans for 2012 can be found below the blendings. Merry Christmas, and have a happy New Year! :)

The blendings:

March 27: Blending of 1 Samuel 31, 1 Chronicles 10

April 6: Blending of 1 Chronicles 11:1-9; 2 Samuel 5:1-25

April 8: Blending of 2 Samuel 23:8-39; 1 Chr 11:10-47-ch.12

April 10: Blending of 2 Sam 6; 1 Chr 13-16

April 14: Blending of 2 Sam 7-8; 1 Chr 17-18

April 19: Blending of 2 Sam 10; 1 Chron 19

April 24: Blending of 2 Sam 12:26-31; 1 Chron 20

April 30: Blending of 2 Sam 24; 1 Chr 21

May 8 Blending of 1 Chr 29:21-30; 1 K 1-2; 2 Sam 5:4-5; 23:1-7

May 13 Blending of 2 Chr 1, 1 K 3

May 28 Blending of 2 Chronicles 2-5:1; 1 Kings 5-7

May 30 Blending of 2 Chr 5:2-7:22; 1 K 8-9:9

June 3 Blending of 1 K 9:10-10:13; 2 Chr 8-9:12

June 5 Blending of 1 K 4; 10:14-29; 2 Chr 9:13-29

June 14 Blending of 2 Chr 9:29-31; 1 Kings 11:41-43

June 16 Blend of 1 K 14:21-31; 1 K 12:1-24; 2 Chr 10-11:23

June 18 Blend of 1 K 12:25-14:20; 2 Chr 12:1-16

June 20 Blending of 2 Chr 13-14:1; 1 K 15:1-8

June 22 Blending of 2 Chr 14:2-16:14; 1 K 15:9-24

June 29 Blending of 1 K 22:1-40; 2 Chr 18:1-34

June 30 Blending 1 K 22:41-50; 2 Chr 17; 19-21:3

July 5 Blending of 2 Chr 21:4-22:9; 2 K 8:16-29; 9:14-29

July 8 Blending of 2 Chr 22:10-24:27; 2 K 11-12

July 11 Blending of 2 Chr 25; 2 K 14:1-14; 2 K 16; 23-28

July 14 Blending of 2 Chr 26; 2 K 14:17-22; 15:1-7

July 26 Blending of 2 Chr 27; 2 K 15:32-38

July 30 Blending 2 Chr 28; 2 K 16

August 15 Blending of 2 Chr 29-32; 2 K 18-20; Isaiah 36-39

August 24 Blending: 2 Chr 33:1-25; 2 K 21:1-26

August 25 Blending of 2 Chr 34-35:19; 2 K 22-23:1-3, 21-23

August 30 Blending of 2 Kings 23:4-20, 24-33; 2 Chr 35:20-36:3

September 3 Blending of 2 K 23:34-24:7; 2 Chr 36:4-8

September 19 Blending of 2 K 24:8-17; 2 Chr 36:9-10

Sept. 22 Blending of 2 K 24:18-20; 2 Chr 36:11-14

October 12 Blending of Chr 36:15-21; 2 K 25:1-21

October 20 Blending 2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4

Nov 15 Blending of Luke 24:36-53; Acts 1:4-14; Matthew 28:16-20; (Mark 16:14-20 excluded)

Coming Soon: The rest of the Gospels.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R),
Copyright (C) 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995
by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Plans for 2012:

1. I was granted permission from The Lockman Foundation to quote the entire NASB, and so I will be updating the posts to include Scripture rather than linking to an external source. I have already done this with the blendings and need to finish the rest. Fortunately Lockman sent me a plain text version of the NASB in paragraph format. I intend to tweak it so that it is in the order of my Bible Narrative Project, with all the blendings. I will make it available on the blog, if possible. Anyone interested in turning this into an app for me? :)

2. I am waiting for permission to quote "The Life of Christ in Stereo" (or one of it's follow-up versions). I have contacted three publishers, also requesting from them a plain text version, like Lockman gave me of the NASB. Praying that happens.

3. I still need to improve how verses/books are referenced in the blendings. Some of them are finished, but not most.

4. Maybe not in 2012, but eventually, I would like to use the Project to answer Skeptic's Annotated Bible (now located at The Scripture Project). Granted, this may take the rest of my life, but who knows what God has in store? (Well...God does...obviously.)

Goodbye, Hitch

2011-12-20T08:35:00.000-08:00

I didn't feel like blogging when I found out Christopher Hitchens was gone. I was just sad. It didn't surprise me, but it was an unwelcome cutting-off point. An end to a discussion that reached no resolution. Other bloggers managed to produce something, and so I share them here.

Christopher Hitchens -- Reflections by Mark McGee at Faith and Self Defense.

On the Passing of Christopher Hitchens by Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian.

The Passing of One of the “Four Horsemen” by Rob Lundberg at The Real Issue.

Christopher Hitchens Is Dead by Jay Wile at Proslogian.

Responding to Hitchens' Passing by Carson Weitnauer at Reasons for God.

His Life Was the Tragedy by Robert Kunda at Robert Kunda, Thinking in Black and White.

Related Article:

Christopher Hitchens has cancer, some respond with hate July 2, 2010

Belated Pre-Thanksgiving Christian Carnival

2011-11-23T05:30:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the November 23, 2011 edition of christian carnival ii. Mark Taylor was supposed to host but must have fallen into a turkey coma, so I'm honored to present the following submissions. I've set the date to say the 23rd so the widget wouldn't glitch, but I'm actually posting this on the 27th, for anyone who is confused.

Chris Price presents On This Date, the Pilgrims Reached America posted at American Church History.

apologetics

Carson Weitnauer presents Faith at Thanksgiving and If you were born in another country, would you still be a Christian? posted at Reasons for God.

Yours Truly presents Fringe observations on last night's season finale posted at Modesto Apologetics Examiner.

Aoide-Melete-Mneme presents Is the King James Version Only Crowd Causing Others to Sin? posted at à la mode de les Muses, saying, "Note that satire isn't my strong point."

Holly Ordway presents The Problem of Pain Sonnet Sequence 3 posted at Hieropraxis. This is part of her series of literary apologetics in practice: a sonnet that addresses one aspect of the problem of evil.

Tom Gilson presents If Christianity Is Your Religion, Don't Thank God for the Cross posted at Thinking Christian.

Mikel Del Rosario presents Sharing the Gospel - 10 Surprisingly Simple Tips for Talking with Cult Members (Part 3) posted at Apologetics Guy.

devotionals

Josh presents 15 Awesome Christian Worship Songs posted at What Christians Want To Know.

Rebecca LuElla Miller presents Upside Down Commands posted at A Christian Worldview of Fiction, saying, "Recent church trends have believers leaving our comfortable pews and going into our communities to serve others, seemingly a good thing. But might we be getting the cart before the horse?"

Russ White presents Women Burning Out posted at Thinking in Christ.

Joe Plemon presents Do YOU Have the Spiritual Gift of Giving? Read This Before Answering. posted at Personal Finance By The Book, saying, "It is possible to have a spiritual gift without realizing it. This post may help you with that realization."

David R Wells presents An All About Me Generation posted at Revelation 3:10 - Blog: Through Davids Eyes.

narratives

Christyn Raymond presents How Many Toes Can You Break In Two Months? posted at Striving For Simple, saying, "Funny but true story about breaking toes and lessons learned."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of christian carnival ii using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Observations on the finale of Fringe

2011-11-18T21:30:00.000-08:00

The Observer known as "September"

So tonight was the (correction: fall) finale of Fringe, named Wallflower for an invisible man, but probably also calling attention to Peter taking a less active roll in this particular multiverse by making Lincoln more attractive to Olivia (with a new pair of glasses?!). Anyway… How will they be able to prove this is not an entirely different Olivia, and is actually just an Olivia that has forgotten her relationship with Peter (as the Observer, named September, said at the end of last season)? Ah, so tragic if such proof is impossible. He's giving her away...

And I still have questions remaining from 'last' season's finale and am losing hope that they will be resolved. Why rescue Peter as a child (so that he could go on to fulfill his purpose) only to later wipe him from the timeline (because he fulfilled his purpose)—since, after wiping Peter from the timeline, the purpose was still fulfilled, and he was never even necessary (right?)? (Not saying I think Peter was actually unnecessary...fictionally speaking.) And after having a discussion with some fans on Fringe’s Facebook page, I have to ask: Which is the real mess-up—that Walter found the cure, or that Peter fell through the ice?!

Regarding purpose (Peter’s, yes—but purpose in general)—who are the Observers to decide how things should go and who is important? "August" shows they are mortal, and their past failure to distract Walter from curing Peter, and their recent failure to completely erase Peter, show they are fallible, not to mention inconsistent. NOT that erasing Peter would be a good thing.

I'm beginning to think it's not 'supposed' to make sense—it's just supposed to make you toss around questions about what our purpose is and whether it is 'natural' (part of the 'course' of the universe or whatever Being for which that may be a metaphor) or artificially manipulated (by a time-transcendent Observer, or by yourself—caring for someone). It's all very Sartre, all very Socrates’ dialogue with Diotima on love, and with Euthyphro on the good. Can't wait for the season to resume in January...

Answering Stephen Law's evil god argument

2011-11-12T20:59:00.000-08:00

This is a reply to Stephen Law’s “evil god” argument he gave in his debate with William Lane Craig in October. I first posted a version of it in a comment to my blog post here, in reply to Jason Thibodeau.

Stephen Law cooks up an evidential problem of good against an evil god (reverses the theistic answers to the evidential problem of evil) and then asks why the evidential problem of evil isn’t an equally good argument. Actually, he asks, “if the evil god hypothesis can, solely on the basis of observational evidence, be ruled out as highly unlikely, why can’t we similarly rule out the good god hypothesis?”

Law considers the privation bit below to be “more of a Catholic thing” which is false—it is not restricted to Catholicism. I’m not sure ‘why’ Dr. Craig ignores it, but his argument (which Law pretty much ignores) does allude to it:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
4. Therefore, God exists.

But here’s the privation bit, which goes back to Augustine.

In order to sin or commit evil, there must first be a way things ‘should’ have gone—a way things are ‘supposed’ to be—a real ‘ought’—a preexistent good. A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=evil], of the way things are supposed to be (the good), cannot exist unless there really is a way things are supposed to be. See how similar this sounds to Dr. Craig’s argument?

