A false reality

Not long ago, a friend and I went to get a bite to eat.  My friends chose his food based on the picture of the meal that he saw at the restaurant.  When the order came out, my friend did a double-take as the meal didn’t exactly match with the meal photo.  He felt let down, and claimed the eating establishment had falsely advertised their product.

Similar to my friend’s experience is the advertising campaign by a local atheistic group in the Northwest.  Seven billboards have been purchased in Spokane, Washington to try and promote the message of atheism.  The ads feature smiling individuals and you get the sense the ads are not much different in their presentation then what you would see in church advertisement, minus the message.  The ads are nicely done and attractive, but it is evident the message of the ads do not conform to reality.

Two of ads are particularly interesting in their presentation and message.  The first ad features a cute elderly couple, while the second presents an ex-clergy man.

Both evidence and science are trumped in the first ad to make a statement that theism is a false idea.  It is interesting that the ad assumes theism is relegated false by evidence and science. Actually, there is a lot of evidence and science that supports theism and denies an atheistic worldview.  Surely, the FFRF realizes that evidence and science cuts both ways?  Besides, how can you honestly make a logical statement concerning science and evidence when the statement itself is not supported by either evidence or science!  Theism being equated to myth is nothing more than a red herring.

The second ad tries to play on the heart of individuals by featuring a man, who in the past was involved in the clergy.  Like the first ad, the man emphasizes that reason trumps theism.  Again, this argument fails, because it too, is nothing more than a red herring.  Anyone could just as well state that they are “Now preaching REASON not atheism.”  The statements are nothing more than unjustified beliefs.

Dialogue in regards to truth is not what is being promoted in the FFRF ad campaigns.  What is being sold is similar to my friends experience at the restaurant – false advertisement!

Antitheism and Krauss' Wager

Here is a great blog by Luke Nix of "Faithful Thinkers"

Antitheism and Krauss' Wager

Laurence Krauss- The Antitheist
Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):

"You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don't believe in him, you don't get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you're going to be judged for it. I don't want to be judged by god; that's the bottom line."

Earlier in the program Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense. As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level. I have a few thoughts that I would like to draw out of this.

To finish the blog click here.

The God particle and the trump card

The recent discovery of the "God Particle" has been a major breakthrough for science across the globe.  Not only has the scientific community promoted the particle, but the media has hyped it as well.  The "God Particle" is known properly as the Higgs boson particle and the quest for this particle was pursued for many years.  Why all the hype and what are the implications of this newly discovered particle?

One of the main reasons for the hype is the discovery of the most fundamental piece of the universe's beginning that has ever been discovered.  According to the scientific community, this particle is so important that it is responsible  for springing the universe into existence after the "Big Bang"  and giving mass to all particles of matter.  It is so named because it helps us to understand the process of the universe's earliest stage of development.

It is interesting that the Higgs bosen is refereed to as the "God Particle."  The "God Particle" reference is used because of the fact that God has traditionally been understood as the creator of the universe.  However, some might be willing to say that this discovery explains away the existence of God, hence the name - "God Particle."  But does the particle really render God useless?

A couple of points need to be made to counter those who would say that God is now officially dead.  First, The "God Particle" did not create the universe, for the universe was already in existence, according to the "Big Bang."  And, secondly,  for those who still want to hold on to the universe from nothing idea, a scientific explanation must be given to explain the origin of something from nothing.  This last explanation will never be given, because science is unable to address this point.

Why all the hype?  For many, there is always a quest to try and disprove the existence of God.  Scientism claims that science is the trump card of explaining away the universe, but is it?  Science ultimately fails, because as it has already been stated, explaining something from nothing is not something science can do.  Science assumes only the material universe and tests within that realm, therefore, the something from nothing question is relegated to philosophy.  Philosophy is the field that possesses the real trump card.  The "God Particle" may have made many delight in the possibility of destroying God, but in the end, no evidence from a scientific perspective can accomplish this task.

Line em' up

In taking a few months off in blogging, I was somewhat surprised at a couple of atheist comments that I received.  One of the comments made the point that my apologetics were no different than rehashed Josh McDowell arguments.  Evidently, this person does not think highly of McDowell.  The other comment referred to Master's in Christian Apologetics as a mail-in degree. I wish he could of helped me with this mail-in degree financially.  Both comments were deleted because I refuse to dialogue with ad hominem attacks.  Name calling is easy, but it proves absolutely nothing.

