How to destroy Christianity

Christianity is a worldview that has been in existence for around 2000 years.  During those years many have attempted to discredit the Christian message.  The attempt to discredit Christianity began early, but how does one destroy Christianity?

The earliest attempt to destroy the Christian message came from the Jewish community.  Upon discovery of the empty tomb the Jewish leaders spread the story that the followers of Jesus stole the body.  This attempt to destroy the early Christian message failed, for many claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus.

The next attempt to destroy Christianity was wrought by the Roman Empire through persecution.  According to the Roman method, all you need to do is simply murder and suppress all Christians. Persecution of Christians by torture and killing also failed to stop the movement.  As early Church Father, Tertullian, once said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

Many years passed until the Age of Enlightenment.  At this time and prior, people were starting to question long held beliefs of God and the Christian worldview.  Science and reason was pushed to the forefront as to how one acquires knowledge and answers to life's big questions.

Some in the scientific realm came to believe that it was the holder of all knowledge that could known.  Theories started to develop and still do today to try and explain away the existence of God. Science was seen by many as pitting itself against the Christian worldview, primarily because the supernatural realm can't be investigated by way of scientific testing.  Therefore, on this view, the supernatural must not exist, nor miracles which operate outside of natural explanations.  The route of the naturalist was simply to destroy God, and then Christianity and all other religions would fall.  However, this approach failed to destroy Christianity.

Also, during the "Enlightenment" alternative theories developed to explain away the empty tomb.  The disciples belief they had encountered Jesus after his death is part of historical bedrock belief  by most scholars whether they are Christian or not .  "Not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition." [1] Some of the counter theories to explain away the empty tomb include: the Swoon Theory, Hallucination Theory, Twin Theory, Myth Theory, Spirit Body Theory, and others failed to explain with more explanatory power than the bodily resurrected Jesus.

The Apostle Paul has provided the best method for the destruction of the Christian worldview by saying, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1 Corinthians 15:13-19)."  


Paul is absolutely correct when trying to destroy Christianity.  Science can never come close to destroying the Christian worldview, for science is limited to the natural answers.  If Christianity is ever to be destroyed it will be by debunking the empty tomb message of early believers.  Some will say, people will always be willing to believe a lie, and most would agree with that, but the early followers of Jesus actually believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, and therefore, were willing to die for what they thought was true as opposed to a lie.  


To destroy Christianity, the resurrection story must be shown untrue and false.  Evidence must be given to show that the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not happen.  This means that arguments that tip the scales against the bodily resurrection must be weightier that what the Christian worldview proclaims.  It is one thing to believe in any thing, but can your belief be justified?  When someone can show that Jesus never rose from the dead, then Christianity is officially dead.   The burden lies directly at the hands of those who want to destroy Christianity, and even Jesus offers a challenge to those opposed to the Christian worldview, when speaking about the Church, by saying, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18)."  


If the bodily resurrection theory cannot be destroyed, then perhaps it is true.  Until the resurrection story is destroyed it offers the best explanation as to what happened to a dead Jesus three days after the fact.  The burden of proof falls directly in the lap of those who believe otherwise.


[1] Habermas, Gary as quoted in "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Michael Licona, p. 461, 2010

Die for a lie?

One of the arguments given for the Christian faith deals with the statement that individuals would not be willing to die for a lie.  In general this is true, but many recognize that this argument by itself is incomplete.  Besides, couldn't any religion make this claim as their own?  However, the not dying for a lie argument does have credibility when considering evidence that supports the statement.  In other words, dying for truth is a whole lot different than dying for what one thinks to be true.  There are three solid reasons that support the fact that disciples of Jesus did not die for a lie.

1.  Early source material

The writings of Jesus were produced early.  All of the New Testament documents were produced and circulated within the first century.  You simply don't find this early source material from other religious movement.  Not only were the stories told by his followers, but other secular writings exist to corroborate the stories of the followers.  Again, secular stories of Jesus appear early and often to verify that the followers of Jesus were not following invented stories.  Probably the best evidence of early source material comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15:3-7).  This early story is recognized by the majorly of scholars as being a very early story of the resurrection of Jesus.  Many would say that the story goes back to the resurrection event itself.  If this early story was true, then the disciples of Jesus did not die for any type of invented story or lie, but they died for something they knew to be true.  From the inception of Christianity, the early and numerous source material concerning Jesus only validates that the followers of Christ did not die for a lie.

2.  Evangelistic

When considering all religions around the world, none compares to the evangelistic outreach of Christianity.  Of all the religions, only Islam can match the fervor of Christianity in spreading its message.  However, the big difference in how the message is spread between Islam and Christianity is stark.  From the beginning Christianity was spread peacefully with a message of hope.  Jesus can never be accused of inciting the spread of his message by force.  Islam, on the other hand, was initially spread, in many cases, in a non-peaceful manner. 

Christianity's belief in the resurrected Jesus put people in the position of having a target on their back, but this did not deter their passion in spreading the news of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.  The initial spread of Christianity was done without the taking up of arms.  The early followers of Jesus were willing to spread the Christian message, knowing they might forfeit their lives, because they were convinced that it was truth they would be dying for.

3.  Eyewitness accounts

No evidence is better attested to than the evidential truth of the eyewitness accounts.  Many in the first century could have debunked the resurrection story by explaining away the empty tomb.  To date, no sufficient evidence has explained otherwise.  Within the first century, many individuals witnessed the resurrected Jesus.  These were not hallucinations or invented stories.  People do not die for such visions.  The early followers of Jesus had first hand knowledge that they encountered the bodily resurrected Jesus.  Because of this encounter, their lives were never the same.

The difference between the eyewitness claims of the resurrected Jesus and other religious claims is enormous.  All religions outside of Christianity are based on statements of their leaders without anyway to know if the statements are valid or not.  In other words, all religions except Christianity offer possible truth claims, but you can never know for sure if they are in fact true.  Christianity rests on a historic story as told by eyewitness of the the person of Jesus. 

No other religion deals with reality like Christianity.  The eyewitnesses were willing to die, because they knew not only Jesus, but had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.  This reality is what caused future believers to be willing to die.  The deaths of Christians throughout time has always been based upon reliable historical evidence as opposed to guessing if the religion is question deals with actual truth.

If I were an atheist

The whole of Christianity stands on the resurrection of Jesus.  In fact, Paul states, "We apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised" (1 Corinthians 15:15-16).  Paul says that without the resurrection of Jesus, they (the apostles) are all a bunch of liars.

One of the biggest evangelist of all times, the apostle Paul, gives atheism the blueprint for the destruction of Christianity.  If I were an atheist, I would not waste my time calling  Christianity false because I believe it to be a fairy tale, I would go right for the jugular - the resurrection.  If I were an atheist, I wouldn't waste my time on evolution as the best explanation, I would attempt to destroy the Jesus story.  If it can be shown that the bodily resurrection is untrue then Christianity is toast.  If I were an atheist I would use Paul's blueprint to blowup the Christian religion.

One problem exists for the atheist - the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits the evidence of truth.  Throughout the centuries various stories have been put forth to counter the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but all have come to naught.  If I were an honest and open-minded atheist, maybe I should reconsider the evidence, but where would that leave me?

Why Christianity?

   By the end of the first century it is estimated that the Church had a population of over 1 million individuals.  This all occurred within a 70 year time span.  Christianity spread rapidly and it continues to grow at a rapid rate.  In third world countries today, Christianity is spreading like wildfire.  What is the reason for the rapid spread of Christianity?