1. If God does not exist, “the way things are supposed to be” (a real ought/good) does not exist.
2. Evil (privation of a real ought/good) exists.
3. Therefore, “the way things are supposed to be” (a real ought/good) exists.
4. Therefore, God exists.

So—first exists the way things are supposed to be, without which a falling short (sin), or privation (evil), is impossible (again, sin=evil).

That good—that 'way' things are supposed to be—if there IS one—is God.

God, because he is omnipotent, cannot fall short of himself, cannot be a privation of himself, cannot depart from the way things are supposed to be (himself). [Such falling short, privation, departing--all of those things are weakness.] Therefore, God can never be evil. He has the choice—he will just never choose it, because that would be weakness, and he is omnipotent. This argument goes back to Aquinas.

In short, evil cannot exist without a preexistent good, so whether one observes evil or good, neither can be used to argue for an evil god (because it cannot exist without a preexistent good which is more ultimate), whereas both can be used to argue for a good god (because the presence of good, as well as the presence of evil, requires the existence of a real ‘way things are supposed to be’—God).

This does not prove the existence of God, of course, but it does give us “very good grounds” (Law)—whereas the existence of an evil god is logically incoherent.

Christian Carnival

2011-11-09T20:52:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the November 9, 2011 edition of christian carnival ii.

I'd like to mention two pieces of news before you dig in to this feast.

1. Mark Deviny of Christian Apologetics Alliance has put together a new Christian apologetics search engine named C.A.S.E., appropriately. Currently searches 200+ apologetics sites and growing.

2. William Lane Craig's half of his debate with the empty chair formerly known as Richard Dawkins (we love you anyway) is now viewable on YouTube.

Aoide-Melete-Mneme presents Thoughts on Mark posted at à la mode de les Muses, saying, "Touching upon the touchy topic of charitable giving."

apologetics

Wintery Knight presents Can atheists know whether God has a reason for allowing pain and suffering? posted at Wintery Knight.

Mark McGee presents Can I Trust The Bible? (Part 5) posted at Faith and Self Defense, saying, "I teach self defense and faith defense. Both can be gentle and powerful - protecting the defender while redirecting the attacker to consider the truth. Our current apologetics study considers the trustworthiness of the Bible."

Edgar Andrews presents Royal Institution lectures promote atheism posted at Who Made God?.

Dan Rodger presents Redeemed Mind Apologetics: Did Pontius Pilate really release prisoners at Passover or was this just made up by the authors of the Gospels? posted at Redeemed Mind Apologetics, saying, "A short article that provides some evidence for Pontius Pilate letting a prisoner free at Passover."

Jamie Pellew presents Why Respond to Mormon Claims? posted at Answering Mormons.

Carson Weitnauer presents Is the Bible True? posted at Reasons for God, saying, "The audio and slides from a talk given at Boston University last week on the question, "Is the Bible True?" The talk challenges three common perceptions of the Bible: The Bible is full of myths, contradicts itself, and it has been translated so many times we have no idea what it originally said."

Yours Truly presents Answering Jerry Coyne and Jason Thibodeau on the Euthyphro Dilemma posted at Ichthus77, saying, "Join the on-going discussion following this blog post from the end of October."

J.W. Wartick presents Can we evaluate worldviews? How to navigate the sea of ideas posted at J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason", saying, "Surveys ways we can meaningfully evaluate competing worldviews."

Stephen McAndrew presents Bankers Into Plowshares? posted at Songs of a Semi-Free Man, saying, "Humanity dreams of the day when swords are turned into plowshares. But our attempts to get to the promised land always fall short. This piece looks at the reason why."

Glenn Peoples presents Brief thoughts about God’s freedom to command posted at Say Hello to my Little Friend.

devotionals

Josh presents 22 Great Max Lucado Quotes posted at What Christians Want To Know, saying, "Here are some inspirational quotes from Max Lucado."

Cindy Jeffrey presents Prayer to be Drawn Closer to God posted at Christian Prayers Daily, saying, "What if we had the wisdom of Solomon and the love of Mother Theresa? "Prayer to be Drawn Closer to God" is an opportunity for us to seek God's gifts of wisdom and of love."

Gregory Calvin presents Should Christians reject sports entertainment, theater and movies? posted at Devotional Dave's Daily Devotions.

Russ White presents Rage Against Reality (Again) posted at Thinking in Christ.

Ridge Burns presents What Is a Church? posted at Ridge's Blog.

David R Wells presents Angry at God posted at Revelation 3:10 - Blog, saying, "Are you angry at God or are you angry for not getting your way? Are you using your circumstances as an excuse to lash out at God rather than draw closer to Him?"

Zowada presents You just have to follow your heart! posted at Zowada Blog, saying, "Is it always wise to follow your heart?"

Rebecca LuElla Miller presents Adam Loved His Wife Too Much posted at A Christian Worldview of Fiction, saying, "Adam had heard and understood and believed God’s clear command. But on one hand was God, and on the other was his wife, destined to die. Adam, instead of believing that God could display his mercy along with his justice, apparently chose God’s gift instead of God."

Joe Plemon presents Are Christians Supposed to Help EVERYONE Who Has Needs? posted at Personal Finance By The Book, saying, "How do we know just whom to be helping and when to back away? This post gives some common sense suggestions."

narratives

True Stillwater presents What Are You Grateful For? posted at Letters, Messages, and Prayers, saying, "Thoughts on gratefulness..."

Jennifer in OR presents To honor when it isn't fair posted at Diary of 1, saying, "Oh, grace to cleanse my irritated soul. The way she shuffles, asks again what day it is, tells me she forgot how to whistle, burps at the table, a thousand ways that need grace."

Suler Acosta presents "I Guess I Was Showing Love" posted at Mission Blog.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of christian carnival ii using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

C.A.S.E. - Christian Apologetics Search Engine

2011-11-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

Check out this new Christian apologetics search engine (C.A.S.E.) put together by Mark Deviny of Christian Apologetics Alliance. Over 200 apologetics websites and growing. Here are some questions you can ask in the search engine:

Isn’t there truth in every religion?
Why do you believe Christianity exclusively?
How do you know God exists?
Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?
Wasn’t Jesus just a copycat myth?
Isn’t the Bible just a bunch of made-up stories?
If God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much evil in the world?
Why does God allow natural disasters to cause so much suffering?
Doesn’t evolution disprove the existence of a Creator?
Don’t you just have blind, unthinking faith?
Why did God order so many people to be slaughtered in the Old Testament?
Why do we need God for moral truth—aren’t lots of people good without God?
If Jesus sets us free, why is the church a bunch of hypocrites?
What about people who have never heard of Jesus—does God send them to hell?

Richard Dawkins: The Empty Chair

2011-10-29T18:50:00.000-07:00

Pictured below is the Empty Chair that was reserved for Dawkins to follow the eighth commandment he quoted in The God Delusion: "Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you." Dawkins refused to show up to the Sheldonian Theatre October 25 to debate the world's leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

"The Ultimate 747 Gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God and one to which I have yet to hear a theologian give a convincing answer, despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so," says Dawkins in the video below:

Answering Jerry Coyne and Jason Thibodeau on the Euthyphro Dilemma

2011-10-29T12:02:00.000-07:00

Maryann, Matt, Tom and Jerry (missing: Jason)

I’m writing this blog post to get in on the most recent Euthyphro Dilemma dilemma between atheist biologist Jerry Coyne and my fellow Christian Apologetics bloggers Matt Flannagan of MandM and Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian [timely and relevant digression: Coyne’s fellow atheist biologist Richard Dawkins continues to break an eighth commandment (quoted in The God Delusion) by refusing to test his 747 Gambit in debate with William Lane Craig…I’m still feeling some disappointment].

First, some back-story to get you caught-up…btw, (6) and (5) are out of order because Thibodeau posted before Coyne’s most recent reply:

*Jerry Coyne posted an (1) opinion titled “As atheists know, you can be good without God” on the USAToday Forum in July/August.

*Tom Gilson (2) replied to it on his blog Thinking Christian, August 4.

*Matt Flannagan (3) also replied on MandM, October 10 (excellent!).

*Coyne (4) replied to Gilson (Thinking Christian) on Coyne’s blog, October 20.

*Coyne’s (6) most recent reply (Oct 24) mentions both Flannagan (MandM) and Gilson (Thinking Christian) in order to share (5) Jason Thibodeau’s “The Euthyphro Dilemma is Robust” (Oct 21) (a reply to Flannagan on Thibodeau’s blog).

1. Ontology vs. Epistemology.

First it is important to distinguish between two problems going on here. It is one thing to ask “To what in reality does this theory correspond?” (ontology) and another thing to ask “What justifies believing this theory?” (epistemology).

The Euthyphro Dilemma (below) deals with ontology (how/whether ‘the good’ in general ‘corresponds’ to reality), whereas the Moral Monster Objection deals with epistemology (how we ‘justify’ believing a particular theory in Ethics).

So, it is possible to show the Euthyphro Dilemma to be a false one—to deal with an ontological question—without ever answering any questions dealing with epistemological objections like Moral Monster (or while answering them falsely).

Likewise, it is possible to agree with Jerry Coyne, as Christians do, that we can do/be good without believing in God (Paul reflects the same epistemology in Romans 2:14-15). However, we are not always good and we do not always do good, so we are not the sort of being to which moral truth corresponds; we are not the sort of being described by moral truth. When we do/are as we ought to do/be—regardless whether or not we believe God exists—our goodness, if true goodness, corresponds to a good being that is ‘always’ good (God), or it corresponds to nothing (is not real, has no ontology). That is just another way of discussing William Lane Craig’s argument in Question 44, referred to by Gilson. Dr. Craig, although he does subscribe to a version of Divine Command Theory not represented by Coyne, does NOT invoke the Divine Command Theory in Question 44, as Coyne falsely claims, Coyne saying it is “too stupid to address”. Clearly he did not even read Question 44.