How do individuals get past the extreme differences they have?  Can differences be overcome?  As already mentioned, in order to have meaningful dialogue the first thing that cannot take place is name calling or ad hominem attacks.  Nothing does more to close the debate door than to rely on name calling.  This form of speech is arrogant and in no way opens individuals up to any ideas you may want to put forth.

One way to dialogue is to try and be as open-minded as possible.  Being open-minded is difficult, but not impossible.  Sure, all individuals come with preconceived ideas, but trying to see and understand your opponents point before dialoguing with them is a good way to start.  Practice empathetic consideration.  Take time to chew on others ideas that are different from your own.  Again, all individuals do not have a monopoly of being absolutely indifferent when it comes to worldview questions, but openness can be achieved to a high degree.

One of the worst arguments that I have heard from Christians is: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"  This settles nothing except closing conversation for someone's worldview that doesn't believe in God.  On the flip side, many atheist thinkers, like the ones I mentioned earlier, do a disservice to dialogue by simply name calling and assuming that their view does not need to be debated.  In other words, some atheist thinkers seem to think that have a cornered the market of truth.  Some even refer to themselves as "Free Thinkers" as if theism is relegated to the community of "Closed Thinkers."  Part of open-mindedness involves humility in knowing that you are coming from a position of certain held presuppositions.  Being unable to truly consider the others argument does nothing to help dialogue out.

Perhaps the best method of dialogue is to argue solely based on the specific points of difference you have with your opponent.  It is good and necessary to present your arguments for others to view.  Likewise, it is meaningful for discussion and ultimately to discover truth to argue your differences with your opponent based on specific points of difference that you have.  You may not solve the point at hand, but at least dialogue is free and you can line up your points to try and sway individuals toward truth.  Ultimately, truth is what any argument is based upon (or it should be).  When individuals argue, they are trying to sway individuals to what they believe is true.  In other words, when you line up your points, do they have more weight than your opponents?  Which argument(s) tip the scale of truth? 

Many of the arguments need to address specific points with cumulative evidence, because it is impossible to have 100% proof.  For example, the question of the existence of God cannot be proved with 100% certainty from either camp (Christian or Atheist).  A cumulative way of argumentation is helpful in providing evidence that can lead to an inference of best explanation. 

The best way to dialogue/argue is simply to line em' up.  Put your cards on the table and make your points.  When addressing your opponent, point out why he/she is incorrect.  Be willing to think outside of your own worldview box and follow the evidence wherever it goes.  This type of dialogue brings true enlightenment to the big questions of life.  By the way, if my arguments are just rehashed Josh McDowell comments, does that mean my arguments were wrong?  Actually, I take that comment not as an ad hominem attack, but as a complement.  Thank you my atheist friend!

Wishful thinking

In his article, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality, Sam Harris lays out his case against religious belief. [1]  It must be noted that two other articles tie in to this one, which I hope to address in coming blogs.  These articles are offered by the author of the text book, About Philosophy, by Robert Paul Wolff, who describes himself as an atheist.  What exactly is Harris arguing for in the article?

It is the belief of Harris that religions believe as they do without rational grounds to do so.  Harris states, "This constraint upon our thinking has always been a problem for religion.  Being stocked stem to stern with incredible ideas, the world's religions have had to find some way to circumvent reason." [2]  According to Harris, the circumventing of reason comes by way of faith.  Faith in Harris' mind is always a blind faith, but is this how faith is defined in the Bible?  Are individuals within the Christian religion expected to blindly follow whatever their tradition dictates?

What is faith?  Does faith mean that individuals are deluded as wishful thinkers?  Faith properly understood can be viewed as belief based upon reality.  What Harris seems to confuse is the difference between proper faith and belief.  Belief does not necessary have a justifier, whereas true faith in anything must have a justifying  anchor.  In this case, faith is not blind, but can be justified as right belief.  When Harris insinuates that faith in religion is blind, he is constructing a straw man argument, while at the same time asking his audience to blindly accept his statements.

In order for faith to be real and true, evidence must exist to support it.  Faith in the Christian God comes through numerous avenues to support the religion's beliefs.  The apostle John makes a statement of faith by saying, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim (1 John 1:1)."  John makes a faith statement based on evidence.

In his article, Harris gives a six point plan on how one can be deluded to belief in God:

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understanding that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of faith.
6. Return to 2.