This very question was proposed to a variety of scholars and this is what they said.  Harvard professor of New Testament studies, Helmut Koester states, "One should not see the success of Christianity simply on the level of a great religious message; one has to see it also in the consistent and very well thought out establishment of institutions to serve the needs of the community." According to professor Koester, Christianity was a well thought out plan that addressed certain needs of the community.  Michael White, professor of Religious studies at the University of Texas has this to say about the spread of Christianity, "there really is no empire wide persecution of Christianity throughout the entire second century and into the first half of the third century. It was always sporadic; it was always local concerns. The first time the empire as a whole says "We have to eradicate Christianity," is not until the year 249, 50, the persecution of Decius, ... but by that time, the Christians are so numerous that they can't possibly be eradicated; they've already grown that much."  In other words, Christianity could have been snuffed out if a more organized Roman persecution had taken place.  Finally, Wayne Meeks of Yale says, "In the final analysis, I think we don't know."

Out of all the explanations offered, not one addresses the truth question.  While the spread of Christianity by no means proves that the Christian worldview is correct, it does show that it has never been defeated.  In other words, there is no concise argument to show that the Christian worldview to be false.  Perhaps, Christianity has stood 2000 years of attacks, precisely because it matches with the truth.  Any and all truth claims can be measured on their merits.  Truth, stands alone.

Ultimately, Christianity has to be evaluated on the claim that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.
If God exists, and Jesus was the Messiah of truth, then Christianity will never be stopped.  As the Jewish leader Gamaliel rightly said during the early stages of Christianity, " If what they (Christians) are planning is something of their own doing, it will fail. But if God is behind it, you cannot stop it anyway, unless you want to fight against God (Acts 5:38-39)."

• For the article on the question of why Christianity succeeded, click here.

Easter apologetics

The apostle Paul correctly defined the importance of the resurrection by saying,  ^"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Cor. 15:13-17)."  If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all who have claimed him to have risen are the most deceived people in the history of the world.

Paul goes on to say a few verses later that, "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)."  The evidence for the resurrection is not blind, but in fact, overwhelmingly supports that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.  It is this evidence that has compelled millions throughout history to take up the cause of Christ.

Paul understood the importance of apologetics.  Apologetics comes from the Greek, meaning to give a defense of.  In the case of Christianity, apologeitcs is to give a reasoned defense for the Christian worldview.  Not only can the Christian worldview be defended, but the Christian worldview should be spread throughout the entire world.  Easter and apologetics go hand in hand for the Christian man or woman.  If all Christians are ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20) of Christ then it is incumbent upon all Christians to be apologetically trained.  In fact, this is exactly the charge of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:15).  Defending and evangelizing must co-exist.  However, this symbiotic relation is often missing in today's Church.

Too many of God's people have dropped the ball when it comes to apologetics.  So many issues are present today, especially in the West, that need to be addressed by God's people.  When God's people are unable to bear witness to his truth, disastrous results will take place.  David Koresh and Jim Jones are just two examples of deception that has taken place under the guise of Christianity.    Paul warned the church of false teachers at Colasse and John, likewise, warned of false teachers in his three epistles.  Gnosticism presented an early challenge to the Christian worldview and it was met squarely with Christian apologetics.   Today, the  Jehovah's Witness and Mormonism present deceptive philosophies that have borrowed from the truthfulness of Christianity.  It is crucial for the entire Church, not just pastors and leaders, to be trained in how to defend God's message of truth.

If more individuals within the Church took apologetics seriously, it would benefit and strengthen the Body.  Apologetics allows the Christian to not only strengthen his/her relation with Christ, but provides a springboard to engage the culture that is constantly asking questions.  Apologetics gives confidence to God's people and opens doors to better share the hope Christians have in Jesus.

Paul understood full well the relationship of apologetics and the gospel message of Jesus.  Easter is not a celebration that should be observed on a yearly basis and then forgotten, but it should compel Christians to share the good news of Jesus resurrection whenever the opportunity presents itself.  Being apologetically trained allows the believer to share the good news with those where they are at.  Being relevant on current apologetic topics allows for more discussion between the Christian and non-Christian.  Paul perfectly illustrates this point in how he dealt with the Jewish people (Acts 17:2-4, 10-12) verses the secular Greek culture (Acts 17:16-34).  In both cases, Paul tailor's his message to address the group he is dealing with.  With the Jews he shares from scripture, but with the Greeks he quotes from known poets to make a point concerning Jesus and the resurrection.

The Easter story and apologetics have always existed side by side.  Apologetics supports the Christian worldview by defending it, and providing a foundation to evangelize a world that desperately needs to hear the good news of the Messiah.

Consider the evidence

It seems that every Easter an attack is made on the resurrection story.  A few years back the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown caused a stir.  After the DaVinci Code, the gospel of Judas was pushed to show the Jesus of history to be false.  Most recently, James Cameron, of Avatar fame, produced, The Jesus Family Tomb (2007), which called into question the empty tomb.  Each attempt to disprove the Jesus of the New Testament has fallen flat.  In fact, there is no credible evidence out there to disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

The New Testament is written in such a way to invite  questions.  The apostle Paul even challenged people of his day to examine the evidence (1 Cor. 15:6).  Christianity does not shy from testing, but in fact, encourages it (1 Thes. 5:21).  Concerning the resurrection, Paul states, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith (1 Cor. 15:14).  Paul understood, that a blind faith in Jesus simply would not suffice the attacks on the resurrection.

For 2000 years, various attacks on the resurrection have taken place.  Most of the attacks have occurred within the last few hundred years of Christianity.  No attack has disproved the resurrection story, because the attacks have never answered all the cumulative evidence for the resurrection.  What evidence for the resurrection exists?

1.  Prophesies exist about the birth, life, and the kind of death Jesus would experience.

2.  Jesus, himself, predicts his own resurrection (Matt. 26:61, Matt. 16:4).

3.  The known tomb was found empty three days later.

4.  Jesus appeared to many.

5.  Jesus first appeared to women.

6.  The changed lives of those who encountered the resurrected Jesus.

7.  Those skeptical of Jesus become his followers (John 7:3-5, Acts 8:3).

8.  The Church starts at the center of Judaism.
9.  The resurrection story was early (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

Many alternative stories to the resurrection of Jesus have been put forth over the years, but none has sufficiently explained away the resurrection story.  Why?  Like anything that is believed to be true, there needs to be sufficient explanatory evidence to back up the claim.  2000 years after the resurrection, only one story can fit the evidence, and that is Jesus bodily rose from the dead.  Paul accurately frames the importance of the resurrection story by saying, if Jesus did not rise, all who believe in him are pathetic followers of false belief (1 Cor. 15:19).  Paul and others believed the evidence and were not interested in deception.

The resurrection has stood the test of time for a reason.  Considering the evidence, there is no comprehensive set of explanations that fully answer the resurrection story outside of the New Testament documents.  The resurrection story of the New Testament shows the story fits the evidence in a comprehensive way in matching with the truth of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection.

Resurrection Part 1.m4a

• To see all five video segments click here.

What the stories say

One of the charges leveled toward the New Testament is the books can't be trusted to give an accurate representation of Jesus, being that they were written years after his life.  Often those antagonistic toward Christianity will say that additions occurred in time shaping the person of Jesus the world presently knows.  The big question is, "Do we have the correct story of Jesus?"