2. The Euthyphro Dilemma and Arbitrariness

Simply put, the Euthyphro Dilemma (from Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro) asks whether the good is dependent on God’s commands (a made up, and so fictional, arbitrary good), or whether it is independent of God’s commands, because God’s commands depend on the good (so, no need for a God to ground it—it is higher than God’s commands—and so to what in reality does it correspond?). This was resolved a long time ago by Aquinas, who explained that God commands in accordance with his good nature—he is that good being to which his commands correspond. Critics then ask “But what dictates God’s nature?”—If not God, then God is not omnipotent. If God, then the good is arbitrary. The answer is that 1) God exists necessarily, as do all his attributes, so his nature, including goodness, is not dictated (he is the Uncaused Cause and his essence and existence are identical), though he is capable of choice, of creation and so forth, and, 2) Aquinas explains that “‘To be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to the omnipotence of God. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence.’[28]” (quoted by Steve Lovell). Sin is only chosen out of weakness, and being omnipotent, being good, though he has the choice, God will never choose sin, and so in that sense is unable to sin. On a related note, when Thibodeau writes that “it is possible for an all-loving God to command that we torture kids and thus, on the DCT, it is possible that torturing kids is right,” he is confused. That it is possible (in one sense) for God to sin does not mean it is possible that sin is right. And to enjoy watching innocent babies suffer (Thibodeau again) is sin (see my epistemology on the Golden Rule below).

One may be left wondering, “But why is God’s nature good? Which theory in Ethics best describes God’s nature—egoism, utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, what? And if we can explain that using good reasons, don’t we have an account of the good that is independent of God?” First, whatever theory we come up with (epistemology), we must always ask “Is this true? Does this describe something in reality?” (ontology). Second, I think one reason the Arbitrariness objection persists is that no one (to my knowledge—correct me if I am wrong) ever attempts to actually answer “Which theory in Ethics best describes God’s nature?” (understandably to avoid losing ground when debating ontology by slipping into epistemology). However, to that end: This is my epistemology (the first half is on the Golden Rule, the second half refers to ontology). This is my ontology (though Aquinas said it first, I only make reference to Hume, and I part ways with Dr. Craig on the is-ought distinction) (here is a brief discussion with Matt Flannagan on my position). This longer post sums it up and refers back to other posts. The first objection I hear is that the Golden Rule is found in every major religion and culture and so is not dependent on God. Again—we agree we can be good without believing in God. But if there is no God, no theory in Ethics can be true or correspond to anything in reality, not even the Golden Rule. If you say it is true and corresponds when we do fulfill the Golden Rule, then you are saying it is only ever momentarily true—so what makes it the way we all ought to be, all of the time? There must be a being ‘to’ which it is true all of the time in order for it to be true ‘for’ everyone.

If the Judeo-Christian concept of God is a Moral Monster and no good God exists, there is not a single theory in Ethics that corresponds to an always-good being in reality (there is no true theory). If you think there is still the possibility of a good God existing that is not the Judeo-Christian God, just ask yourself: What is the evidence? Christians have evidence of God fulfilling the Golden Rule in taking on flesh and switching perspectives with us on the cross. Crazy, sure—but no other religion has such a demonstration. The New Atheists who claim there can be a “real” good without a correspondent good being—their epistemology hovers over an abysmal ontology. Coyne and Thibodeau understandably leave out the nihilist alternative of the atheist existentialists (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, et cetera) that without a God to which a ‘real’ good may correspond, there is no good beyond what we choose/create/will (there is no moral truth). They leave it out for the same reason they reject their (straw man) understanding and representation of Divine Command Theory. Atheists and essentialist Christians all agree that if you (even God) have to make it up (command/dictate it into being), it isn’t ‘true’. So either the atheist existentialists are right that there is no God, and so there is no good, or essentialist Christians are right that God commands in accordance with his good nature.

3. Loose-ends…

So, the ontological questions in the Euthyphro Dilemma are resolved. The epistemological questions are a completely separate issue. I referred above to my epistemology (the Golden Rule) and I will defer to others who have addressed the Moral Monster objection elsewhere with different outcomes (William Lane Craig, Matt Flannagan, Paul Copan, et cetera). I have only briefly (in my opinion) researched it. I will only say here that to resort to the Moral Monster objection to avoid admitting your moral theory has no ontology is intellectually dishonest.

Lastly, a note on the ‘evolution’ spin. I believe we evolved (note that I am about to read Jay Richards’ “God and Evolution” given to me by Wintery Knight), and that we evolved a moral sense just as we evolved the ability to reason in general. If there is moral truth, it did not evolve into being—we merely evolved the ability, or hunger, to apprehend it (even if we still do not recognize the being that ultimately satisfies that hunger). Any theory in Ethics that grounds its ontology in evolution is a sandcastle for the tides. Matt Flannagan addressed that issue quite well in his article above (3).

ISWA-U free on-line apologetics curriculum for women coming October 28

2011-10-26T21:54:00.000-07:00

The International Society for Women in Apologetics (ISWA) has put together a curriculum to get women all over the world equipped in knowing why we believe and how to answer objections to the Christian faith. Free audio and video lectures by and for women will start becoming available October 28, with more to come in the future. Each lecture comes with a workbook. Go here to see some of the subject titles and an overview of what ISWA-U is all about.

"Here are just a few: Truth. The Deity of Christ. The Defense of the Resurrection. Women, Apologetics, and Evangelism. Finding God at Harvard. The Challenges of Equipping the Next Generation." (status update from ISWA's Facebook page)

In this interview, ISWA's president, Sarah Ankenman, The Valley Girl Apologist, talks about why the upcoming ISWA-U apologetics curriculum is important for women:

Confident Christianity Conference in the Dallas/Fort Worth area

2011-10-24T16:54:00.000-07:00

There are 2 weeks left until the Confident Christianity Apologetics conference in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. There are folks coming from as far as Oklahoma City and Houston.

Some of the amazing speakers include JP Moreland, Craig Hazen, Clay Jones and Michael Keas. The whole conference is bilingual with Spanish-speaking apologists, as well! There are two members of the International Society for Women in Apologetics speaking at this event: Melissa Cain Travis and MaryJo Sharp!

Conference agenda/registration link: http://www.cvent.com/events/confident-christianity-apologetics-conference/agenda-a593a5a1479c42898d6c445e8609c341.aspx
Video promos:
http://vimeo.com/30156409
http://vimeo.com/30155273
http://vimeo.com/30155771

Picked Up Poetry (etc.)

2011-10-23T13:06:00.000-07:00

Each poem posted in the order in which it was written, opposite the order in which it was picked up, oddly enough…

Ana Kata to the Infinite Well

"Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10)

God's face shines upon you. God's face shines upon you.
Feeling in three dimensions, still, you are, most times.
You ana kata from the fire against your will,
Waiting to be born posthumously no longer,
For those whom the Lord loves, He disciplines. You cry,
Smitten with the madness of too much seeing, "Lord!"
(Strong within your whirlwind of deluding spirits...)
"Lord!" Smitten with the madness of too much seeing,
You cry, for those whom the Lord loves, He disciplines.
No longer waiting to be born posthumously
Against your will: you ana kata from the fire.
Still... you are, most times, feeling in three dimensions.

God's face shines upon you. God's face shines upon you.
Wrested in obdurate stone, His seed is growing,
Watered from the infinite well. You remember
The rest of your life while living it. You awake:
"Is there anyone who dances through you?" He asks
("Through to the division of soul and spirit... there,
Strong within your whirlwind of deluding spirits...
There, through to the division of soul and spirit.")
He asks, "Is there anyone who dances through you?"
You awake: The rest of your life while living it,
You remember. Watered from the infinite well,
His seed is growing, wrested in obdurate stone.

Easter 2006

The Penwood Review and North Central Review published in their Spring 2011 issues.

Forward Poetry of Remus House will publish in the anthology A Symphony of Life: A Collection of Poetry, January 31, 2012.

Straightway Swept Away
To: my King

I came to You broken with fear and trembling
You stretched out Your hand and mastered my ascending
Plucked from the fire, chosen before the beginning
Resurrected by the finger of God, dancing
Done with spineless speculating, with pretending
Everything else in my life all foreshadowing
Found understanding in the shadow of Your wing
The mire Your incorruptible love transcending
In indelible ink, in Your own blood writing
To suffer death for friends, Son of God descending
The narrow path Your Word ever enlightening
Spongy mirror of my heart Your will reflecting
By You my soul walking, for Your return waiting

"Something so amazing, in a heart so dark and dim, when the walls fall down, and the light comes in" - Sara Groves, Something Changed

Poetry Rivals (of Forward Press) published in November 2010.

Haiku: Sword and Sacrifice

Sword and sacrifice:
made in the essence of God--
treat others as self.

There is no true good?
Good is a construct of will?
Ever take offense?

Love others as self:
no construct, no evolved good--
eternal essence.

Accept nothing less:
constructs do not obligate--
only love fulfills.

Goodness will always
withstand the fire of reason
and love, resonate.

Not even God willed
goodness into becoming
but IS that goodness.

The highest truth is
discovered, not created:
love your enemy.

Love is not love if
there is no demonstration--
Sword and Sacrifice.

Published in late 2009 in an anthology by Forward Press titled "My Word is My Voice".

Published by Melanie Eyth on her blog, The Sheltered Poet.

North Central Review published in their Spring 2011 issue.

***

Other than poetry:

At Coffee with the Euthyphro Dilemma (skit) published in September 2010 by Down in the Dirt.

Fun! :)

Richard Dawkins: Greatest no-show on earth?

2011-10-20T15:43:00.000-07:00

San Francisco Atheists interested to see Dawkins debate Craig

2011-10-16T23:47:00.000-07:00

When asked what they thought about the prospect of an October 25th debate in Oxford between Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor William Lane Craig, the San Francisco Atheists were of the same general opinion: they are interested.

An SF Atheists member, Owens Rodriguez, replied that “while I still think that debating Craig is mostly a waste of time based on what I've seen of his ‘arguments’ in the past, the more I think about it the more I think it'd be really interesting to watch.”

David Fitzgerald, the SF Atheists’ current representative, expressed that “Wm. Lane Craig is a bit notorious for being a more skilled debater than a skilled thinker.” David gave the example of Dr. Craig’s position on the slaughter of the Canaanites and continued, “Judging from Craig's debates with opponents like Richard Carrier, Craig seems far more interested in scoring points and propping up the party line than really honestly engaging in intellectual discussion. So I can understand why many think it would be a waste of time to debate with someone like Craig. But for me, if Dawkins decided to participate, then no matter how many rhetorical games Craig plays, it would still be worth watching just for the chance to hear Richard Dawkins!” Dr. Craig’s debate with Richard Carrier can be seen on YouTube here.

SF Atheists’ former representative, David Millett, offered “My personal opinion is that Dr. Craig seems to be grandstanding. A debate for the purposes of showboating seems counterproductive to me. What is Dr. Craig trying to achieve with such a debate? Will he prove the existence of gods?” David went on to explain why proving God’s existence is not
possible, providing examples of evidence and why they are not credible. Dr. Craig claims the existence of God cannot be proved or demonstrated with mathematical certainty, but only shown to be more probable than not.

