FULL DEBATE | Dr. Michael Brown vs. Apostate Prophet | Is there a God?

How Average People Fall For The Flat-Earth Conspiracy

This is an interesting video where people who believe in flat earth are interviewed in why they believe the earth is flat. Turns out that they aren't all stupid...some are just looking for meaning in existence.

The thing that amazed me was that some people seemed to think that the thought that we live in a meaningless universe without purpose is connected to the earth being round. I don't understand that at all. The ideas are not connected. We can be living on a round earth following the science we currently observe without existential crisis - but with only knowing that there is a God. I disagree that a round earth leads to the philosophical conclusions given by many atheists like  Richard Dawkins.

▶ The Moral Argument - YouTube

▶ The Moral Argument - YouTube

Science, the universe & The God Question - Lawrence Krauss vs John Lennox - YouTube

Science, the universe & The God Question - Lawrence Krauss vs John Lennox - YouTube

Hundred Examples of Faulty Logic

I have heard of couple of attempts by Atheists to summarize proofs for the existence of God from Dr Victor Reppert. It's satirical but I don't think that it shows a complete misunderstanding of what the arguments.  I think the graphic on the right summarizes the level of intelligence demonstrated on these pages.

Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence.

Hundreds of Proofs of God's Non-Existence.

▶ The Design Argument for God's Existence (Doug Powell) - YouTube

▶ The Design Argument for God's Existence (Doug Powell) - YouTube

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Video - Apologetics 315

This video summarizes the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Video - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Debate Video: Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox- "The God Delusion Debate"

This is an old Debate but it is an awesome one. Dawkins lost this one big time.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Debate Video: Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox- "The God Delusion Debate"

Debunking Christianity: Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis

This particular video was posted on the Debunking Christianity blog. It interesting in that it summarizes the most popular philosophical arguments against Christianity. Nothing new!  Each one has been refuted in the past.




The errors are many but there are two main ones. The video attempts to argue against Christian philosophers but mischaracterizes their arguments. For example. "omnipotence" does not mean God can do anything. When Christians use the term, we mean that God can do anything that is not logically inconsistent. For example, God cannot make a rock too large for God to lift because that would be a contradiction. The author of the video said he could make a rock too large for him to lift, but no human being can make a rock. Very illogical. Secondly, just because something is outside the perception of our senses does not mean it does not exist. According to this logic, the video's author denies science. Neither he or any human being have ever seen a single atom of any kind. Is one then free to conclude atoms do not exist? I don't think so  Likewise you can't deny that God exist Like atoms, God can be detected in other ways We can detect God by harkening to the revelation that God has made available to us

Debunking Christianity: Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: How Could a Good God allow Children to Die of Diseases? featuring J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl and Craig Hazen

Here is a video when J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl, and Craig Hazen discuss answering the question about God's goodness in light of Children suffering and dying of disease.



The thing to remember is that disease is a consequence of sin being a part of this world. And despite the fact the world has such suffering in it, we know God loves us because He allowed sin to go unpunished (for now) so that he could redeem us. Getting rid of  all disease would mean getting rid of sin which would mean obliterating each and every one of us now. God is waiting until the time of his own choosing such that all who have been called to repentance come (2 Peter 3:9).


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: How Could a Good God allow Children to Die of Diseases? featuring J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl and Craig Hazen

High Five of the Day - God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

In his recent debate with Dr Rosenberg,  William Lane Craig touched an argument for God's existence using the applicability of mathematics to the natural world. On the his website, Dr Craig was asked the questions:

Isn't it the case that mathematics could, and in my opinion does seem to be, just a useful fiction as you mentioned in your debate? You say something along the lines of "this wouldn't explain how nature seems to be written in the language of mathematics". Isn't it also the case that if mathematical concepts are useful fictions, then they would describe (accurately if well thought out) the universe as apprehended by our perceptions? Shouldn't we expect that our useful fictions would be useful precisely because they accurately describe our observations?
I have thought that perhaps I am missing the point of the argument though. Perhaps it is the case that you aren't saying God must exist because our useful fictions, particularly those of mathematics describing reality, would just be happy coincidence. Indeed, what kind of coincidence would it be that our tools were designed for the purpose they serve? Perhaps you are making the point that without God the universe wouldn't necessarily exhibit these extremely logical properties.
Maybe I'm just completely wrong headed on this. Could you please set me straight?