Before examining this question, it needs to be understood that the story of Christianity rests entirely upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  If Jesus never rose from the dead, then Christianity is a hoax (1 Cor. 15:13-19).  Is there any evidence that the story of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection was early and was not a later invention?

Before the gospels and the epistles existed, certain creeds and songs were in circulation that spoke of the person of Jesus.  These creeds and songs were early oral stories that had originated from Jewish converts to Christianity.  In other words, these stories predate the New Testament documents.  It is important to note that Christianity started in Jerusalem and was exclusively made up of Jews.  Why is this important?  There are many reasons why the story of Jesus we have today can be trusted, but probably no reason is better than the rich history and content of the Jewish community.

The Jews prided themselves upon memorization and the passing of oral tradition.  In fact, this was a fabric of their culture.  For those who were esteemed, like prophets and popular rabbis, the sayings of these individuals were preserved through the oral stories and subsequent writings.  Jesus certainly qualified as one who's words would have been memorized and recorded.

To understand the importance of memorization, one can look at the orthodox Jewish culture today.  One of my great friends (Brian Eckstein)  is a descendant of an orthodox Jew.  His grandfather, Stephen Eckstein came to the United States from Russia at the turn of the 20th century. [1]  In talking to my friend, he tells the importance of his grandfather's heritage in memorization.  In fact, Brian has told me that his grandfather had memorized the entire Psalms as a boy, as did the other boys that were taught by the local rabbi.  The point is,  the early creeds and songs of the New Testament can be trusted to give us first hand information concerning Jesus.  Additionally,  it is defiantly not far fetched to believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus accurately report the historical eyewitness sayings and events of his life.

Early creeds and songs are numerous within the New Testament.  Some of these include:Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-18; 1 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 2:8; John 1:1-18; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 1 John 4:2.  A common thread that ties each of these early sayings together is the death, resurrection, and Deity of Jesus.  Each of these passages can easily be translated back into Arabic, showing they are early stories of Jesus.  In other words, each creed or song predates all of the New Testament writings  which were written in Greek.

Perhaps one of the most agreed upon passages as being early is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.  Even critical scholars agree that this creed predates the New Testament and could go back to the resurrection of Jesus. [2]  In this short creedal statement, Paul tells us the early story of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus to specific individuals.  Why is this passage so important?  This passage was a very early story that validates the central message of Christianity.  If Jewish people were spreading false information in Jerusalem and within the Jewish world there should have been a tremendous outcry against the lie of this story, but no outcry to counter this early story was ever given.  This early story of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus surely would have been squashed, early on, if the message was a fabricated story.

The central theme of the early creeds and songs is that the Christian message was not a later invention.  The entire New Testament, by eyewitnesses of Jesus is buffered by the early creeds and songs.  What the early stories say is, Christianity is not an invention by Paul or any of the New Testament writers.  The early stories attest to actual events of the person of Jesus.  The early stories attest to the fact that Christianity is not a contrived religion.  By just taking the early stories of Jesus, we have all we need to piece together the reason for the birth, spread, and accuracy of the Christian message.

[1]  Eckstein, Stephen, From Sinai to Calvary - This is a great autobiography telling the story of Stephen's adventure in coming to America and the process of coming to know the Messiah.  If interested in purchasing this book, mail Stephen Eckstein Jr. at: Stephen D. Eckstein Jr. - 6808 6th Street, Lubbock, Texas, USA  79416 or e-mail: sdeckstein@juno.com or by phone: 1-800-771-7061 (Feel free to mention you received this information from Shelby)
[2]  One critical scholar, Jack Kent, who wrote, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, said of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, this "could be dated very close to the actual resurrection (p. 16-17)."

Get real

If Christianity is to be shown false it will occur when someone can show by the preponderance of the evidence that the empty tomb can be explained without a bodily resurrection.  Scholars are almost in universal agreement that Jesus was a historical figure, who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a known tomb, was reported missing from the tomb days later, and was reported to be seen by many.

What are the theories explaining this known information, and which theory has the best explanatory power?  I will consider some of the popular arguments and close with the theory that Jesus actually rose from the dead in bodily form.

1.  The Swoon Theory - The Swoon Theory has Jesus not dying on the cross, but resuscitating in the tomb. 

• This can't be a proper explanation as the Romans at the cross would have been held accountable if Jesus was not dead.  In fact, Roman law pronounced a death penalty for any soldier who does not make sure an individual dies on the cross.
•  Jesus legs were not broken showing the guards believed Jesus was already dead.
• Blood and water was reported to have flowed from Jesus body due to a spear thrust through his heart.  A spear through the heart = death.
• Jesus was buried in pounds of bandages and wrappings from head to toe.  It would have been impossible for him to breath and resuscitate.
• The disciples never would have followed a swooned Jesus.
• Jesus could never have overpowered the Roman guards.  Additionally, how does Jesus move the stone?
• There is no early story of a swooning Jesus.

2.  The Conspiracy Theory - The story of Jesus resurrection was a concoction of his disciples.

• Early Christians never believed the story to be an invention.  The Jewish culture was not one to believe in non-historical stories.
• It is hard to believe that fishermen could construct such an elaborate story.
• The Conspiracy Theory goes against the disciples character.
• Why would the disciples construct such a story knowing it would condemn them to hell and pronounce a death sentence upon them due to persecution?
• There is no way this lie could escape Jerusalem without being exposed by the Jewish people.
• The story of the bodily resurrection was early (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• How do you explain the empty tomb?

3.   The Hallucination Theory - The disciples merely hallucinated a resurrected Jesus.

• Hallucinations are not shared group experiences.
• Hallucinations are short (a few seconds) and never are prolonged, such as the disciples spending hours with Jesus.
• Hallucinations usually happen as a one time experience and never occur multiple times later.
• Early Jewish converts of Christianity would never have been convinced of a hallucinated Jesus.
• The Hallucination Theory does not match with the disciples character.
• Hallucinated persons can't be touched and they never eat (Luke 24:42-43; John 21:1-14).
• Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb.

4.  Grief Related Hallucination Theory - Hallucinations where individuals are so grieved they project
     the person that is being grieved for.  Some say Paul was so grieved at persecuting Jesus that he
     hallucinated in seeing Jesus.

• The same problems apply for the Hallucination Theory.
• It is hard to believe that Paul, who thought he was serving God by persecuting Christians, would ever feel sorry for what he was doing, causing him to suddenly project Jesus out of grief.

5.  The Myth Theory - Similar to the Conspiracy Theory, the Myth Theory has subsequent  writers inventing a resurrected Jesus.

• The gospels don't read as myth, but as historical documents.
• There is not enough time for myth to develop.
• Anyone creating a myth in the 1st century never would have used women as the first discoverers of the resurrected Jesus, knowing that the testimony of women in 1st century Palestine was invalid.
• The writings of the New Testament were early enough that anyone could have countered them if they were myth.
• Myth goes against the Jewish culture.
• Why create a myth that would carry with it a certain death sentence?

6.  The Stolen Body Theory - The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples.

• What motivation would cause the disciples to do this if they knew the resurrection story would bring certain persecution?
• The disciples were afraid after the death of Jesus.
• This is against the character of the disciples.
• How did the disciples get past the Roman guards?
• How did the Jewish disciples get away with this hoax in Jerusalem where Christianity was birthed?

7.  The Twin Theory - Jesus had a twin or someone who looked just like him who died on the cross.

• Wouldn't some have know it was an impostor who died on the cross?
• Wouldn't someone have known Jesus had a twin?
• How do you explain the empty tomb?