Neither Dr. Craig nor Dr. Dawkins are seeking the October 25 debate arranged by Premier Christian Radio, Damaris Trust and Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. In an interview with William Crawley of UK's BBC Radio Ulster "Everyday Ethics" program, when asked “Does this bother you, that he [Dawkins] won’t debate you?” Dr. Craig replied, “Frankly, no. I think that the expectations on me, if such a debate came up, would be so high, that if he even just managed to survive, people would see this as a victory for him. So, I’m not plumping for this debate at all. This is not something that I’ve sought to do. This is something that other organizations and persons have tried to put together. I welcome it, but I’m not seeking it. I won’t be the least disappointed if this doesn’t come off.”

However—whereas Dr. Craig has accepted the invitation, Dr. Dawkins has refused four invitations sent to him from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and now Premier Radio. This refusal sparked accusations of cowardice in a letter from Oxford philosophy professor (and atheist) Dr. Daniel Came, urging Dr. Dawkins to reconsider debating. This in turn led to an embarrassing article in the UK Telegraph and this viral YouTube video.

Dr. Craig will show up to the October 25 debate in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford. If Dr. Dawkins does not, then Dr. Craig will give a critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion. There will be a table and chair set up for Dr. Dawkins to the last minute.

Richard Dawkins’ events page shows that he is free in October.

Sign the petition for Dawkins and Craig to debate. It's an old petition rejuvenated by the potential for an October 25th engagement.

Questions Jesus Asked

2011-10-07T22:28:00.000-07:00

In preparing for an upcoming apologetics workshop I came across some discussion of the questioning style of Jesus. I love how Jesus used questions to get people to think for themselves. I sent out a request on Facebook for a list of all the questions he asked, and Linwood Kemp delivered! Thankyou! He would like to give credit to godnix.wordpress.com, as he started with their lists. This is his compilation of the questions Jesus asked, reprinted with permission:

Questions Jesus Asked

(Quotations are from the NRSV, with emphasis added to highlight just the questions. Arranged in chronological order, based on the chronology at http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony.)

Luke 2:49: He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must *be in my Father’s house?” *Or, be about my Father’s interests?

John 1:38a When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?”

John 1:50 Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.”

John 2:4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.”

John 3:10 Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?”

John 3:12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

John 4:35 Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting.

Matthew 9:4: But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil thoughts in your hearts?”

Matthew 9:5: “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’?”

Mark 2:8-9: At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’?”

Luke 5:22-23: When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’?“

Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they?”

Mark 2:19: Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.”

Luke 5:34: Jesus said to them, ”You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?“

John 5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

John 5:44 How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?

John 5:46-47 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?

Matthew 12:3: He said to them, ”Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

Mark 2:25: And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?”

Luke 6:3-4: Jesus answered, ”Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry. He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?“

Matthew 12:5: Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless?

Mark 3:4: Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent.

Luke 6:9: Then Jesus said to them, ”I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?“

Matthew 12:11: He said to them, “Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out?”

Luke 6:32: If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

Luke 6:33: If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

Luke 6:34: If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Luke 6:39: He also told them a parable: ”Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?

Luke 6:41: Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?

Luke 6:42: Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Luke 6:46: Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?

Luke 7:24: When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind?

Luke 7:25: What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces.

Luke 7:26: What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

Luke 7:31: To what shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like?

Luke 7:44: Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, ”Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair.“

Matthew 12:26-27: If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? If I cast out demons by Bē·el´ze·bul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.

Mark 3:23: And he called to them, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?”

Matthew 12:29: Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered.

Matthew 12:34: You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 12:48: But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Mark 3:33-35: And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ”Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.“

Mark 4:13: And he said to them, ”Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?“

Mark 4:21: He said to them, ”Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand?“

Mark 4:30: He also said, ”With what can we compare the Kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it?“

Matthew 13:51: “Have you understood all this?” they answered, “Yes.”

Mark 4:40: He said to them, ”Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?“

Luke 8:25: He said to them, ”Where is your faith?“ They were afraid and amazed, and said to one another, ”Who then is this, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?“

Mark 5:9: Then Jesus asked him, ”What is your name?“ He replied, ”My name is Legion; for we are many.“

Luke 8:30: Jesus asked him, ”What is your name?“ He said, ”Legion“; for many demons had entered him.

Mark 5:30: Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, ”Who touched my clothes?“

Luke 8:45: Then Jesus asked, ”Who touched me?“ When all denied it, Peter said, ”Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.“

John 6:5-6 When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?” He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do.

Mark 6:38: And he said to them, ”How many loaves have you? Go and see.“ When they had found out, they said, ”Five, and two fish.“

Matthew 14:31: Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

John 6:61-62 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

John 6:67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.”

Matthew 15:3: He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

Matthew 15:16: Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding?”

Mark 7:18-19: He said to them, ”Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?“ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Matthew 15:34: Jesus asked them, “How many loaves have you?” They said, Seven, and a few small fish.“

Mark 8:5: He asked them, ”How many loaves do you have?“ They said, ”Seven.“

Mark 8:12: And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ”Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.“

Matthew 16:8-11: And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, ”You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pha´ri·sees and Sad´dū·cees!“

Mark 8:17-21: And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, ”Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?“ They said to him, ”Twelve.“ ”And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?“ And they said to him, ”Seven.“ Then he said to them, ”Do you not yet understand?“

Mark 8:23: He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, ”Can you see anything?“

Matthew 16:13: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caes·a·rē´a Phi·llip´pī, he asked his disciples, ”Who do people say that the Son of Man is?“

Mark 8:27: Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caes·a·rē´a Phi·llip´pī; and on the way he asked his disciples, ”Who do people say that I am?“

Luke 9:18: Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, ”Who do the crowds say that I am?“

Matthew 16:15: He said to them, ”But who do you say that I am?“

Mark 8:29: He asked them, ”But who do you say that I am?“ Peter answered him, ”You are the Messiah.“

Luke 9:20: He said to them, ”But who do you say that I am?“ Peter answered, ”The Messiah of God.“

Matthew 16:26: For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?

Mark 8:36-37: For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?

Luke 9:25: What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves?

Mark 9:12-13: He said to them, ”E·lī´jah is indeed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that E·lī´jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.“

Mark 9:16: He asked them, ”What are you arguing about with them?“

Matthew 17:17: Jesus answered, “You faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him here to me.”

Mark 9:19: He answered them, ”You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him to me.“

Mark 9:21: Jesus asked the father, ”How long has this been happening to him?“ And he said, ”From childhood.“

Matthew 17:25: He [Peter] said, “Yes, he does.” And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?“

Mark 9:33: Then they came to Ca·per´na·um; and when he was in the house he asked them, ”What were you arguing about on the way?“

Matthew 18:12: What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?

John 7:23 If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the sabbath?

John 8:10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

John 8:25 Jesus said to them, “Why do I speak to you at all?”

John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word.

John 8:46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

John 9:45 Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Luke 10:15: And you, Ca·per´na·um, will you be exalted to heaven? No you will be brought down to Hades.

Luke 10:26: He said to him, ”What is written in the law? What do you read there?

Luke 10:36: Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?

Luke 11:11: Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish?

Luke 11:12: Or if the child asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?

Luke 11:13: If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

Luke 11:18: If Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? —for you say that I cast out the demons by Bē·el´ze·bul.

Luke 11:19: Now if I cast out the demons by Bē·el´ze·bul, by whom do your exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.

Luke 11:40: You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

Luke 12:6: Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight.

Luke 12:14: But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?”

Luke 12:25: And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?

Luke 12:26: If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest?

Luke 12:42: And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time?”

Luke 12:56: You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

Luke 12:27: And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?

Luke 13:2: He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?”

Luke 13:4: Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Si·lō´am fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem?

Luke 13:15: but the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water?

Luke 13:16: And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?

Luke 13:18: He said therefore, ”What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I compare it?
Luke 13:20: And again he said, “To what should I compare the kingdom of God?

John 10:32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?”

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

Luke 14:3: And Jesus asked the lawyers and Pha´ri·sees, ”Is it lawful to cure people on the sabbath, or not?

Luke 14:5: Then he said to them, “If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?”

Luke 14:28: For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it?

Luke 14:31: Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand?

Luke 14:34: Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored?

Luke 16:11: If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?

Luke 16:12: And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own?

Luke 17:7: Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’?

Luke 17:8: Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you amy eat and drink’?

Luke 17:9: Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded?

John 11:9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble, because they see the light of this world.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, ”I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?“

John 11:34 He said, ”Where have you laid him?“ They said to him, “Lord, come and see.”

John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”

Luke 17:17: Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they?

Luke 17:18: Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?”

Luke 18:7: And will not God grand justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them?

Luke 18:8: I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?“

Mark 10:3: He answered them, ”What did Moses command you?“

Matthew 19:4: He answered, ”Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?“

Matthew 19:17: And he said to him, ”Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.“

Mark 10:17: Jesus said to him, ”Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.“

Matthew 20:21a: And he said to her, ”What do you want?“

Mark 10:36: And he said to them, ”What is it you want me to do for you?“

Matthew 20:22a: But Jesus answered, ”You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?“

Mark 10:38: But Jesus said to them, ”You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?“

Matthew 20:32: Jesus stood still and called them, saying, ”What do you want me to do for you?“

Mark 10:51: Then Jesus said to him, ”What do you want me to do for you?“ The blind man said to him, ”My teacher, let me see again.“

Matthew 26:10: But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, ”Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me.“

Mark 11:17: He was teaching and saying, ”Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.“

Matthew 21:16b: Jesus said to them, ”Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?“

Matthew 21:25a: Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?

Mark 11:29-30: Jesus said to them, ”I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me.“

Matthew 21:28-31a: What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?

Matthew 21:40: Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

Mark 12:9: What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Matthew 21:42: Jesus said to them, ”Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’?

Mark 12:10-11: Have you not read this scripture: ”The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes“?

Luke 20:17: But he looked at them and said, ”What then does this text mean: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?

Matthew 22:18: But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?”

Mark12:15b: But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ”Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.“

Matthew 22:20: Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?”

Mark 12:16: And they brought one. Then he said to them, ”Whose head is this, and whose title?“ They answered, ”The emperor’s.“

Luke 20:24: “Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?” They said, “The emperor’s.”

Mark 12:24: Jesus said to them, ”Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?“

Matthew 22:31-32: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob“? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.