What Harris presents in his six point argument is nothing more than a bloated straw man.  Concerning point one, couldn't one say that, "You must want to believe in the non-existence of God."  Would that statement make Harris' argument valid?  It seems that wanting to not believe in God would settle everything from the get go, in Harris' mind.  But, where is the evidence in that statement, that Harris is so fond of?

Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too.  He is willing to disparage religion without himself offering any evidential proof to refute it.  In reality, Harris is the one who bases his belief on the blind faith of atheism, because he is unwilling to show how religion, particularly the Christian religion does not match with the evidence.  Harris concludes the article by saying that religion has a "diminished contact with reality."[3]  Really, Mr. Harris, is that true, or simply wishful thinking on your part?

[1]  Harris, Sam, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality as  found in About Philosophy, p. 338
[2]  Ibid
[3]  Ibid

Knowledge - What counts?

A common argument that often surfaces against Theism is, "You wouldn't believe in little green men or Santa Clause, so why believe in God?"  What the skeptic is really saying is that belief in God is simple-minded or anti-intellectual, but is it? 

The skeptic when arguing in this direction is placing himself as a purveyor of higher knowledge than the Theist.  He is saying that belief in God can not be true and must therefore be a contrived fairy-tale.  In essence, the skeptic is arguing that he has greater knowledge in the non-existence of God than the Theist has in the existence of God.  But, what exactly is the knowledge the skeptic is putting forth?  What does knowledge entail?

Knowledge, according to one definition is, "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition."  Given this definition, there must be facts and truths present for anything to count as knowledge.  When the skeptic compares the Theist position to contrived stories, he is simply arguing from a position of arrogance and ignorance.  For when the skeptic claims that Theism is man-made, he is making absolutely no argument from the standpoint of knowledge.

Christian apologetics presents a conglomerate of arguments that culminate together in showing that the Christian God accounts for greater knowledge than the non-existence of the Christian God.  Some of the arguments that support the existence of the Christian God include:  The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe,  Specified Complexity,  the information message in DNA, human consciousness, the resurrection of Jesus, and many others.  The point is,  the Christian position is honest in assuming responsibility when it comes to arguing for its position, whereas, skepticism often makes statements with no intellectual support.  If the skeptic wants to bring down the Christian God, it must put forth knowledge-based arguments to show Christianity as a failed worldview. 

What counts as knowledge?  As the definition clearly states, knowledge involves facts (evidence) and truths.  Maybe the skeptic should assume more responsibility in the knowledge realm before making statements not based in knowledge!

The Emptiness of Humanism

The authors, Jacques Thiroux and Keith Kraseann of "Ethics: Theory and Practice" lay out their five point plan of how ethics should be viewed.  They approach ethics from the standpoint of humanism.  What is humanism?  Humanism is an ethical way of life, in which humanity decides what is best for all.  Some of the tenants of humanism include: the non-existence of God, ethics are derived from human experience and are situational, human dignity is the highest value, any sexual behavior between consenting adults should be tolerated, and reason and compassion should be the ultimate guide for all decisions made by the human race.  This generalization of humanism comes from the "Humanist Manifesto II."  [1] 

What are the 5 points of ethics according to Thiroux and Kraseann?  1.)  The Value of Life Principle - Humans should value life and accept death.  2.)  The Principle of Goodness or Righteousness - We should strive to do good and avoid the bad.  3.)  The Principle of Justice or Fairness - The distribution of of good and bad on a just and fair basis.  4.)  The Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty - Necessary for meaningful communication.  5.)  The Principle of Individual Freedom - Individuals must have the freedom to choose their own way of being moral within the framework of the first four basic principles.  Can the world operate ethically by using these five principles?

In order for the ethical system presented to be considered valid it must be a system that the world could live with and be structured in a way that is fair to all individuals.  Can the world live with such a system?  No.  The overarching problem from which the whole five point system collapses, is that it falls victim to relativism.

If humanist ethics is situational and these five points are the correct way to do ethics, then who gets to decide what conforms to the five points?  In other words, point one deals with the value of life, but what is to be done with the unborn?  Are they to be considered alive?  It seems that the system of Thiroux and Krasemann fails here, in that, the person or persons in power get to decide the criteria for what is alive and what is not.

If humanism is the way to go, who decides the basic human principles?  Why should anyone accept what Thiroux and Krasemann have to say?  Though the five principles seem to be good principles, the problem arises when trying to ground the principles.  There is simply nothing to ground the five principles in.  Why these five points and not my own system?  Any humanist system of ethics turns out to be nothing more than personal belief without the ability to justify why anyone should believe that way.