8.  The Alien Jesus Theory - This theory has Jesus as an alien who possessed advanced technology to make it appear that the resurrection took place.

• Ummmmm, really?

9.  The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Theory - Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

•  Prophesies exist to confirm the person of Jesus, even detailing the type of death he would receive (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53).
• The bodily resurrection explains the empty tomb.
• The bodily resurrection explains the encounters that numerous people had with Jesus.
• The bodily resurrection explains the times Jesus had physical contact after the resurrection (eating, being able to be touched).
• The resurrection was the earliest story (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• The resurrection story explains the changed lives of the disciples.  It is hard to believe that 1st century Jews who witnessed Jesus would be willing to die for a lie.
• In sum, the bodily resurrection of Jesus has the best explanatory power when all theories of the resurrection story are lined up.

• Much of the material derives from Kreeft and Tacelli's book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics.  To see more detailed information click here.

It appears

In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes this startling comment in the preface, "The problem is that of complex design."  Dawkins realizes that design is present and further states, "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.  If anyone does not agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."  Of course, Dawkins would never admit that the complexity of living organisms was designed by God, but what if the argument were developed further for not just the complexity of life, but for all the complex questions of the universe?

• It appears that there are numerous gaps within the fossil record linking a multitude of organisms.
• It appears that at times life did not evolve slowly over time as predicted by Darwin, but, in fact, life appears suddenly (i.e. Cambrian explosion).
• It appears the simple animal cell is incredibly complex, especially the component parts that allow the cell to operate properly.
• It appears that the parts of the cell exhibit irreducible complexity.  In other words, the parts had to all be in place at the same time for the cell to properly function.  It appears the cell parts were not added slowly over time.
• It appears that Darwinian evolution does not have enough time to evolve into the complexity we see today, if life exploded (Cambrian Period) some 600 million years ago.
• It appears mutations will not facilitate Darwin's evolutionary model, given that most mutations are degenerate and do not add new parts.
• It appears that DNA exhibits specified complexity and chance evolution does not suffice as an adequate answer.  The DNA information seems to cry out for an informer or God.
• It appears that the beginning of the universe by way of the Big Bang needs to have a banger or God.
• It appears that nothing pops into existence by chance, because for anything to begin there needs to be a causer or God (i.e. Kalam Cosmological Argument).
• It appears that the universe is fine-tuned for life and would need to have a tuner or God.  
• It appears that objective morals exist meaning an objective moral law giver or God exists.
• It appears that the conscious mind cries out for an ultimate mind or God.
• It appears that science is not able to answer all questions such as why we have 1st person awareness and the laws of logic.  In other words, science cannot  test why certain quantities exist in the universe.
• It appears the best explanation of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his death is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

It appears that much within the universe cries out for explanation as Dawkins so eloquently stated, the question is, what best explains apparent design and the multitude of questions presented?  In Dawkins world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it cannot be a duck.

An atheist response to the big questions of life

I have never posted anything like this before, but will do so today.  A friend of a friend who is an atheist has decided to answer three questions that I posed for him.  The three questions revolve around origins, the resurrection, and morality.  I wanted to post this in order to stir debate.  I encourage all who would like to respond to do so.  My friend's friend runs a website called "The Atheist Revolutionary" and obviously views reality differently from myself.  I will copy the response from Mike below.  If you choose to post please keep your comments on topic and address one another in a respectful manner.  Thanks Mike for answering my questions, and I'm sure I'll respond when time permits.

This article follows from a personal FaceBook post I made to a friend and discusses three specific questions concerning an Atheist view on how the universe was created, thoughts on the resurection and the question of morality sans a or The God.




Pose I These Questions Three: Question the first... and so on.

by Michael Tippets



Let me first state that I have never done this before (I’ve wanted to, and have actively been working toward it as evidenced by the page you find yourself viewing now). But I am not (yet) an atheist apologist if the two words can be used in conjunction. I have not ever taken the time to put down my views on atheism or more directly the particular questions you posed Shelby (Shelby Cade). I am just a normal guy who likes to read a little bit who tends to critically view things, and I like a challenge. I’m happy to participate in your blog if you see fit, and I can assure you that I am a civilized individual and as such I am capable of keeping an argument reasonable even when the topic itself defies reason. So I’ve written the following answers to your questions in my standard way of writing as opposed to just talking to you. Hopefully it makes for an entertaining read since the subject matter will most likely have you chomping at the bit. But read it through, no skimming ;)



Kevin, our mutual friend, mine of 25 years, probably knows I was raised in the church, but not even remotely to what extent. While most people were sleeping in on Sunday I was up before the sun, showered and dressed in my Sunday best to either walk or bus to church. EVERY Sunday. Mind you; I did not just show up for Sunday services, I participated in the church from my earliest memories: I sang in youth and regular choirs, I ministered to my peers and just like Jesus I ministered to the adults who listened with rapt attention, I carried the torch both figuratively and literally as an acolyte, I held the lifeblood of the church in my hands as a giver and taker of communion and as an usher, I have not only attended but have been a full ‘jumped in’ member of churches ranging in size from 30 people to as many as 1,000 for a candlelight mass. I have attended regularly: Baptist, southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and even Catholic services in my life. My name is privileged to be on the register in the 100 year cornerstone time capsule at Trinity United Methodist. I've attended outward bound and a dozen different Christian and similar youth retreats, and I’ve even represented my God at an international bell ringers’ festival. I helped start the Turnabout program, a Christian run program to help street people here in Denver when I was 12. Long gone now. By the time I was 16 I knew more about the bible, and the church, than most people will ever know. And through all of it I can say without question that religion does not hold a monopoly on morality.



"How did the Universe come to be?"



I hate this question because it is always used as a circular trap. But here goes… Bang. Big one so I’m told. But how did the bang happen? What was before? Most people get the idea that it must have been nothing, particularly as the bible never really addresses the issue at the time of creation. But I don’t believe that this is the scientific view because in fact; nothing, from the human perspective, is an absence of everything but it is also understood to be a lack of cohesion of otherwise recognizable parts of a future something. Imagine a pile of Legos before you have assembled them. To the scientific mind this says that yes, there was this vastness, not a void. Within this vastness existed the things necessary to create a universe but they didn’t actually realize that potential within that vastness, not a void, until they collided, collapsed, expanded, went bang. That is how the universe was created.



But now comes the trap, the infinite regress argument of; “well where did that stuff come from? “ And I will address that question thusly; we can argue this circularly back and forth all day when I throw back the requisite question, “where did God come from?” because he is subject to the infinite regress argument as well. But I’m not interested in playing that game so I’m going to keep it super simple and try to present a notion that doesn’t dismiss God but rather creates a plausible situation that does not REQUIRE God.



The creation story in Genesis as I remember is about God giving the earth form, and then he added day and night, followed up by plants and life on the earth. And somewhere in between the day, night, plant animal stuff, it is mentioned in passing that the heavens and waters are separated by the firmament on which said plants and animals would make their home. Depending on how you read the first two verses of Genesis, one might be lead to believe that the components for creation existed, at the very least, alongside God. Let me explain. Where some people read the beginning of the bible like this; Dear reader, God created the heavens and the earth and it was without form or void (after he created it) so then he went to work giving it such. But one could just as easily read the intro to the bible like this… Dear reader, God created the heavens and the earth. He took this stuff without form and meshed it all together and viola. Do you see the subtle difference?