Mark 12:26: And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how god said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

Matthew 22:42-45: ”What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?“ They said to him, ”The son of David.“ He said to them, ”How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ”Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet: ‘? If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?“

Luke 20:41: Then he said to them, “How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son?
Luke 20:44: David thus calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?”

Matthew 23:19: How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Matthew 23:33: You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?

John 12:27-28 Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—’Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.

Matthew 24:2: Then he asked them, ”You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.“

Mark 13:2: Then Jesus asked him, ”Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.“

Luke 22:27: For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

John 13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times.”

Luke 22:35: He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.”

John 14:2 In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

John 16:19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, ‘A little while, and ou will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’?

Matthew 26:40: Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, ”So, could you not stay awake with me one hour?“

Mark 14:37: He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, ”Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour?“

Matthew 26:45: Then he came to the disciples and said to them, ”Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.“

Mark 14:41: He came a third time and said to them, ”Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.“

Luke 22:48: But Jesus said to him, “Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?”

John 18:4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, ”Whom are you looking for?“

John 18:7 Again he asked them, ”Whom are you looking for?“

Matthew 26:53-54: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?

John 18:11 Jesus said to Peter, ”Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?“

Matthew 26:55: At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.”

Mark 14:48: Then Jesus said to them, ”Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit?“

John 18:21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.

John 18:34 Jesus answered, ”Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?“

Matthew 27:46: And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Ē´lī, Ē´lī, le·ma´ sa·bach´tha·nī?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mark 15:34: At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ”Ē´lō·ī, Ē´lō·ī, le·ma´ sa·bach´tha·nī?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

John 20:15 Jesus said to her, ”Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?“ Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, ”Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.“

Luke 24:17-19a: And he said to them, ”What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?“ They stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, whose name was Clē´o·pas, answered him, ”Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?“ He asked them, ”What things?“

Luke 24:26: Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?

Luke 24:38: He said to them, ”Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?“

Luke 24:41: While in their joy they were disbelieving and wondering, he said to them, ”Have you anything here to eat?“

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, ”Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.“

John 21:5 Jesus said to them, ”Children, you have no fish, have you?“ They answered him, ”No.“

John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ”Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?“ He said to him, ”Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.“ Jesus said to him, ”Feed my lambs.“

John 21:16 A second time he said to him, ”Simon son of John, do you love me?“ He said to him, ”Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.“ Jesus said to him, ”Tend my sheep.“

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, ”Simon son of John, do you love me?“ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ”Do you love me?“ And he said to him, ”Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.“ Jesus said to him, ”Feed my sheep.“

John 21:22 Jesus said to him, ”If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!“

Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ”Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?“

Peter Williams on how the Gospels get people, places and plants right

2011-09-24T19:17:00.000-07:00

A very lively lecture including statistical analysis of the people, place and plant names used in the Gospels and the undesigned coincidences surrounding the feeding of the 5,000. I like how Dr. Williams points out that the authors of the Gospels, rather than being either bumbling idiots or clever conspirators, more likely were just telling things the way they actually happened.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible by Tim McGrew

2011-09-23T20:58:00.000-07:00

[updated example 5 to refer to an added example, 17]

A few months back I heard an April 24, 2011 radio interview (also available here) on this topic, by fellow Christian Apologetics Alliance member Tim McGrew, and have been interested ever since. I really, really hope Tim writes a book of all these undesigned coincidences.

An undesigned coincidence happens when one part of the Bible is missing a detail that leaves us scratching our heads, and another part of the Bible (a part authored by someone else), or a text external to the Bible, without collusion, supplies that missing detail. It is a test for historical authenticity.

Here is one talk at First Baptist Church of Kenner, LA (New Orleans area) in January (also available here).

Here is his second most recent recorded interview, this time on Frank Turek's "Cross Examined" radio show. Here his most recent, again on Cross-Examined.

Examples from here:

#1: Matthew 26:67-68 Why ask him to tell them who slapped him? Luke 22:64 They blindfolded him.

#2: Mark 6:31 Why are many coming and going? John 6:4 The Passover pilgrimage.

#3: Matthew 8:14-16 Why in the evening? Mark 1:21 Sabbath over at evening (cannot bear burden).

#4: Luke 9:36 Why did they keep silent? Mark 9:9 Jesus told them to tell no one (most consistently disobeyed command, lol).

#5: John 6:5 Why pick Philip? Luke 9:10  The setting of the miracle is Bethsaida, Philip’s “hometown” (John 1:44). (And see #17.)

#6: Bauckham: Names in NT are independently, statistically shown to be in very good accord w/ the frequency w/ which Jews named their children these names in Palestine. Most common male name: Simon. Second most common: Some variant on Joshua/Jesus. In Alexandria, most common name: Sabbatheus—no such character in NT.

#7: John 21:15 Why ask “…more than these?” Matthew 26:33 “Though they all fall away…I will never fall away.” In John 21:16 Peter is done boasting and just says “Lord, you know that I love you.” Beautiful!

#8: Luke 23:1-4 Why Pilate find no guilt in Jesus? John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Also, John never mentions the charge against him, but Luke fills in the detail.

#9: Matthew 2:22 Why does Archelaus’s reign spook Joseph? Why Galilee? Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 17: Archelaus sends troops into the temple and kills 3,000 Jews…Passover cancelled. The Jews Joseph meets in Matthew 2 are fleeing this. Galilee under control of Herod Antipas.

From here:

#1, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

From here:

#4, #3, #5, #7, #8, #2, #9

#10: Matthew 14:1-2 Why is Herod speaking about this to his servants? Luke 8:3 Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager/steward. Herod knows that if he’s got questions about Jesus, talk to his Christian servants. Acts 13:1 Manaen had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch.

From here:

#11: Mark 14:57-58 Mark 15:29 People mock him for saying he would destroy the temple. He never says that in Mark. John 2:18-19 Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

#9

#12 Luke 3:14 Why active-duty soldiers in a time of peace? Josephus: Herod Antipas got in trouble with his wife’s father when he fooled around with his brother’s wife, so he had a border war on the southeastern flank of his territory. Jordan river runs southward.

#13 Luke 3:2 Two high priests? Josephus: Book 18, Chapter 2 of Antiquities … one high priest by right (ruling through his sons), one high priest by Roman appointment. The Jewish War Book 2 Chapter 12 Section 6 “both” Jonathan and Ananias.

#14  Luke’s census. Two problems: 1) No record Caesar Augustus taxed whole Roman empire. 2) Quirinius was governor in 6 a.d., not 6 b.c.. Answer: “all the world” is Judea (same idea in Acts 11:28…Greek word means “the region in interest”…there is no word “Roman” in the Greek). The taxation is a registration or enrollment, not an actual taxation. “This was made” means “set in motion”. Read this way: “This first tax was put in use a dozen years later.” Also possible Quirinius had two stints as a governor. (See also Cheney's comment here, section 10.)

#15 Luke 20:24-25 “Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” Look at Roman denarius. Not only does it have Tiberius Caesar’s face, but the inscription promotes worship of the previous Caesar. Jesus says “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render to God that which is God’s.” In other words, the previous Caesar is not God, and this coinage with a ‘graven image’ is not ‘of God’.

#16 John 5:2 Are the 5 porches a literary device? Archaeology says no—it’s real. Also, John says “Now, there IS…” which means he must be writing pre-75 A.D. (before the destruction).

Via email 9/23/11:

#17 "This one just occurred to me: Matthew 11:21 -- 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.' What mighty works in Bethsaida? Matthew gives us no clue; this is the only time he ever mentions Bethsaida. Nor can Mark help us here, nor John. But turn to Luke 9:10 -- On their return the apostles told him all that they had done. And he took them and withdrew apart to a town called Bethsaida.    ... and then comes the feeding of the 5000." (See #5.)

Tim mentions these books, most/all available at historicalapologetics.org:

John James Blunt's "Undesigned Coincidences"
William Paley's "Horae Paulinae" and “A view of the evidences of Christianity” (part 2)
Edmund Hatch Bennett's "The Four Gospels from a Lawyers' Standpoint
Nathaniel Lardner “Credibility of the Gospel history” (17 volumes—have at it!)

Post a comment here or discuss at the following forums:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=176514
http://iloveopinions.com/index.php/topic,4373.0.html
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=19845
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post985708.html#p985708
http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/22069

Apologetics Bloggers Alliance collaborate for the tenth anniversary of 9/11

2011-09-10T13:17:00.000-07:00

Apologetics Bloggers Alliance collaboration for the tenth anniversary of 9/11:

Faithful Thinkers: Atheism, Evil and Ultimate Justice

Hope's Reason: Where was God on 9/11?

The Point: Christianity and 9/11: Guilt by Association?

The Gospel According to Erik: Did God Allow the Attacks on 9/11 for a “Greater Good”?

J.W. Wartick: On September 11th, 2001, harmless things became fearful

Sarcastic Xtian: Do all roads (and flights) lead to God?

Reasons for God: The Two Ground Zeroes

Hieropraxis: Suffering and the Cross of Christ

Take Two: Remembering 9/11: A Young Californian’s Perspective

Apologetics Guy: America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil?

Apologetics 315: Resources on the Problem of Evil

The Real Issue: The Three Faces of Evil and a Christian Response

Neil Mammen: Where was God on 9-11?

Thinking Christian: 9/11: "Full Cognitive Meltdown" and Its Fallout

Cold and Lonely Truth: 9/11: Where is God during a catastropy?

In Defense of the Christian Faith: If God, Why Evil?

Wintery Knight: Ground Zero: Why truth matters for preventing another 9/11-style attack

Possible Worlds: The Need for Moral Choices and Consequences

Tilled Soil: The Problem of Evil: Who's problem is it? Is it a problem?

Bringing Back the Tao: 9/11 Memorial: Christianity Gives Authentic Hope In The Face Of Suffering

Patheos: Are we all moral monsters?

Josiah Concept Ministries: Did God Cause 9/11?

MandM: Divine Commands Post 9/11

In light of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, consider Luke 13:1-8. The message there is that when we see people going through tragedy, don't infer that God is punishing them--instead, examine your own heart in light of eternal tragedy, rather than in light of temporary tragedy. It is a worthy message. Thanks, Richard Weikart

The Moral Argument

2011-09-06T22:35:00.000-07:00

The Moral Argument

I don’t like the traditional version of this argument that argues from the moral law to a moral law-giver:

Traditional Argument from Morality

Premise 1: There is an objective moral law.
Premise 2: Every law implies a law-giver.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a moral law-giver.