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll8hldKh

Here is a quote from Dr William Lane Craig's Answer:

Your question is about the argument from the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. Question of the Week #277 is about the only place where I have reflected on this question, and I refer you there. Again, it was reading Rosenberg’s own book that prompted me to put this into the form of the theistic argument. For mathematics lies at the foundation of physics, at whose altar Rosenberg bows. Given his scientism (epistemological naturalism), he cannot dismiss applied mathematics as illusory. Rosenberg also emphasizes that naturalism simply cannot tolerate cosmic coincidences. But then what explanation can the naturalist offer for why mathematics is applicable to the physical world, that is to say, for why the physical world is imbued with the complex mathematical structure that physics discovers. Naturalism founders in this regard, whereas theism has an easy answer: God created the universe on the mathematical structure that He had in mind.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll4vYMXw

I think reading the full response is  a good idea. I have to say that I have often thought that the fact that we can use mathematics to model the universe is good evidence that there is a rational mind that not only brought the universe into being but holds it together. I've been fascinated by the fact that so many physical constants contain numbers and multiples of  Pi, 2, and 3. It seems beyond rationality to concluded this is just a coincidence not a fingerprint or a signature.

God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio

There is a recent debate floating around the Internet between William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg. Rosenberg was really angry and had neither the evidence or debating strategy to back it up. I watched this hoping to hear something new but neither side brought up anything that has been offered before.  Craig didn't need to bring anything new because the opposition doesn't seem to require it.


After the debate a vote was taken about who better argued his case, and Craig was voted the winner.

Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio

ID.Plus: The Ontological Argument (question begging?)

Peter S Williams posted this really interesting video regarding the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. I like the argument but without being drawn by God it is impossible to understand that without God there is no "being" at all.


ID.Plus: The Ontological Argument (question begging?)

Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

I wanted to do a follow up post on the Debate between Dr Austin Dacey and Dr William Lane Craig. I wrote a post based on Dr Dacey's opening statement and Jeffery Jay Lowder responded. Here is my response to his his blog post.

What had happen' was.....: The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Lowder wrote:

Since I believe Dacey’s debate with Craig is one of the better debate performances by an atheist, this caught my eye.

I haven't been able to get this particular comment out of my mind because having seen the whole debate I have no idea why Lowder would come to that conclusion.


I did not think that Dacey's performance was all that great. The best I could say is that it wasn't a complete FacePlant. At least he did better than Sam Harris. I wanted to post the entire debate so that others can make up their own minds. I think that one of the things Dacey said that was particular telling is that he kept saying that he and other atheist are reasonable and God should make Himself known in a way for reasonable people. The issue I have is that the Bible correctly shows us that no one is so reasonable our rational.

 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. - Proverbs 4:19

And without God we are all wicked and would not choose to believe God or serve Him despite that our lives and existence depend on God.

⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” - John 6:34-51

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Last night I responded to a post on Debunking Christianity. Jeffery Jay Lowder has written a response. I'm glad he responded because it shows a lot of fundamental problems with atheistic responses and thought processes. I'm going to respond to Lowder. My responses are in red and when he quotes me it will be bolded. One of the main problems with his responses is that he doesn't seem to understand what Christians believes. Christians believe what the Bible says and many of his replies illustrate that Lowder has very little understanding of what Christians are really saying.

Marcus McElhaney responds to a recent blog post at Debunking Christianity which links to a video of Austin Dacey’s debate with William Lane Craig on God’s existence. Since I believe Dacey’s debate with Craig is one of the better debate performances by an atheist, this caught my eye. Here I want to comment on McElhaney’s critique.

I have to say that I disagree that Dacey performed well against William Lane Craig, but Lowder is entitled to his opinion.