Nobody can reasonably explain to me the existence of a God outside the laws of our universe except as a supernatural existence, not even Thomas with his five proofs. But my argument here does not ask you to believe anything more than the existence of the components necessary to create a universe as even the bible seemingly may suggest.



I’m going to answer your 3rd question next because I’m saving the important question of where morality is derived from for last.



"How do I explain the resurrection of Jesus and the spread of early Christianity?"



There are so many real reasons for a real Jesus figure and the cult that followed that it is hard to find a place to begin so I’m gonna pick a starting point and just try to make a quick hit on as many important notions as I can without turning this into a novel. Jesus is just a name, anyone could have it. So, a rose by any other name... And just as the name Jesus can be given to many individuals, so too can: the story of the virgin birth, the stars, the wise men, the stable, the life of teaching in the temple, the death, the resurrection, the empty tomb, the disciples, the battle of light vs dark, good vs evil, all of these had been told in as many as 30 different cultures for at least 3,000 years before Jesus is said to have existed. I’m not talking about just some vague references to a Solar Messiah (SUN of God) or 12 signs of the Zodiac (the 12 apostles). I’m talking: nearly every single aspect of the Jesus mythology existed pre Jesus. There’s almost nothing new under the SON. Sorry for the bad PUN. Just take any one of the previously motioned aspects and do research on the history of it, start with virgin birth (but that’s not important I’ve been told) Yet even the bible itself sets up the precedent for core belief of virgin or otherwise miraculous births (Isacc, John the Baptist, and Moses to name a few) as well as the resurrection of at least nine others including Elija and Lazarus before we ever get to it happening to Jesus.



So frankly the resurrection of Jesus is just old hat, been there done that as the kids used to say. It’s certainly nothing special in theory and given the ‘fact’ that it happens quite regularly in the religious world (over); it’s not real special in practice either. As Jesus hangs dying from the cross he cries out in such pain over having been forsaken and his dying breath causes the ground to shake, the veil of the temple to split in half, and the tombs to open unleashing the bodies of dead saints to roam the city streets and scare the people, not ghosts, raised bodies. "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,And came out of the graves after his resurrection , and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."



I highlighted the above two portions because every version of the bible seems to say basically the same thing; which in and of itself is something of a miracle. But if you read that passage again; where Matthew succeeds in failing to cause his interpreters to disagree, he masterfully succeeds in contradicting himself. Matthew very clearly states that the guards are watching this happen while Jesus is on the cross next to them after having just died, and at the same time calls Jesus resurrected? Should I refuse to argue this point because I’m told by the religious scholar that it doesn’t matter[1] while he evades the actual question? And that because Matthew doesn’t clarify, even though it is written inline, the events actually PROBABLY happened after every single one of the following events, even though it is written before them all? Evening falls, Joseph of Arimathaea goes to Pilate to ask for the body to prepare it, body is prepared and placed in the tomb, Joseph rolls the stone in place, the Pharisees ask Pilate to place a guard at the tomb, the Mary’s come to the tomb, earthquake again, guards die, angel shows the Mary’s that Jesus is missing, and finally on the road to tell the others the Mary’s run into a resurrected Jesus. A guy who two verses before is really very extremely and most clearly dead. You think that I’m wrong? Then just exactly whose body is Jesus resurrected in while his body is still hanging on the cross and yet to be subjected to all that was mentioned? Mel Gibson and another version of the Christian religion seem to think that Jesus spent the next three days in hell. Am I supposed to believe that too or instead? Well I can answer that one by reading the book too. No, it is not biblical, from what I can tell. Jesus’ own words contradict the notion of him going to hell when he clearly says to one of the others being crucified that he would be in heaven with Jesus on THAT day. For the record, Mathew does not tell that part of the story and leaves us to believe that both the thieves mocked him just as the people and the priests did.



I mention this simply to make one overall point. Gibson aside, just exactly who and what am I supposed to believe with this confused and rambling narrative? Why is it that the witnesses who authored the accounts don’t even agree with themselves let alone each other? Which bible author gets it right? I challenge Christians to read the gospels again for the first time with an eye toward the differences instead of the similarities. They hardly agree on much beyond the fact that the man was called Jesus. I’m only slightly exaggerating.



I’m not an anthropologist so I would miss what may seem to others as obvious language or ideas in explaining how something like Christianity spreads but I’ll try to lay it out in short so we can move on to the last, best question.



How big was the world in Jesus’ time? In a real sense it was just as big as it is now but not as many people, and, who knows how they lived without it, no Fox News Channel. In a very real other sense, for exactly the same reasons, it was tiny. Most people knew nothing of the outside world and never ventured beyond the borders of their own town. Many, if not most people could not read and relied on the word of trusted learned others such as religious or political figures for the bulk of their hands off learning. And don’t forget the influence of mom, she was raised with even less knowledge than child was and is already (you’ll hate this word) indoctrinated with the current religious fad, or view if I’m trying to be nice about it. I today have science, archeology, anthropology, and hundreds of personal perspectives as actual so called scientific evidence, but the Christian will be presented that evidence and still choose the supernatural explanation of life in many if not most instances. So my point is that while pervasive, the rise of Christianity and subsequent influence requires nothing more than mans’ own nature. We don’t need Gods help to spread ideas, good or bad.



"Where does the sense of moral obligation come from?"



And at last we arrive at the most important question. Not the question of life the universe and everything. That’s right, 42. Rather, last is the question of morality: can, would, could, should man be a moral creature without a God to show him how to do it? Let’s weigh the evidence and see what we get.



First, Kevin, I want you to know that I did not purposely avoid the question of morality, the fact is I too am guilty of having skimmed Shelby’s post, but in my defense; my skim is better than most people’s full on attention, I simply just didn’t catch it to address it. So to continue… I think the specific question posed contains extraneous language and should be rephrased to exclude the word obligation. I see no reason to insist that we are obliged to morality (unless there is fire and brimstone to face for failure to oblige morality) But since it is there, I will address it. I think it is much more accurate to say we are almost selfishly given to morality. In the case of so called morality questions: life, death, fair treatment of others, that sort of thing, it is without question in our best interest to behave in a manner towards others which is likely to induce similar treatment to ourselves which obviously helps to ensure our own individual survival.



It seems to me that the best place to start looking for biblically derived morality is the moral code of the bible itself, at least the most glaring example of it, The Ten Commandments.



I. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me. Not about morality.



II. Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image... Not about morality.



III. Thou Shalt Not Take The Lords Name In Vain. No moral issue there. Anyone see a pattern developing here (these are in order by the way)?



IV. Remember The Sabbath Day, Keep It Holy. Still all about God.



V. Honor Thy Mother & Thy Father. Ok, here we go half way in. Good idea here, but I didn’t need to be told this. We are born trusting those people anyway, and it follows naturally that one would honor, obey, believe, trust, those people until they give reason not to be treated thusly. I have always wondered if the argument is that, these people are infallible and should ALWAYS be trusted? Particularly since mommy and daddy are likely to be the first ones to tell me a fantastic tale about a bearded man who lives in the sky and who apparently really needs a loan (thank you Carlin) I’m just supposed to take it as read that it’s true?



VI. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Come on, this one is a ‘no-brainer’ and I could let it go as being easily accepted at our core, but I instead choose to examine just a bit further to bring the lack of any real morality home. Let’s restate this one for what it really means. Thou Shalt, in general, under most circumstances, involving people like yourself and of your own tribe and belief, when not decreed by me (God) or one of my speakers (do you really need me to point out examples?), Not Kill.