The most important problem with this argument is, if God is not just making stuff up, then he is the goodness described by the moral law, which means he is “that to which the moral law corresponds” or “that which the moral law describes”. So, you could rephrase the argument this way:

Premise 1: There is “that which the moral law describes”.
Premise 2: Every law implies a law-giver.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a “that which the moral law describes”-giver.

In other words, this argument concludes that God is making himself up.

First, to prevent this argument from saying that God is just making stuff (or himself) up, we need to end up concluding that God commands the law in accordance with his good nature. When he commands, he does not give something new (new to us perhaps, but not new to him)—he gives something that corresponds to his eternally good nature.

Second, to prevent this argument from scaring away the nihilists and logicians, we need to start out referring to our hunger for true goodness, rather than simply assuming the moral law (or “that which the moral law describes”) exists in the first premise—we are supposed to be arguing “to” that conclusion, not assuming it in the premise.

Revised Argument from Morality

Premise 1: We all hunger for true goodness. Even nihilists show this when they refuse to allow constructs to obligate them.
Premise 2: We would not all have this hunger if there were no true goodness to satisfy our hunger.
Conclusion: Therefore, there exists a being to which true goodness corresponds. Only laws (God-given, or man-given) which correspond to this good being obligate us, as these are the only laws which satisfy our hunger for true goodness.

I also like this version of the argument much better because it does not tangle obligation up with fear, or the idea that we are merely obligated because “God said so”. He does not say so arbitrarily. His perfect, loving goodness is what ultimately satisfies us, and perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).

Why did the apostles go from being afraid to being bold?

2011-09-06T21:11:00.000-07:00

Compare John 20:19 and Acts 2:14, and answer this question: What explains the change in Jesus' disciples, from being full of fear, to being full of boldness?

Answer: The early post-resurrection appearances (Mark 16:9-18; John 20:1-21:23; Matthew 28:9-20; Luke 24:13-32, 34, 36-49; 1 Cor 15:5-7; Acts 1:3-8).

It is okay and good to question our beliefs.

2011-09-05T14:37:00.000-07:00

In "The Reason for God" Tim Keller points out “A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it.”

He sees that all doubts emerge from a starting point of alternate belief and encourages skeptics to “doubt their doubts” with as much force as they require justification for Christian belief.

Everyone (whether they consider themselves secular or religious) bases how they think people should behave on their own improvable fundamental faith-assumptions.

“…which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior? ...

"At the very heart of [our] view of reality [is] a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness [Maryann: ‘forgive them, for they know not what they do’]. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who [are] different from [us]. It mean[s] we [can] not act in violence and oppression toward [our] opponents,” (19-20).

“Believers and nonbelievers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing the other. This happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its strongest and most positive form. … I’ve tried to respectfully help skeptics look at their own faith-foundations while at the same time laying bare my own to their strongest criticisms,” (xxviii, xix).

Even though Thomas doubted, Jesus gave him the evidence he sought; even though the man in Mark 9:24 had doubts, Jesus “blesses him and heals his son.” “I invite you to seek the same kind of honesty and to grow in an understanding of the nature of your own doubts. The result will exceed anything you can imagine,” (xxiii).

Do you fear doubt, questioning, and ‘laying bare’ your beliefs to criticism?

Does your worldview promote humble, peace-loving behavior, and, if so, how?

For what the Bible has to say on examining your beliefs, check out Why is apologetics so important?

Problem: If God is good, why does he allow evil, suffering and hell?

2011-09-05T14:24:00.000-07:00

Solution:

1. Love is impossible if suffering and evil are impossible. God, like a good father, allows us to learn from our mistakes, rather than dysfunctionaly protecting us from them by a) preventing us from making them, or b) preventing us from experiencing the consequences. If all suffering were made impossible, we would never learn what it means to love and be loved unconditionally.

2. Similar to 1, heaven (ultimate love) is impossible if it is not a choice. "On the question of a loving God sending people to hell, Keller writes that God gives people free choice in the matter. 'In short, hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity' (p. 78). In other words, those who end up in hell chose that destination by rejecting God." (Penguin) Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if we had no choice but to be there.

3. If there is no God to which a real good corresponds, there is no “problem” of evil, suffering, or hell. That one senses a problem is a clue to there being a God. "Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, the author states: '… modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair-play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak - these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust' (p. 26)?" (Penguin).

Is there no truth, are all beliefs true, or is there only one truth?

2011-09-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

No truth: The idea that it is true that there is no truth is self-contradictory. If there is no truth, the statement “there is no truth” cannot be true, either.

All true: “To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true,” (4, Zacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods”). So, if you deem all beliefs true, then you deem true even the belief that “Not all beliefs are true.”

One truth: That is what we are left with, and what we ought to do our best to seek until we find it (or until it finds us).

Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels / McGrew

2011-09-05T12:11:00.000-07:00

I first heard about these from Professor Tim McGrew:

An undesigned coincidence happens when one part of the Bible is missing a detail that leaves us scratching our heads, and another part of the Bible (a part authored by someone else), or a text external to the Bible, without collusion, supplies that missing detail. It is a test for historical authenticity.

Here are a few examples:

(Note: numbers are being skipped on purpose because I am sticking to 'internal' coincidences amongst the Gospels.)

#1: Matthew 26:67-68 Why ask him to tell them who slapped him? Luke 22:64 They blindfolded him.

#2: Mark 6:31 Why are many coming and going? John 6:4 The Passover pilgrimage.

#3: Matthew 8:14-16 Why in the evening? Mark 1:21 Sabbath over at evening (cannot bear burden).

#4: Luke 9:36 Why did they keep silent? Mark 9:9 Jesus told them to tell no one (most consistently disobeyed command, lol).

#5: John 6:5 Why pick Philip? Luke 9:10 The setting of the miracle is Bethsaida, Philip’s “hometown” (John 1:44). (And see #17.)

#7: John 21:15 Why ask “…more than these?” Matthew 26:33 “Though they all fall away…I will never fall away.” In John 21:16 Peter is done boasting and just says “Lord, you know that I love you.” Beautiful!

#8: Luke 23:1-4 Why Pilate find no guilt in Jesus? John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Also, John never mentions the charge against him, but Luke fills in the detail.

#10: Matthew 14:1-2 Why is Herod speaking about this to his servants? Luke 8:3 Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager/steward. Herod knows that if he’s got questions about Jesus, talk to his Christian servants. Acts 13:1 Manaen had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch.

#11: Mark 14:57-58 Mark 15:29 People mock him for saying he would destroy the temple. He never says that in Mark. John 2:18-19 Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Via email 9/23/11:

#17 "This one just occurred to me: Matthew 11:21 -- 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.' What mighty works in Bethsaida? Matthew gives us no clue; this is the only time he ever mentions Bethsaida. Nor can Mark help us here, nor John. But turn to Luke 9:10 -- On their return the apostles told him all that they had done. And he took them and withdrew apart to a town called Bethsaida. ... and then comes the feeding of the 5000." (See #5.)

These are just examples of ‘internal’ undesigned coincidences in the Gospels.

For other types and examples, and more sources for further research, go here.

Three reasons we know the Gospels are telling the truth.

2011-09-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

1. The Gospels were written too early to be legend. Tim Keller discusses this.
2. Hostiles would’ve busted ‘em and told everyone the disciples were lying. (F.F. Bruce**)
3. No-one dies for lies. See how the disciples died.

Easy to memorize.

[Gleaned from the lecture "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, part of the curriculum for Biola's apologetics certification.]

** “It was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective” (F.F. Bruce).”

—	John Warwick Montgomery, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus, Pg 92

Apologetics Toolbox

2011-09-05T09:02:00.000-07:00

I am starting an apologetics toolbox for my sons and wanted to make it available to others. The cool thing about a toolbox is you can add to it--consider this a starter kit.

Many of these links will be revised, and many will be added.

Why is apologetics so important?

Is there no truth, are all beliefs true, or is there only one truth?

It is okay and good to question our beliefs.

WLC makes plain the Ontological Argument

Facebook poll: What grounds objective moral truth?

The Moral Argument

Problem: If God is good, why does he allow evil, suffering and hell?

Glimpse of Eternity (something from Don Richardson showing God did not evolve w/ kings)

Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible by Tim McGrew

Slimmed down list of undesigned coincidences internal between the Gospels.

Who wrote the Gospels? by Tim McGrew

Why did the disciples go from being afraid to being bold?

Peter Williams on how the Gospels get people, places and plants right

Three reasons we know the Gospels are telling the truth.

Chart comparing NT manuscripts to ancient documents

A "Twelve Facts" resurrection logic puzzle

WLC's case for the resurrection

Evidence for Easter

Peter Stoner's probabilities of Jesus fulfilling 8 prophecies over which He had no human control

Sir Robert Anderson's calculations linking Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy and Jesus' crucifixion

Blog Discussion and Sermon Ideas for Tim Keller's "The Reason for God"

The Bible as a Narrative

"Christian Apologetics" (Groothuis) Read Along with Apologetics 315

Biola Certificate in Apologetics

(more to come)

Apologetics Toolbox folder covers :)

"Christian Apologetics" (Groothuis) Read Along with Apologetics 315

2011-09-01T21:26:00.000-07:00

more info

I currently just finished chapter ten on the ontological argument, but I am definitely joining this read-along and encourage all to do the same. Starts September 9. :)

Biola Certificate in Apologetics

2011-08-31T16:14:00.000-07:00

I just got my Biola Certificate in Apologetics--go here to get yours. Mention "Apologetics 315" to get a discount :)

How the Gospel changes our apologetic / Tim Keller

2011-08-14T13:04:00.001-07:00

How the Gospel Changes our Apologetic by Tim Keller from Vintage21 Church on Vimeo.

Why is apologetics so important?

2011-08-13T23:34:00.000-07:00

Caravaggio

All the polls in the past few years show a rapid increase in those who have left their religion, and a rapid decrease in church attendance. Robert Putnam and David Campbell presented research showing "young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago)" (American Grace). This is gleaned from a November 2010 Christianity Today article entitled “The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church” wherein Drew Dyck talks about the results of his interviews with those who leave the church. He writes:

“Almost to a person, the leavers with whom I spoke recalled that, before leaving the faith, they were regularly shut down when they expressed doubts. Some were ridiculed in front of peers for asking "insolent questions." …

“At the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting, scholars from the University of Connecticut and Oregon State University reported that "the most frequently mentioned role of Christians in de-conversion was in amplifying existing doubt." De-converts reported "sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers."”

