Posts tagged ‘apologetics’

May 8th, 2012

Defining ‘Fine-Tuner’

There are two ways of understanding the definition of fine-tuner: a positive and negative definition.  By fine-tuner in the positive sense I mean a mind, or agent, capable of articulating information (non-noise information or a specified and complex information).  Not only would this mind be merely capable in articulating this information but also intended to articulate the precise information we find in nature.  The negative definition is the negation of necessity, regularity, mindless chance, or any other combination of the sort. Note that a fine-tuner is distinct from a mere intelligence since intelligence can mimic regularity or chance, and thereby rendering its actions indistinguishable from regularity or chance.[1]  Thus, it’s important to recognize the combination of the two definitions, which serve different explanatory roles but are identical in reference.

April 27th, 2012

A List of Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels

I’ve provided a list of alleged contradictions in the New Testament from a file I’ve found floating around the internet. This is so you know what someone is talking about when this comes up in discussion. Some of them had explanations that were blatantly obvious and weren’t problematic at all but I’ve saved some interesting one’s for your consideration. Even so, some of these are a bit easy to harmonize. However, don’t be so quick to lay down a Christian trump card.  Carefully consider what’s going on and work through it.  I do affirm biblical inerrancy and I would recommend several books to address the issues of such alleged contradictions:

Mike Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Dan Wallace’s Reinventing Jesus

Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

April 26th, 2012

What is Presuppositionalism?

Scripture urges us to behold heaven and earth, birds and flowers and lilies, in order that we may see and recognize God in them.  ”Life up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these.” Is. 40.26. Scripture does not reason in the abstract.  It does not make God the conclusion of a syllogism, leaving it to us whether we think the argument holds or not.  But it speaks with authority.  Both theologically and religiously it proceeds from God as the starting point.

We receive the impression that belief in the existence of God is based entirely upon these proofs.  But indeed that would be “a wretched faith, which, before it invokes God, must first prove his existence.” The contrary, however, is the truth… Of the existence of self, of the world around us, of logical and moral laws, etc., we are so deeply convinced because of the indelible impressions which all these things make upon our consciousness that we need no arguments or demonstration.  Spontaneously,altogether involuntarily: without an constraint or coercion, we accept that existence.  

April 24th, 2012

Mormonism 101

I was listening to James White’s ‘Dividing Line’ podcast today and he was on a roll discussing politics and Mormonism.  I’d consider White to be one of the leading apologists in the Mormon area.  He brought attention to this Mormonism 101 post.  What I find the most interesting aspect about Mormonism is that it’s the most polytheistic religion in the world.  Islam is closer to Christianity.  If you’re interested, check out the material.

Mormonism 101: Badly Needed in our Culture Today

Mormonism 101: The First Vision Continued

Mormonism 101: More on the LDS Scripture’s View of God

This is just a small section, please read the rest over at AOMIN.org.

April 24th, 2012

Formulating a Modest Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine-tuning argument argues that when the physics and the laws of nature are expressed mathematically their values are ever so balanced in a way that permits the existence of life.  This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions.[1]  I’m merely arguing that the universe/multiverse is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires for cosmic and biological evolution to even occur.  The argument has several different forms in contemporary literature.  The deductive and inductive forms will tend be quite problematic. Abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, along with the role of probability,is the best methodology and form for the fine-tuning argument.

April 21st, 2012

The Unbelievable? Conference is Giving a Skeptical World Reasons to Believe

Justin Brierley and Primer Christian Radio is hosting an apologetics conference this year in partnership with Hugh Ross and Ken Samples with Reasons to Believe.  The theme of the conference is ‘Giving a Skeptical World Reasons to Believe.’ For all my UK brothers and skeptic friends, I hope that you’re able to make it to the conference.  For those of us across the pond it’s very likely that we won’t be able to make it.  There are DVD’s that are made afterwards, which are available for purchase.  This is excellent material to help equip you to understand and respond to questions about the faith.  A few of the speakers include Hugh Ross, Ken Samples, Michael Green, John Lennox, Krish Kandiah, Bonnie Yule-Kuehne, and more.  What’s very important is that you absorb this material yourself.  I remember hearing Dan Wallace say that the road to hell is lined with the bones of apostate apologists.  This knowledge will be edifying for the saints.  Use it. Know it. Share it.  Please pray for the speakers and for minds to be opened, that fruit will blossom, and that people may be saved as a result of this knowledge.