VII. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Fantastic, but is it a moral imperative? And whose morality is it? There are many cultures and religions where such things are not frowned on. In the bible ‘One Flesh’ has been used to describe the special relationship between man and wife, but it is also used by Paul to describe sex with a prostitute. Does the latter demean the former? Maybe? There are religions that allow you to make legal exceptions to this rule and further the rule is often historically applied more heavily to women and often just so men can use it as an excuse to sever the relationship in order to start fornicating with someone else.



VIII. Thou Shalt Not Steal. More good advice. I would even go so far as to call it a good moral code to live by. Just the notion of an Eye for an Eye tells us that this may be one to heed. But that is Hammurabi’s code, not Gods. Did we really need divine intervention to bring this point home?



IX. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor. I would argue here that while this is a great and moral approach to life; it’s been proven that often language like this meant literally the guy next door who is just like me. He is not from the other tribe; he is of my kind and therefore acceptable. It is perfectly fine and dandy in the bible and other religions to lie to anyone else. How moral indeed! This widely accepted fact of tribal superiority can unfortunately be applied to all the so called moral commandments.



X. Thou Shalt Not Covet... This is a weird one. There are a million reasons why this is good advice but as a commandment directing one toward morality it comes down as pretty Orwellian, something of a thought crime. An argument can be made that telling someone something is off limits, particularly a thought in their own head, can cause the individual to fixate on the forbidden to the point they are actually driven to partake in the taboo. That leaves me questioning the usefulness of pointing these things out as off limits. It seems almost as if God has purposely planted the seeds of our undoing just to sit back and see if we can navigate our way through the mines he’s left for us. That’s a game, rats in a maze for the master’s amusement and it just doesn’t fit with what the overall God of creation makes himself out to be. It is contrary to free will and reeks of man-ipulation and influence.



I could keep going but I’ve gone on long enough and all this typing is starting to catch up with me. I’ll just wrap this topic of morality up by leaving you with this idea. For every bible verse that describes an act of selflessness and morality there are two filled with hate and vitriol toward different minded, different looking, different sex peoples. Again I only exaggerate slightly.



I want to end by stating some points about atheism. Atheism is not synonymous with evil or tantamount to moral ambiguity. It is in fact very much the logical and natural answer to pretend good and false morality foisted upon us by ignorant predecessors and a religious establishment which tends to work more for its own survival than for that of its flock, all for questionable reasons of questionable origins. Atheists do not worship Gods of good or evil though because we deny God we are often directly associated with Satanists when in fact we laugh even louder at people who claim Satan as a God than we do at those who claim God. (Grow up Slayer) To the educated among us; Satan, the cartoon character in a red suit, is a late addition to the mythos and is clear evidence of a drive to enhance the God persona by giving our Super hero a Super villain to battle for over our souls. "And what about Stalin and Hitler?" A voice cries from the crowd as the house lights come on and the audience prepares to leave. "They were atheist." And so it would seem at least in the case of Stalin, Hitler’s religious convictions are arguable when he claimed up to the year of his death to be a good Catholic both in his words and the words of many of those who knew him best. But what of it? They are two of histories hundreds or thousands of world leaders many of which are personally responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths caused directly by their decree and their faith that God was on their side. No, religion holds no monopoly on morality.



[1]"And came out of the graves after his resurrection - The narrative of Matthew does not determine whether they came to life before Jesus rose, and remained in the tombs, or came to life after he died. The latter is probably the correct opinion. There is nothing said of the reason why they were raised. It is not improbable to suppose that it was, amid the other wonders attending the death of Jesus, to convince the Jews that he was the Messiah." –Albert Barnes



by Michael Tippets -Creator/Contributor

Unjustified belief

Skepticism/atheism often makes outlandish comparisons between the Christian belief of resurrection and known myths.  Many times the belief in the resurrection are likened to ridiculous concepts such as little green men and Santa Clause.  The problem that these individual have revolves around miracles.  The atheist denies the supernatural and discounts all miracles a priori.  Why would an individuals lump Christianity with myth and fairy tales?

Who knows the motivation for such strange comparisons.  Much of it deals with the skeptic having a naturalistic point of view.  Naturalism would rule out miracles and the resurrection is certainly one of the biggest reported miracles of all times.  However, another reason for not wanting to serious look at the possibility of the Christian message deals with lifestyle choices.  One of the big complaints against Christianity is the supposed lifestyle restrictions of its worldview.  Some try to discount the Christian message only because it contridicts their particular lifestyle.  But, can the Christian worldview be discounted by claiming the myth card or because a person simply does not like its teachings?  What can justify in a reasonable manner an individual's beliefs?

In order for a belief to be justified there needs to be sufficient evidence that points in the direction of the belief.  For example, when someone makes the charge that little green men stole the body of Jesus, this would represent a position that could not be justified by anyone, for we have no evidence for this or that little green men even exist.  Charges made against Christianity need to be substantiated.  The reason no one realistically believes in Santa Clause making trips around the world in a single night is because we have no evidence to support that belief.  As far as an individual discounting Christianity because it interferes with their lifestyle, this is nothing more than attacking a straw man.

When looking at the evidence for or against the resurrection, the entire body of evidence needs to be addressed.  What do we know from history concerning the Christian movement?  Who was Jesus and what did people believe about him?  What happened to his body after being hung on a cross?  When did reports of his resurrection surface?  All these questions and more are important in trying to construct the truthfulness or falsity of Christianity.  As Paul said, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith (1 Cor. 15:14)."  The whole of Christianity rests on the miraculous story of Jesus resurrection.

Justified belief looks at all the evidence to construct the most likely story of truth.  When examining the resurrection, the one justified belief that has stood the test of time is that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.  Many other beliefs have been put forth to explain the empty tomb (such as the New Testament as mythical documents or various hallucination theories), but all have come up short in one way or another of not corresponding with all the known evidence.  When individuals equate Christianity with little green men and the like they are only resting within the  easy chair of an unjustified belief.

• A video dealing with unjustified belief.

Taking the negative view revisited

The Problem

In a previous blog I engaged in dialogue with a friend who had a view in opposition to the posted subject. The subject dealt with the point that atheism/naturalism has no cumulative case argument for its worldview. I also was trying to make the point that in atheism you find no analytic argument that flows putting the pieces of what we can know to form a comprehensive case for the worldview of atheism or naturalism.

One of the problems as expressed by my friend dealt with what a worldview is. My friend adamantly disagreed with atheism being a worldview by saying, “calling atheism a worldview is what is compounding the problem.” I would like to make two points here, first, if atheism is not a worldview, then why was my friend trying to defend atheism? Secondly, my friend seems to contradict himself, while agreeing with the definition given concerning a worldview (Worldview is defined as, an intellectual perspective on the world or universe) and denying that atheism is an intellectual perspective. I, for one, would hate to take the position that my view of the world is not an intellectual position! Clearly my friend sees his view of atheism/naturalism as being a worldview or else he would have no way to defend his belief in them.