Humanism fails to produce any type of justifiable system.  In the end, those in power decide what  others should believe.  In essence, humanism can lead right down the road of totalitarianism.  Once humanism throws off the existence of God, it has no way to find any foundational grounding.  If God does not exist, then why should anyone pledge allegiance to humanistic ethics?  Besides, how does this humanistic system justify "The Principle of Goodness?"  What is good on the humanistic ethical system and who gets to decide?  The "Humanist Manifesto", and even Thiroux and Krasemann indicate a moral law exists, but they have no answer from where this law comes.  It seems the ethics of humanism is empty because it has absolutely nothing to ground the system in.  As Fyodo Dostoevsky once said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible."

[1]  Humanist Manifesto II

The Burden of Proof on Atheists concerning Evil, Suffering, and God

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?

Get off my ethics

We live in a very egotistical society today.  It seems the culture is falling apart wherever you look.  Most individuals will simply live for themselves.  None of us are living a perfect life, as Paul states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) ."  But,  greed and sexual promiscuity seem to be the order of the day.  The sad fact is, some in the Church behave no differently than the world. 

Embattled congressman, Anthony Weiner said yesterday, "I did nothing illegal."  According to Weiner and others, it is man who decides what is right or wrong.  Question:  If Weiner did nothing wrong, why would he have to explain himself?  In other words, if a moral law does not exist, Weiner was completely unjustified in trying to make amends for his actions.  But, it is obvious that Weiner crossed some type of moral line.  He did something that was not right ethically. 

On an atheistic worldview, moral responsibility has to be seen as an evolutionary byproduct of the brain.  In essence, on a Darwinian viewpoint, morality is nothing more than acting on one's predetermined evolutionary program.  If this is the fall back position of society, then society is in trouble, because responsibility is thrown out the window.  When Weiner said, "I did nothing illegal", he was only acting on his egotistical ethical system.  Get off my ethics really boils down to man's wish to become autonomous in his relationship with the moral law-giver - God.

How to be open-minded

In a past blog I garnered this comment, "If any of you have an open mind, please check out this."  The obvious conclusion is that Christians are not open-minded.  Why do some atheists and skeptics assume that belief in the Christian worldview is closed-minded?  It seems that many who call themselves open-minded do so from an almost arrogant position.  It's like one does not need evidence, but it is safe to assume that the open-minded person (atheist/skeptic) somehow has it all figured out.

What does it mean to be open-minded? I would like to suggest 3 points to consider for those who choose to call themselves open-minded.

1. The open-minded person is open to all evidence.
2. The open-minded person does his/her own study.
3. The open-minded person is only interested in truth.

Many times the Church is weak in its ability to be open-minded.  Too many Christians are not willing to do their own study and simply follow what they have been fed.  Atheism also falls victim to this same philosophy.  One of the charges of the New Atheists against those who hold religious beliefs is, "If you are born in India, you would be a Hindu; If you are born in the Middle-East you would be a Muslim; or If you are born into a Mormon family, you would be a Mormon."   Really?  Where is the evidence for truth in a statement like that! Richard Dawkins has made this claim before (and there is some validity to that type of argument), but isn't he offering nothing more than a red herring?  Those who make statements like this are in no way proving anything.

Ultimately, the truth question needs to be addressed.  Those with an open mind are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  To be open-minded literally means to be impartial or receptive to new arguments.  If truth is absolute and objective, then one can weigh the evidence in order to decipher the correct worldview.  A truly open-minded individual cares not what others say or the direction of truth.  He/She will follow truth no matter where it takes them.  Are you willing to be open-minded or is that just an arrogant catch phrase to cover for your lack of evidence?

The David Hume god

It seems that David Hume always comes up when a Christian and Atheist dialogue.  His name may not appear in the conversation, but his evidential proof seems to always be implied.  What is the evidential proof of Hume? 

Consider some of these quotes from Hume: "We should never repose the least confidence in human testimony," or "It is a miracle, that a dead man should come back to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.  There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event," or "We readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree."[1]   The evidential proof of Hume is the outright denial of miracles, even miracles attested to by witnesses should never be accepted.  On Hume's account, unless one has 100% proof, the event should be rejected.  How does Hume's testimony hold up by using his own criteria?