My dad got his questions answered at seminary and my mom got her questions answered by my dad when they were dating, but he could not answer my questions. I eventually became an atheist until God broke through to me starting September 22, 2005. This breaking through caused me to realize that there had to be answers to my questions that would strengthen the faith of those with doubts, and thus began my interest in apologetics. That isn’t to say that I became interested in studying great ways to apologize.

What is apologetics, anyway?

Apologetics is simply the rational defense of the Christian faith, or as William Lane Craig puts it, “that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith,” (Reasonable Faith, p. 15). It involves making the case for Christianity, like providing historical evidence for the resurrection, and answering objections to Christianity, like the problem of evil. It comes from the Greek word apologia, which means defense, as in a court of law.

Is it biblical?

R.C. Sproul writes that “the apologist echoes the work of the apostles who did not ask people to respond to Christ in blind faith. The apostolic testimony to Christ was buttressed both by rational argument and empirical evidence.” Ratio Christi’s website points out that “Paul is seen reasoning with those he encountered concerning the gospel: ‘So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God fearing Gentiles and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.’ (Acts 17:17) …Paul had done this with such consistency that it became his custom: ‘And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence.’ (Acts 17:2-3)” On page 15 of “On Guard” William Lane Craig notes that Paul “says all men can know that God exists (Rom. 1:20). Paul also appealed to eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection to show further that Christianity is true (1 Cor. 15:3-8).”

Rather than shutting someone down who asks a question or expresses a doubt about Christianity, Scripture would have us do apologetics. Glenn Miller notes that, “1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be ready to give every man an answer (apologia), a reason for the hope that is within us. 2 Timothy 2:25 [talks about] correcting those who are in opposition. Jude 3 [says to] earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Colossians 4:6 [says] you will know how you should answer each one. Phil. 1:16 [says] I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. Titus 1:9 [says] a leader is to be able ‘to exhort and convict those who contradict.’” William Lane Craig signed my copy of “On Guard” with 2 Corinthians 10:5: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Did Jesus ever do apologetics?

Christ himself used apologetics, as pointed out on Ratio Christi’s website, when “Jesus silenced the Sadducees in their attempts to discredit the resurrection by laying out a reasonable argument from the scriptures [Matthew 22:30-32]…reasoned with [the Pharisees] to the only possible conclusion; Jesus is both fully God and fully man [Matthew 22:41-46]…gave evidence of His divine nature to the doubting Pharisees and scribes by supporting the power of His words to forgive a paralytic by healing him with His words, ‘so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ (Luke 5:18-26).” Tim Keller points out in “The Reason for God” that Jesus responded to Thomas’ request for more evidence by supplying it (John 20:25-28), and to another doubting man he responds by blessing him and healing his son (Mark 9:24). Eric Chabot, in his article Do Christians Get Brownie Points For Being Ignorant? Is Anti-Intellectualism Biblical?, notes that when John the Baptist asked Jesus from prison, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3; Luke 7:20)—Jesus did not reply, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” He replied “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor” (Matt. 11:4-6; Luke 7:22). “Jesus’ works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures,” (Chabot).

Why don't we do apologetics?

People are leaving the church because we are disobeying Scripture when we shut people down who have questions. Some of us even misuse Scripture to do this. In The Problem of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church-Problems and Possible Solutions, Eric Chabot writes about some passages that can be misunderstood as speaking against loving God with all our mind. Acts 4:13 is an observation, not a prescription, and refers only to the fact that they had not received rabbinical training. Colossians 2:8 was dealing with proto-Gnostic philosophy, not philosophy in general, and the way to “see to it that no one takes you captive” is through apologetics. I Corinthians 1:19-21 is condemning prideful misuse of reason, not reason itself. Matthew 18:3-5 is talking about moral innocence, not intellectual ignorance (keep in mind Matthew 10:16, where Jesus talks about being as shrewd as serpents, though as innocent as doves).

Shouldn't we just have faith?

Those who are worried about the relationship between faith and reason need only note that intellectual knowledge that God exists does not equal putting faith in God. James 2:19 states that even the demons believe intellectually. But before we can put real faith in God, we must have reasoned evidence that he exists. So it is inappropriate to answer someone’s questions with, “Just have faith.” A better answer is “I don’t know, but let’s study this.” The Valley Girl Apologist, Sarah Ankenman, alludes in a recent article to the fact that we say things like, “Don’t focus on the why, focus on the Who.” In reality, we can and should focus on both, because if we don’t know why we are focusing on the Who, any old Who will do, which is idolatry. So focusing on the why helps serve the ultimate purpose of being in relationship with the true God. The effect on the brain of Calvin’s sensus divinitatus and witness of the Holy Spirit is scientifically indistinguishable from the effect on the brain of the experience of other religions (see Barbara Bradley Hagerty’s “Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality”). And so in order to provide a rational justification for Christianity to anyone other than ourselves, and to “doubt our doubts” as Tim Keller puts it in The Reason for God, we must provide reasons outside our own subjective experience.

Going back, to go forward...

In the same article mentioned above, Sarah Ankenman quotes from Nancy Pearcey’s “Saving Leonardo” which reads, “…if [we] aspire to the dynamic impact of the early church, [we] must do as it did, learning to address, critique, adapt, and overcome the dominant ideologies of our day….” (p. 14). Not only must we go back to the roots of the early church, we must focus on our children when they are still growing roots. In another article, this time on the website for the International Society of Women in Apologetics, Sarah writes, “When your kids have questions, they are going to come to you for answers. If you don’t have them, Satan is plenty willing to fill in the gaps. He will do it through public schools, pop culture…he will use whatever means necessary to lead your kids away from Christ. …you shouldn’t even wait for them to ask, you should be instilling the answers in them from when they are very young.” And how will we do that, if we do not have the answers instilled in ourselves?

J.M. Njoroge writes, “In his book Real Christianity, William Wilberforce exhorted parents to incorporate apologetics in the upbringing and training of their children. He wrote, ‘In an age in which infidelity abounds, do we observe [parents] carefully instructing their children in the principles of faith which they profess? Or do they furnish their children with arguments for the defense of that faith? ... When religion is handed down among us by heredity succession, it is not surprising to find youth of sense and spirit beginning to question the truth of the system in which they were brought up. And it is not surprising to see them abandon a position which they are unable to defend.’”

Conclusion:

Here are three reasons apologetics is so important, adapted from Eric Chabot’s anti-intellectualism article mentioned above, J.M. Njoroge’s article just mentioned, and William Lane Craig’s On Guard and Reasonable Faith:

1. Pre-evangelism. Apologetics shapes worldviews and cultivates culture to be more receptive to the Gospel message, rather than dismissing it off-hand or attacking it as the New Atheists do. It is part of carrying out the Great Commission (Matt 28:19). “[Apologetics] is necessary for the witness of the church since it helps clear away the obstacles that can keep the non-believer from taking an honest look at his or her true spiritual condition” (J.M. Njoroge) or from considering the gospel “an intellectually viable option” (Craig, On Guard, 18). Apologetics doesn’t save people, just like evangelists don’t save people—but the Holy Spirit can and does use both. “Like a missionary called to reach some obscure people group, the Christian apologist is burdened to reach that minority of persons who will respond to rational argument and evidence,” (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 22).

2. Strengthening believers. Apologetics coaxes the body of Christ out of intellectual idolatry and closer to the true God. If you don’t know why you believe the Who, any old Who will do. It is the responsibility of church leadership to whet the intellectual appetites of those who are idling. Apologetics is used by the Holy Spirit to mold each member of the body of Christ into the image of God, who is a rational being. “…apologetics is necessary for the health of the church because it helps the believer to overcome intellectual obstacles in the course of the believer’s spiritual growth,” (J.M. Njoroge). William Lane Craig points out that knowing why and what you believe, “will make you more confident in sharing your faith with others [and] help you to keep the faith in times of doubt and struggle,” (On Guard, 19).

3. Worship. As mentioned above, focusing on the why helps serve the ultimate purpose of being in relationship with the true God. Apologetics enables us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:28-30).

Different methods in apologetics

2011-08-12T23:11:00.001-07:00

http://noblindfaith.com

Apologetics, rather than being the study of really great ways to apologize, is the rational defense of the Christian faith, and there are four main methods of doing apologetics: Classical, Historical, Presuppositional and Cumulative Case. I am just barely becoming familiar with these methods, so this post is subject to updates. By the way, thankyou so much to Eric Chabot for most of the links below.

A review of all four is here. A book on all four and a fifth (Reformed Apologetics) is here.

Classical Apologetics:
Chart here. A chart of Philosophical Apologetics is here. Classical apologetics, or natural theology, attempts to provide good reasons outside the Bible to believe God exists before expecting someone to consider good historical reasons to believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus (as recorded in the Bible) actually happened. This method does not consider historical reasons to be evidence 'of' God, rather it requires belief in God in order for the historical reasons to be accepted as evidence for the resurrection.

Historical Apologetics or Evidentialism:
Article here. Another good article here. Historical apologetics cuts to the chase and argues from the historical evidence that an act of God occurred in the resurrection. So, instead of first arguing that God exists so that one can then believe the resurrection miracle to be possible, this method is an argument for God's existence. It is limited only to historical evidence for the resurrection.

Presuppositional Apologetics, including Reformed:
Chart here. A presuppositionalist believes we all already know intuitively God exists (so the arguments from classical apologetics are inferior), but the unsaved suppress that knowledge. It is believed that "God is not the conclusion to an argument, but the one who makes argument possible" (paraphrase; source). The unsaved must first stop suppressing that knowledge before correctly interpreting the historical evidence of the resurrection. This is very similar to Reformed Apologetics (here).

Cumulative Case Apologetics:
Article here. Using "inference to the best explanation" or "abduction", this variety of apologetics takes all types of the evidence into consideration and compares competing worldviews to show that Christianity best accounts for the evidence: "the existence and nature of the cosmos, the reality of religious experience, the objectivity of morality, and other certain historical facts, such as the resurrection of Jesus" (source).