Another point of contention revolved around my friend’s belief that naturalism is vastly different from atheism. When pressed he said, “Atheism is not a worldview. Naturalism is a worldview. Atheism is but one part of a worldview. For example, an atheist could be a Buddhist or he could be a naturalist. Atheism is but one feature of several worldviews. Thus, it is not a worldview in itself.” Let me define both atheism and naturalism. Atheism is defined as, “the doctrine or belief that there is no god.” Naturalism is, “ Everything is a collection of entities of the sort the sciences are about, and all truth is determined ultimately by the truths about these basic scientific entities.” [1] The definition given of naturalism by atheist Philosopher John Post, stresses the point of the universe by way of a physicalist view. In other words, there simply is no such thing as the supernatural. If supernaturalism cannot exist, then the view of naturalism falls right in the clutches of atheism. My friend did make a good point that not all atheists are naturalist (i.e. Buddhism), but both atheism and naturalism are playing on the same team. If one is a naturalist, he is by definition an atheist.

Another major problem dealt with my friend’s unwillingness to address the topic at hand. The topic dealt with the nature of naturalistic/atheistic argumentation. There is no collective way to argue for the atheistic worldview, because you are arguing for meaninglessness. In a way, atheism and naturalism is contradictory, because there is meaning in the universe (see the moral argument below). The only way that the atheist has to argue is to try and take the negative view.

In the original post, my friend suggests a mired of negative viewpoints and puts forth no concise argument for his view until the last post. When dealing with the cumulative case for God, one is not necessarily arguing for the Christian God (though that is the view I take). The cumulative argument is put forth to show that it is more likely to believe in God as opposed to atheism. Once it can be established that it is more likely to believe in God, one proceeds to the next question, “Which God?” My friend, however, in trying to argue against the cumulative case constantly brought up topics unrelated to the topic at hand (i.e. Trinitarian doctrine, council of Nicaea, aliens raising Jesus). Credit should be given for his willingness to offer counter explanations, but the point of my post was proven in that he offered no positive case either for the non-existence of God or contra the resurrection of Jesus.

The Arguments Against God’s Existence

My friend finally made four arguments against the existence of God in the form of syllogisms. A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning where one uses logic to try and argue a point. I have no formal training in syllogism, but know that the conclusion needs to be supported by the premises. If one of the premises fails, the whole argument fails.

Before dissecting my friend’s four syllogisms, I would like to point something out. If my friend is making a philosophical argument from a naturalistic viewpoint, he is clearly betraying his worldview. One of the tenants of naturalism revolves around testing. If everything contained, is within the physical world, and all truth is garnered by way of science, as atheistic naturalist John Post stated earlier, then why would my friend put forth arguments that can in no way be tested? I believe it is disingenuous to claim naturalism and at the same time make a philosophical non-naturalistic form of argumentation.

How about the first argument,

“1.There is a natural world. (various evidence could be shown)

2. This is agreed upon by Christians and atheists alike. (sort of a lowest common denominator)

3. To show there is anything beyond the natural world (the supernatural) it is incumbent on the person making the claim to provide reasons or evidence for that claim.

4. The Christian claims there is the supernatural.

5. Therefore it is incumbent on the Christian to provide reasons or evidence for the supernatural (from 3)

6. If the Christian does not provide sufficient reason for belief in the supernatural (where sufficient is defined as more likely than its negative) he is unjustified in believing in the supernatural. (from 3, 4, 5)

You have not provided sufficient reason to believe in the supernatural. Therefore, as it stands, naturalism is the more rational worldview to hold.”

Concerning my friend’s first argument, I fail to see any argument here that addresses the non-existence of God. This cannot even be labeled as an argument, because nothing is being proved in the above statement. Premise 3 has nothing to do with an argument against the existence of God; it is a mere statement of belief. I fail to see how this in anyway could count as an argument against God. Point 5 lays the burden on the Christian to show evidence for the supernatural, but my friend takes a naturalist position, so it is irrelevant what kind of evidence a Christian could give. He will deny a priori any evidence that points to supernaturalism, because of the naturalistic worldview that he holds. In fact, he shows his cards in his response to my blog by saying, “Extraordinary events usually require extraordinary explanations and thus while the God hypothesis is reasonable as an extraordinary explanation so are many others (note I’m not using the canard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that I think is clearly false as it is incredibly improbable and miraculous that I would exist and yet there is a very simple non-extraordinary reason for my being here.)” This seems to me to be a very Humeian type of logic. When we are talking of supernatural explanations, we are describing supernatural events. My friend changed one word to try and wiggle out of a Humeinan based argumentation that he chooses to hold on to. Concerning his last statement, I would only ask, “What is this very simple non-extraordinary reason for my being here?”

If he is offering an argument against the non-existence of God, he fails because he is not offering an argument at all and he fails to even consider the possibility of supernaturalism. If I have failed to show sufficient reason for the supernatural as my friend concluded, it is only because on a naturalist worldview NO reasons exist for supernaturalism. If he wanted to make a positive case for the non-existence of God, which was the original challenge, then it is incumbent upon my friend to show an argument to that mean.

The second argument given is as follows,

1.If the God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with one another.

2.Some attributes of God are not consistent with one another.

3.Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

This second argument is vague in that he fails to show what attributes are inconsistent with one another. Until he can form a logical argument to show inconsistencies in God’s attributes, the argument fails. Again, we have a negative argument. My friend shows no evidence or argumentation for the non-existence of God.

The third argument given is,

1.If God exists, then he is perfect.

2.If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3.A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

4.If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

5.Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 & 4)

6.Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

My friend’s third argument fails because it makes assumptions. Looking at premise 4, my friend assumes that the creator of the universe has needs and wants based upon premise 2 and 3. However, my friend fails to realize that God could be a personal being who desires to share his love with others, while wanting and needing nothing. I agree with my friend that God is in need of nothing (Acts 17:25), but he desires a relationship with his creation because of his love nature (1 John 4:8). So, God does not want or need anything, and therefore, created the universe desiring to have a relationship with those created in his image because of who he is (2 Peter 3:9). The third argument fails to account for all possibilities.

My friend’s fourth argument is given as follows,

1.If God exists he is omniscient.

2.To be omniscient one must know all facts.

3.But there are an infinite amount of facts.

4.An actual infinite is impossible.

5.Therefore, God cannot be omniscient. (from 2, 4, and 4)

6.If God is not omniscient he cannot exist. (from 1 and 5)

The last argument also fails because it is incoherent and contradictory. Right off the bat my friend contradicts himself with premise 3 and 4. He argues in circles by saying “there are an infinite number of facts” and then turning around by saying, “an actual infinite is impossible.” Which way is it my friend; you can’t have it both ways? The argument also fails in that it is vague. What exactly does he mean by omniscient? Does God having all knowledge entail that an infinity of facts exists? Couldn’t omniscience simply mean that God has all knowledge? The fourth argument fails to show that God does not exist. It fails in its vagueness and can be shown to be contradictory.

In conclusion to my original challenge, my friend states, “Thus, contrary to your claim, an atheist could easily make a cumulative case against the Christian God. Provide a couple of arguments like the ones above, show that various Christian arguments do not work, critique the Bible, and viola, you have a concise cumulative case for atheism, at least in regards to Christianity.” I think my friend made no cumulative case, because he failed to realize what a cumulative means, and he continued to argue by taking the negative view. In actuality a cumulative case builds from one block of truth to another to form a comprehensive case for God or the person of Jesus.