Hume fails the test, when his criteria is applied to himself, for no one can give 100% evidence, atheist or Christian.  If we are to reject human testimony, then what shall we do with Hume's testimony?  Philosopher William Lane Craig states, "For an argument to be a good one, it isn't required that we have 100% certainty." [2]  In a court of law, the evidence only needs to be tipped in your favor (51% or greater).  When looking at miracles, like the resurrection story of Jesus, 100 % proof is not what is needed.  All claims can be evaluated on their merits and an inference to best explanation is what should count. The late atheist turned theist, Anthony Flew, was honest when he said, "we should follow the evidence wherever it leads." [3]

So why do atheist seem to worship at the feet of David Hume?  It is my belief that some simply do not have any evidence to their view in the non-existence of God, but also, and I think most importantly, many who reject Jesus do so because they do not want to submit to who he is.  In other words, they want to live an unhindered life to indulge themselves in whatever they want.  Philosopher Thomas Nagel summarizes the view of many atheist nicely by saying, "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief.  It's that I hope there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God.  I don't want a universe like that." [4]  At least Nagel is honest.  When the atheist has his mind made up because of Humeian evidence, they no longer are atheist, but worship the David Hume god which turns out to look strangely like themselves!

[1]  Hume, David, Of Miracles, 1776

[2]  Craig, William Lane, God, Are You There?, p.7

[3]  Interview with Anthony Few at Biola University, 2004

[4]  Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, p. 130

Misconceptions

Many times the atheist community likes to refer to themselves as the free-thinkers.  Obviously, this implies, that those who hold to a theistic point of view are close minded.  This video illustrates that not all who promote an intellectually superior high ground, are in fact open-minded.  What you believe may not actually match with the truth.  It is important to dialogue without pre-conceived ideas.

The Son shines

I serve bi-vocationally as a pastor and school counselor.  Today was a special day for me at school.  Every other week I make character presentations to elementary school kids.  Today the students and I had the privilege of listening to Ward Foley.  Foley was born with club hands and feet.  He had no bicep muscles at birth either.  The actual name of his disease is arthrogryposis.

Foley told of the struggle he had growing up, getting picked on, and also how he had to adjust to his handicap.  One of the  impacting parts of his story relates to what his mother told him.  Early on, he had to attend school for handicap children.  Ward came home from school and asked his mother why all the kids are weird. He wondered why he had to go to that school.  His mother told him that he was there to help them.  His mother and father reinforced within him to always look to the positive blessings of life.

I started thinking of the impact Ward Foley had on the students. The teacher and I were both riveted to his message.  I also started thinking of how true his mother and father's life lessons were and how they shaped the kind of person he turned out to be.  God was able to use someone who could have been discarded before birth knowing the struggles he would have had.  Life had meaning in Ward Foley's world.  For the atheist, life has no ultimate meaning.  All the troubles of life on an atheist worldview, are just that, troubles.  On a Christian worldview there is hope.  While this is not an argument for theism, it makes a big difference on how one perceives life.  Today, I was the student, and learned how special life is when the Son is able to shine brightly.

• For more on Ward Foley 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.

Tim Keller - What is the New Atheist message?

A comparison with meaning

The following list will give general beliefs on various issues comparing Christianity (C) and Atheism (A).  This is not an argument for or against the existence of God.  It is also not an argument for Christianity.  The following is simply what each worldview perceives in general terms as the ultimate answer to some of the big questions of life.

The Beginning
A - No God created the universe.  The universe is either eternal or it created itself.  The universe was created by some unknown process.  The meaning: The universe is accidental and without purpose.
C - God created the universe.  God would represent a being that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.  God would be an all powerful being who has the power to will the existence of the universe.  God is personal.  The meaning:  The universe was created by God and has a purpose.

Man
A - Man evolved over time due to mutations and special selection (Darwinian evolution).  The meaning: Man is a biological accident with no ultimate purpose or meaning.
C - Man was uniquely created in the image of God (Imago Dei).  The meaning: Man has purpose and meaning in life.

Life development
A - Life developed slowly over time by way of Darwinian evolution.  The meaning: Survival of the fittest, natural selection and beneficial mutations are in charge of directing life.
C - Life may have evolved in a microevolutionary sense, but the different kinds of life appear suddenly by special creation of God.  Those who hold to a theistic evolutionary view would accept the slow process of Darwinian evolution. The meaning: Life development was purposeful and specially created by God.