Unbelievable? The Conference 2102 Giving a Skeptical World Reasons to Believe
Saturday 26 May beginning at 9.30 AM
Transformation House, St. John’s Hill, Clapham SW11 2AA

April 10th, 2012

An Agnostic’s Response to My Use of the Cosmological Argument

The following is a guest blog post by Fred, an agnostic, critiquing my use of the argument from contingency I presented at the Virginia Tech debate on the existence of God.  Here’s a brief bio:

B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science, completing my formal education in 1978.  I’ve taken precisely two philosophy courses during my student days, both in Logic.  I  took a lot of math and science courses. I am now in I.T. middle management at a multinational oil company, with about 90 people reporting to me.

I’m 58 years old, grew up as a devout Catholic – attended Catholic schools in Houston for 12 years.  I credit the free thinking atmosphere at my high school with opening my mind up and allowing me to look beyond the dogma I had always been taught.  This led me to question, to become skeptical, and ultimately to develop into an agnostic.  I lack a belief that a God exists, but I have continued to explore.  I am impatient with dogmatism, from theists and atheists alike.  My engagement in discussions such as this is out of pure self-interest.  I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong, I’m just trying to see if I’m missing some truths or overlooking some credible argument. I do so by challenging the position of the person I’m engaging, which can sometimes give the appearance that my position is more extreme than it is.  In the course of my pursuits I’ve been forced to look a little into metaphysics, because it seems this is where the arguments for God’s existence reside.  I’ve also looked into historical methodology, because this pertains to the arguments for Jesus sit. 


April 3rd, 2012

VT Debate–Response to the Atheist Objection that God is a Moral Monster

There were two main objections, which my atheist opponents defended during the VT debate on the existence of God.  One of the objections was from the problem of gratuitous evil, particularly natural evil, which I have already responded to here. The other objection raised during the debate was presented first after my opening statements. The argument was that because me and my debate partner were Christian theists the Christian God cannot exist because of the supposed atrocities in the Bible and other doctrines such as hell.

The argument began with the problem of predisposition. In other words, why you must approach your faith of choice with objectivity and skepticism and not confirmation bias.  However, in response, in order to identify and affirm the discovery of a truth one must not exhaust all possibilities.  Additionally, it works both ways.  If the criterion is applied fairly how can one deny the proposition, in this case, God exists, without examining all possibilities?  This criterion is untenable.  Also, to suggest that one is a Christian because of environment or spatiotemporal location is to commit the genetic fallacy.

March 30th, 2012

Unbelievable? The Conference: Giving a Skeptical World Reasons to Believe

Most of my blog followers are from North America but I do have several followers in the UK.  I want to promote this conference coming up hosted by Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? hosted by Justin Brierly and partnering with Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe.

We live in a sceptical world. Atheism has taken on an evangelistic tone in the UK. Secularists claim to have a monopoly on reason. So how should the Church respond?

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference aimed at equipping everyday Christians with reasons for the truth of their faith. The conference will also focus on how to share these truths in a fruitful and engaging way.

This year’s Conference partner is Reasons To Believe – a Christian apologetics teaching and research organisation with the mission to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research consistently uphold, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible.

March 26th, 2012

VT Debate–The Problem of Gratuitous Evil

One of the objections made by one of the atheists in the VT debate on the existence of God was William Rowe’s form of the problem of gratuitous evil:[1]

  1. There exist instances of intense suffering that an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Factual premise)
  2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering that being could, unless that being could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Theological premise).
  3. Therefore, There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

Or, simply put:

  1. There are unnecessary evils.
  2. God would prevent evils without losing some greater good.
  3. Therefore, God does not exist.
    read more »