***

I am most comfortable with this last method, because I can see how there is historical evidence supporting the resurrection and therefore God's existence, but I also think that our hunger for true meaning (a clue to the existence of objective morality) should be the presupposed evidence we start with, for it is that hunger that Jesus satisfies when he demonstrates God's contra-conditional love in switching perspectives with us on the cross. Also, I think the historical method uses "inference to the best explanation" when it rules out competing naturalistic theories in favor of the resurrection being the best explanation of scholar-accepted historical facts. Finally, I think if you retain the arguments from classical apologetics along w/ what I've just covered, it makes for a good avalanche. :)

My first Wikipedia article: Graded absolutism

2011-07-21T19:03:00.000-07:00

Edit...
Graded absolutism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Philosophy
(Plato, Confucius, Avicenna)
Philosophers [show] Aestheticians · Epistemologists Ethicists · Logicians Metaphysicians Social and political philosophers
Traditions [show] Analytic · Continental Eastern · Islamic Platonic · Scholastic
Eras [show] Ancient · Medieval Modern · Contemporary
Literature [show] Aesthetics · Epistemology Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics Political philosophy
Branches [show] Aesthetics · Epistemology Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics Social philosophy Political philosophy
Lists [show] Index · Outline · Theories Glossary · Philosophy of religion · Philosophers

Portal
v · d · e

Graded absolutism is a theory of moral absolutism which resolves the objection to absolutism that in moral conflicts we are obligated to opposites. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but adds that a moral absolute, like "Do not kill," can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like "Do not lie". Graded absolutism, also called contextual absolutism or the greater good view, is an alternative to the third alternative view and the lesser evil view, both discussed below, regarding moral conflict resolution.

According to graded absolutism, in moral conflicts, the dilemma is not that we are obligated to opposites, because greater absolutes are not opposites of lesser absolutes, and evil is not the opposite of good but is instead the privation of good. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good. The real dilemma is that we cannot perform both conflicting absolutes at the same time. 'Which' absolutes are in conflict depends on the context, but which conflicting absolute is ‘greater’ does not depend on the context. That is why graded absolutism is also called 'contextual absolutism' but is not to be confused with situational ethics. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the 'greater good view', but is not to be confused with utilitarianism.

[hide]

[edit] The third alternative view

This is the view that there are never any real moral conflicts [1] and that there is always a third alternative. However, if there is no real dilemma, what is the need for a third alternative? And surely moral dilemmas exist which have no real third alternative. When asked by a potential murderer the location of a would-be victim, we can either consider it more important to save the potential victim's life—or we can consider it more important to tell the truth to the victim's would-be murderer—we cannot do both, and there is no third alternative between them.

[edit] The lesser evil view

The lesser evil view is the view that the only way out of a moral conflict is to violate one of the moral absolutes and choose the lesser evil. For example, if we disagree with Kant's thoughts on the categorical imperative and say that lying is a lesser evil than helping a would-be murderer, the lesser evil view would have us lie rather than help a would-be murderer. This violates the ought implies can principle and defeats itself in obligating evil.

[edit] The greater good view

Graded absolutism, or the greater good view, is the view that there are real moral conflicts between absolutes, but rather than requiring a third alternative (as in the case of the third alternative view above) or obligating evil (as in the case of the lesser evil view above), this view obligates the greater absolute, or greater good. For example, when one saves a life rather than telling the truth to a would-be murderer, one is committing the greater good of saving life, rather than violating the lesser good of telling the truth or committing the lesser (than aiding a murderer) evil of lying. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good.

[edit] Objections

It is often argued that graded absolutism (the greater good view) reduces to situational ethics. However, the situation is used to determine which absolutes are in conflict, not which absolute is greater or lesser.

Though graded absolutism is usually associated with Christian philosopher Norman Geisler [2], some [1] argue there is no Biblical basis for it. Norman Geisler responds in "Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective" [3] that the Bible has many examples of God approving rather than condemning instances when people acknowledged the higher over the lower, like when God blessed and gave families to the Hebrew midwives who “disobeyed government and lied to the king (Exodus 1:19) in order to save the male babies,” (p. 417). He points out that “Jesus spoke of ‘greater sin’ (John 19:11), ‘greater love’ (John 15:13), ‘greatest commandment’ (Matt 5:19), and ‘weightier matters’ of the law (Matt. 23:23),” (ibid, p. 424). He asserts killing in self defense (Exodus 22:2), capital punishment (Gen. 9:6), and in a just war against aggression (Gen. 14) were all greater goods (ibid, p. 418).

[edit] Works cited

[1] Ethics: Knowing Right from Wrong; by Stan Reeves.
[2] Any Absolutes? Absolutely!; by Norman Geisler.
[3] "Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective" by Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg; Baker Academic; 2nd edition (May 1, 1987); ISBN 0801038189.

[edit] Further reading

"Christian Ethics: Options and Issues" by Norman L. Geisler; Baker Academic; 2nd edition (1989); ISBN 9780801038324.

[edit] See also

[hide]v · d · eEthics

Philosophers	Plato · Aristotle ·Confucius ·Mencius ·Augustine of Hippo ·Thomas Aquinas ·Baruch Spinoza · David Hume · Immanuel Kant · Georg W. F. Hegel · Arthur Schopenhauer ·Jeremy Bentham ·John Stuart Mill ·Søren Kierkegaard ·Henry Sidgwick ·Friedrich Nietzsche ·G. E. Moore ·Karl Barth ·Paul Tillich ·Philippa Foot ·John Rawls ·Bernard Williams ·J. L. Mackie ·Alasdair MacIntyre · Peter Singer ·Derek Parfit ·Thomas Nagel ·more...

Theories	Consequentialism ·Deontology ·Virtue ethics ·Ethics of care

Concepts in ethics	Freedom ·Autonomy ·Conscience ·Good ·Evil ·Value ·Morality ·Care ·Justice ·Principles ·Virtue ·Happiness ·Norm ·Suffering or Pain ·Equality ·Trust ·Free will ·Consent ·Right ·Wrong ·Just War ·Axiology ·more...

Related articles	Applied ethics ·Normative ethics ·Meta-ethics ·Descriptive ethics ·Medical ethics ·Professional ethics

Portal · Category · Task Force · Stubs · Discussion

The Bibliographical Test for New Testament Historicity (guest post)

2011-07-18T18:01:00.000-07:00

The below was taken from Gospel 101 curriculum developed by Redeemer Church, Modesto. Click on the image to get it on its own page.

The bibliographical test seeks to determine the quantity and quality of documents, as well as how far removed they are from the time of the originals. The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.).

The age of the manuscripts is also excellent. Possibly the oldest manuscript is a scrap of papyrus (p52) containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, dating from AD 125-130, no more than 40 years after John’s gospel was likely written. A non-Christian scholar, Carsten Peter Thiede even claims that he has dated a fragment of Matthew to about 60 AD. By comparing the ancient manuscripts we find that the vast majority of variations are minor elements of spelling, grammar, and style, or accidental omissions or duplications of words or phrases. Only about 400 (less than one page of an English translation) have any significant bearing on the meaning of a passage, and most are footnoted in Modern English translations. Overall, 97-99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages.

The Scripture quoted in the works of the early Christian writers (most 95-150 AD) are so extensive that virtually the entire New Testament can be reconstructed except for 11 verses, mostly from 2 and 3 John.

Critics of the accuracy of the Bible routinely claimed that it was in fact a series of fables and legends that had developed over hundreds of years because there were not enough copies of ancient manuscripts to alleviate their skepticism. Curiously, a simple shepherd boy dealt a death blow to their criticisms in 1947. He wandered into a cave in the Middle East and discovered large pottery jars filled with leather scrolls that had been wrapped in linen cloth. Amazingly, the ancient copies of the books of the Bible were in good condition despite their age and harsh climate because they had been well sealed for nearly 1900 years. What is now known as The Dead Sea Scrolls are made up of some 40,000 inscribed ancient fragments. From these fragments more than 500 books have been reconstructed, including some Old Testament books such as a complete copy of Isaiah.

Simply, if someone seeks to eliminate the trustworthiness of the New Testament then to be consistent they would also have to dismiss virtually the entire canon of western literature and pull everything from Homer to Plato and Aristotle off of bookstore shelves and out of classroom discussions.

[ The above was taken from Gospel 101 curriculum developed by Redeemer Church, Modesto. ]

Good without God?

2011-07-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

Under every billboard of the sort above, should be the following one (click to get it on its own page)...

Ichthus77

Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics" ch.2 favorite quotes

Recommended iPhone apps...

Wilkins and the EAAN -- a reply by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Philosophers' Carnival #138

Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew

Call for submissions to February 20's Philosophers' Carnival

Genuine faith is never blind

WLC makes plain the Ontological Argument

Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics" ch.1 favorite quote

Check out a few new tags...

Christian Carnival

problem of pain, suffering, evil

other apologetics from The Alliance

other ‘than’ apologetics from The Alliance

devotionals

What being is described by a without-God good?

Is-ought discussion with WLC

"God and Evolution" reading log from Facebook

Bible Narrative Project year-in-review :)

Goodbye, Hitch

Belated Pre-Thanksgiving Christian Carnival

apologetics

devotionals

narratives

Observations on the finale of Fringe

Answering Stephen Law's evil god argument

Christian Carnival

apologetics

devotionals

narratives

C.A.S.E. - Christian Apologetics Search Engine

Richard Dawkins: The Empty Chair

Answering Jerry Coyne and Jason Thibodeau on the Euthyphro Dilemma

ISWA-U free on-line apologetics curriculum for women coming October 28

Confident Christianity Conference in the Dallas/Fort Worth area

Picked Up Poetry (etc.)

Richard Dawkins: Greatest no-show on earth?

San Francisco Atheists interested to see Dawkins debate Craig

Questions Jesus Asked

Peter Williams on how the Gospels get people, places and plants right

Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible by Tim McGrew

Apologetics Bloggers Alliance collaborate for the tenth anniversary of 9/11

The Moral Argument

Why did the apostles go from being afraid to being bold?

It is okay and good to question our beliefs.

Problem: If God is good, why does he allow evil, suffering and hell?

Is there no truth, are all beliefs true, or is there only one truth?

Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels / McGrew

Three reasons we know the Gospels are telling the truth.

Apologetics Toolbox

"Christian Apologetics" (Groothuis) Read Along with Apologetics 315

Biola Certificate in Apologetics

How the Gospel changes our apologetic / Tim Keller

Why is apologetics so important?

Different methods in apologetics

My first Wikipedia article: Graded absolutism

Edit...Graded absolutism

Contents

[edit] The third alternative view

[edit] The lesser evil view

[edit] The greater good view

[edit] Objections

[edit] Works cited

[edit] Further reading

[edit] See also

The Bibliographical Test for New Testament Historicity (guest post)

Good without God?

Edit...
Graded absolutism