Sin
A - There is no such thing as sin, because God does not exist.  The meaning: There is no ultimate meaning, because sin is an irrelevant word.
C - Sin is the result of man's rebellion against God.  Because of sin God and man are separated.  This separation caused a break in the relationship that existed in the beginning.  The meaning:  All are sinners (Romans 5:3) and deserve death or eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23).  Sin is a serious problem for all humanity.  All humans need a savior to overcome the sin problem.

Death
A - When a person dies that is the end of his/her existence.  The meaning:  Death is the final outcome of biological life.
C - Death is not the end of life.  Life will continue in an afterlife.  The meaning:  Biological death does not represent the end of life.

Destiny
A - Life ends when a person dies.  Life only has meaning that you give to it while alive, but it has no ultimate meaning.  The meaning: The end of life means the end of your existence.
C - There is an afterlife.  Some will be with God in eternity, while others will be eternally separated from his presence.  The meaning:  For those who rebel against God there will be eternal weeping, but for those who choose to follow God there will be eternal bliss.

Miracles
A - There are no such things as miracles, because miracles deal with the supernatural.  The meaning: No meaning, because miracles do not exist.
C - Miracles happen because God exists.  The validity of miracles can be investigated.  The meaning: God has intervened to preform acts that supersede natural law.

Science
A - Science is seen as the chief purveyor of truth and knowledge.  The meaning:  Scientism is chief or only way by which knowledge is acquired.
C -Science is just one way by with we can perceive truth and acquire knowledge.  The meaning:  Science is limited to what we can know, but does represent an avenue in acquiring certain knowledge.

Jesus
A - Most would say that Jesus was a real person and possibly a great leader, but certainly not the Son of God.  The meaning: Jesus was just another person who happened to live and die on planet earth.
C - Jesus came to earth from heaven to free those who accept him as a payment for the sin problem that man has.   The meaning:  Those who trust in Jesus will take care of the sin problem.  Jesus came to set us free.

The resurrection of Jesus
A - The resurrection of Jesus did not take place.  The resurrection of Jesus can be explained by way of myth, swoon, wrong grave, stolen body, hallucinations, or a variety of other natural arguments.  The meaning:  Jesus never rose from the dead, because resurrection is impossible.
C -  Jesus bodily rose from the dead and proved it through the known empty grave, his resurrection appearances, and the changed lives of those who witnessed him.  The resurrection is a historical fact that can be investigated. The meaning:  Resurrection is possible and those who place their faith in Jesus will be resurrected one day to live with God throughout eternity.

The Bible
A - A book of antiquity that may have some historical truth, but ultimately is a concoction of mythical tales about a mythical God.    The meaning:  People who believe in the Bible are deluded.
C - The Bible is the inspired word of God, it is God's message to mankind.  The meaning: The answers to life's questions were provided to all humanity in God's word.

Christianity
A - Christianity is an invented religion.  Christianity possibly was stolen from other past religious beliefs with Paul being the leader of the Christian movement.  The meaning: Christianity, along with all religious beliefs are based upon false mythical concepts.
C - Christianity resulted due to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.  All who place their faith in Jesus are Christians.  The meaning: Christianity is the only worldview that conforms to reality.

Morality
A - Some would deny the word is relevant, but most would agree that the sense of morality is the byproduct of Darwinian evolution.  The meaning:  There is no objective moral law in existence.  One or a community of individuals decides what is a virtue or vice.
C - Morals derive from the nature of God.  Moral right and wrong is not decided upon because God arbitrarily commands so or because they stand apart from God on their own, but the moral law stems from the nature of who God is.  The meaning:  An objective moral law exists, because God exists.

Consciousness
 A - Our sense of consciousness is a mystery at this point.  Our first person awareness and ability to reason is related to the inner workings of the brain.  The meaning:  Consciousness in the human species is a unique byproduct of Darwinian evolution.
C -We are conscious and have awareness because we were created in God's image.  The meaning:  We, among all the forms of life, are able to reason because we were created by God as rational beings.  The mind/consciousness is the result of an Ultimate Mind or God.

Conclusion
A - The universe/Life is a mystery as to how it all got started.  Everything has no ultimate purpose or meaning.  There is no God to save us.
C - Life is the special creation of a loving God who wants to have a relationship with his creation.  There is purpose and meaning in life and it can only be found in trusting one's life in the sacrificial death of Jesus - the Savior of the world. 
 

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