Fear and Trembling

I have one last class to go to earn my MBA from Union University , but this last class is very difficult. Hence, I have not posted much lately. It will be a few weeks before I post again. Here are some links of interest: A prayer of repentance I have had to pray allot lately can be found here . I have had some battles with some old habits I thought I had broken. A long debate between a Muslim apologist and myself can be found here  (Warning: It is a long debate.). Justin Taylor posts some parables here that I had previously posted here . Nice to know I have good taste. A friend of mine talks about his journey from atheism to Christianity here . Norman Geisler comments on what it would be like to have loved ones in hell at this link . A good reminder that some powerful truths can be contained in part of a verse at this link  (when taken in context, of course). Follow a link here to see John H. Gerstner remind us of the necessity of justification by faith ...

I have cited several forms of the cosmological argument for God’s existence on this blog . One effective form of this argument comes from philosopher Norman Geisler. This argument begins from an undeniable premise: I exist. This is not always assumed to be true by modern philosophy. Geisler argues that God exists because I exist. Here’ s a rough outline: 1. Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence). 2. My nonexistence is possible. 3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. 4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. 5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists. 6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect. 7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.” 8. Therefore, God exists. 9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures. 10. Therefore, the ...

Skeptic magazine gives a summary of possible explanations for the universe we live in. The article (“Why This Universe?: Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations,” Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Skeptic, Volume 13, Number 2, 2007 .) starts with the question “Why is there something rater than nothing?” and notes many of the alternatives scientists and philosophers put fort as possible answers. This listing, or taxonomy, is intended to promote useful discussion about the alternatives. The article states that each of the alternatives given is “logically permissible.” This is a misnomer; “logically permissible” implies that there is a cogent argument in support of the explanation. Since many of the explanations are contradictory, this cannot be the case. To imply otherwise makes no sense. The author does note that these possibilities “should not be mistaken for scientific theories or even scientific possibilities.” I agree, but would add that logic in and of itself excludes all of the poss...

Here’s a second post on Victor J. Stenger’s book. I’ll focus on his idea of lack of structure at the universe’s beginning. I’ll then look at some of the implications of his interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Stenger, Victor J. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does not Exist , Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2007) He is clear and easy to understand here: “At [the beginning] the universe had no structure. That meant that it had no distinguishable place, direction, or time. In such a situation, the conservation laws apply.” (131) Elsewhere he writes, “…an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the second law [of thermodynamics].” (118) First, as I have noted before , there may well be structure and order in the universe that we cannot yet identify. Vast complexity is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend. The ever increasing body of knowledge held by science is apparent in his...

At the request of a Muslim I have been having online exchanges with, I wrote the following bit about the trinity. I have reprinted it here, along with links, quotes and augmentations. You had requested an explanation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Pardon my delayed response due to my father-in-law’s illness. To begin, God is one being. Christians do not worship three Gods, but one (Deuteronomy 6:45; Isaiah 45:5-6 and 21-22; Isaiah 44:6-8). We do not worship more than one God as Surah 5:73 states. That would be “tritheism,” which we condemn. Baptists like myself do not see Jesus, Mary, and God as the trinity as is suggested by Surah 5:116-117. This elevates a human, Mary, into the God-head, and we would see that as “adoptionism,” which we condemn. We would also condemn as adoptionism any thinking that says Jesus ever became God. Jesus was not created. He did not become God at some time. He has eternally existed. God exists as three persons and as one being. This is logical...

Time after time an opponent of Christianity accuses us of circular reasoning . The statement we are accused of making goes like this: The Bible claims to be God’s Word so it is God’s Word. That is “begging the question,” where the conclusion is true only if the premise is true. However, the actual argument put forth by Christians is linear and logical. In bullet point form, it goes like this: · The Bible is good history ( The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell). · We can trust what the Bible says about Jesus because it is based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4, 2 Peter 1:16). These eyewitnesses were willing to die for their faith. · Jesus claimed to be God. He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Thomas said, “My Lord and my God,” and Jesus did not correct him (John 20:26-31). · Jesus worked miracles and proved Himself to be God (John 14: 9-11). · Jesus affirmed the truth of God’s Word. He said, “Man shall not l...

As promised in the last post, I will discuss Richard Dawkins’ treatment of the argument from Scripture from his book The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006, p. 92-97): The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal … there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine. (p. 92) A wealth of textual evidence is used to validate the New Testament as an historical record. This historical record was written by eve-witnesses who had firsthand knowledge of the events they recorded or close companions of those eyewitnesses. This testimony can not be shrugged off with a sentence or two. Gary Habermas , who holds a Ph. D. in the History and Philosophy of Religion, puts it succi nctly, “We have in the New Testament essentially what the authors originally penned, and the texts have been confirmed time and again by various means.” Dawkins goes on, “Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that histor...