A Cumulative Case

A cumulative case cannot be fully addressed here. Philosopher Doug Geivett has offered a cumulative case argument based on eight steps. The purpose of the cumulative case is to accumulate arguments that specifically answer questions such that collectively they point to one likely outcome; in this case the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. I will only touch on some specific arguments that collectively point toward theism or resurrection. It must be understood that a Humeian view of reality will not allow for the consideration of supernaturalism. If one is to be truly open, then consideration of the evidence cannot disallow any of the possibilities. If it can be shown that the accumulative evidence points toward the supernatural, then it is dishonest for one to deny the supernatural simply because of personal preference alone.

Cumulative Evidence For God

Due to time constraints, I will not be able to thoroughly address each of the cumulative arguments in detail, but will include more detailed explanations (click on the arguments) for each argument presented.

The first argument to be considered is called the cosmological argument. It is clear to all in science that the universe is not eternal and that it had a beginning. One of the more popular cosmological arguments is the Kalam Cosmological argument. The argument concludes that God brought the universe into existence. In other words, it was caused to exist. Since the universe cannot logically cause itself, it must therefore need a cause. This causer must be by definition, all-powerful, eternal in nature, outside of space and time (immaterial), and have the will to create. The reason for a single God is due to a principle referred to as Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor says, “We should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the effect. [2] The main thrust of the argument is to show that it is more likely to believe the universe was caused to exist by God as opposed to starting by some blind unknown process. One of the arguments contra a chance beginning is that, from nothing, nothing comes.

A second argument in the cumulative case is referred to as the design argument. There are two phases of the design argument related to the fields of biology and astronomy. On the astronomical phase the cosmos points to the fact of fine-tuning. If the universe is fine-tuned, there must exist a tuner or God. On the biological phase it appears that DNA information points to an informer, or God. One of the points of the design argument is that humans were created with purpose. In other words, there is purpose built in to the universe, and specifically for humanity upon planet earth.

A third argument deals with meaning and morals. If the universe indicates purposeful creation, then the creation must have meaning. If humans have meaning it is only because of objective moral values. Everyone recognizes the existence of moral values. If moral values do don’t exist, then it doesn’t matter what we do (rape, torture of children, killing for sport). But, all recognize there seems to be an objective moral law. If a moral law exists, that means a moral lawgiver or God exists. One could deny morals, such as Philosopher Michael Ruse, by saying, “Morality is just an aid to survival…and any deeper meaning is illusory.” [3] On a naturalistic/atheistic view morals are the result of blind evolutionary forces, but this seems very unrealistic. Philosopher William Lane Craig comments that, “It is fantastically improbable that…creatures would emerge from the blind evolutionary process who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values. This seems to be an utterly incredible coincidence when you think about it. It is almost as though the moral realm knew that we were coming.” [4]

A fourth argument deals with an argument from miracles. If a miracle can be shown more fitting to a supernatural explanation, than to punting for some yet unknown naturalist explanation, then this represents another argument for God. This is even more powerful if the miracle matches a theistic explanation, or there exists purpose behind the miraculous event. If a miracle is outside the natural realm, the supernatural must exist.

A fifth evidence that makes up the cumulative case involves the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus did rise from the dead, and prophecies exist about this event (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22), then it is more probable to believe that God exists. The New Testament documents portray Jesus as predicting his death and resurrection (Mark 14:58, Matthew 12:40). If Jesus truly said this, it is more evidence to not only miracles, but also the existence of the Christian God.

There are other arguments that exist for the existence of God (Argument from consciousness, argument from truth, the argument from desire). Each argument supports one aspect of reality and builds a cumulative case for God’s existence. When considering the evidence for or against the existence of God, all points must be considered without prejudice. I hold that naturalism not only handicaps the search for truth, but handcuffs the worldview in a non-comprehensive way.

Cumulative Evidence For The Resurrection

Did Jesus rise supernaturally from the grave? Almost no one would deny that Jesus existed. Almost all scholars would agree that Jesus died, was buried, and his know tomb was found empty three days later. The question that needs to be addressed is, “How is this best explained?”

There are many factors to consider that point to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. All these factors need to be explained away if they do not match with reality. Cumulatively these factors tell us that it is more likely to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as opposed to any other story (swoon, hallucination, wrong grave, myth).

One of the cumulative evidences for the resurrection includes: resurrection in Jerusalem. To start a new religion from Judaism claiming that Jesus was the Messiah and God would have invited death to anyone making that claim. We see the resurrection story as being very early. Practically all scholars recognize the fact that the 1^st Corinthians 15 passage is an early creed concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The late Jack Kent, who did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus even, stated the 1^st Corinthians 15 passage “could be dated very close to the resurrection.” [5] If the early century Christians first promoted the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem knowing full well that Jesus did not rise, they were by far the most ignorant people to have ever lived on the face of the earth.

A second evidence pointing to resurrection involves the women as discoverers of the empty tomb. First century women had no credible testimony in a court of law. If the gospel accounts took place some 30 to 60 years after the resurrection story, you would expect they would have had more than enough time to think of a better explanation for the empty tomb. Yet, all four-gospel writers say that women were not only the fist to see the empty tomb, but were in fact the first to see Jesus. Certainly this embarrassing account would have been left out if the gospel stories were nothing more than myth.

A third evidence pointing to resurrection is the empty tomb. Where did the body go? Many individuals proclaimed that the known tomb was empty and that Jesus had come back to life. Coupled together, this is just one more piece of cumulative evidence that points to the resurrection of Jesus.

A fourth and final evidence revolves around the changed lives of individuals. If the people who claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus were fabricating a story, then why were they willing to die in masses for a known lie? It is more reasonable to believe that the encounter was real than the opposite. For those who say otherwise, it is more likely that it is they who are more willing to believe a lie. I can’t fathom how scores of individuals would be so stupid as to forfeit their lives for a known lie. My friend responded, “Maybe Christianity spread not because it was true but rather because it had some powerful radical ideas, images, and life transforming power relative to the culture at the time.” My only complaint with this point is that wishing a death sentence upon yourself is not really life transforming.

Other evidence also points to the resurrection of Jesus, such as secular/Jewish stories, conversion of those who were not followers of Jesus, and fulfilled prophesies. If one is to counter the resurrection, a comprehensive argument must be given, but at this moment, none exists.

Conclusion

Taking the negative view is the easy way out; all one has to do is be skeptical. The atheist/naturalist have no comprehensive cumulative case for their view. The negative view relies on statements such as, “What about this and that or It could be that…” The negative view often offers wild arguments that have nothing to do with proving their point. For example, my friend stated this concerning the resurrection, “Maybe Jesus was brought back from death by aliens.” These arguments don’t even deal with reality and yet this seems to be one of the negative ways on which atheism argues.

Like any argument, 100 % proof is not needed. All that is needed is to tip the scales in your favor. I argue that the Christian worldview is robust and comprehensively answers the big questions of life. On the other hand atheism and naturalism fail to give any cumulative evidence either for the non-existence of God or against the resurrection of Jesus. The worldview of atheism provides no robust argument, but only offers a negative view of meaninglessness. Naturalism itself is not open to all the evidence based upon its locking the doors to supernatural explanation. I am interested in truth, and until better evidence can be provided to the contrary of Christianity, I am staying put with the comprehensive Christian worldview of reality.

[1] John Post as quoted in J.P. Moreland’s, Kingdom Triangle, p. 40

[2] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, p. 487

[3] Michael Ruse as quoted in William Lane Craig’s, God Are You There?, p. 33

[4] Ibid, p. 35

• An article dealing with the clash between science and miracles/supernaturalism
• An article showing recent trends away from naturalism
• Article dealing with a cumulative case
• A second article dealing with a cummulative case