Topic: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness

Here is McElhaney:

This thought amazes me! God is not hidden too well if I and so many others have found him.  Just because someone has not found God doesn't mean that God is not able to be found.

Reply: The fact that someone has not found God is logically compatible with God’s existence, but that is not the question. The question is whether reasonable (non-culpable) nonbelief is more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

 There is no reason to assume that atheism is true (or at least no reason is offered) Nonbelief is culpable. The Christian position is that non-culpable unbelief is at all warranted.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.- Romans 1:18-20

The point of the argument from divine hiddenness (aka the argument from reasonable nonbelief) is notto deny that there are people who believe they have found God. Rather, the whole point of the argument is the fact that there are other people who reasonably do not believe in God.

It's unreasonable to claim that you do not believe in God because you have not found him. It's a subjective argument and worthless because there are people who have found God and therefore reasonably believe in God. The bottom line is that God's existence is not dependent on what you, me, or anyone else thinks about God's existence.

In addition to the general fact of reasonable nonbelief (DH), J.L. Schellenberg has shown that there are other, more specific facts about reasonable nonbelief which are evidence favoring atheism over theism. The numbering/labeling scheme is mine; page numbers are references to Schellenberg’s book, The Wisdom to Doubt.

If God does exist then nonbelief is not reasonable!

DH1. Nonresistant Nonbelievers: Schellenberg describes “nonresistant nonbelievers” in this way: "in the actual world persons who do not believe that there is a God, and that in at least some of these people the absence of theistic belief is not in any way the result of their own emotional or behavioral opposition towards God or relationship with God or any of the apparent implications of such a relationship."

Everyone, by default,  are resistant to God - depraved in attitude and thought. In other words there are no such thing as non-resistant nonbelievers. 

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Given that some might not understand Paul's terminology, they should read all of Roman and the rest of Paul's letters but here is a start. A mind governed by the flesh describes a person who has not come in a relationship with God - regardless of if they believe God exists or they do not think God exists. 

¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19

DH2. Former Believers: As Schellenberg points out, such individuals, from the perspective of theism, were on the right path when they lost belief. If theism is true, then such individuals already were in relationship with God and the loss of belief has terminated that.

Apostates were never really believers, so their testimonies are worthless. They were never in real relationship with God.

¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. - 1 John 2:19

DH3. Lifelong Seekers:”"individuals who don't start out in what they consider to be a relationship with God and may not even be explicitly searching for God, but who are trying to find out where they belong and, in their wanderings, are open to finding and being found by a Divine Parent--all without ever achieving their goal. These are individuals who seek but do not find." (233)

The following covers the "lifelong seeker":

⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.  - John 6:43-47

If a person has the unction to seek God it didn't come from the person himself/herself but from God. At the same time if that person is chosen by God and drawn by God it is IMPOSSIBLE for that person not to find God. The Old Testament says the same same thing!

²⁸ There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. ²⁹ But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. ³⁰ When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him. - Deuteronomy 4:28-30

If a person is drawn by God of course they are going to go seek after God with all their heart and soul. We fail all the time. God never fails.

DH4. Converts to Nontheistic Religions: individuals who investigate other serious conceptions of the Ultimate and who turn up evidence that produces religious belief in the context of nontheistic religious communities and/or on account of nontheistic religious experiences--and the truth of atheistic claims may be seen to follow by implication. (236)

So atheism is true just because some people go to nontheistic religions? Nope. They are just as wrong as those who come to an atheistic conclusion. 

DH5. Isolated Nontheists: "those who have never been in a position to resist God because they have never so much as had the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful spiritual being who is separate from a created universe but related to it in love squarely before their minds--individuals who are entirely formed by, and unavoidably live their whole lives within, what must, if God exists, be a fundamentally misleading meaning system" (238).

In addition, Stephen Maitzen has identified other, more specific facts about divine hiddenness (the “demographics of theism”) which also favor atheism over theism.

God sovereignly chooses what position you are exposed to and when and if you respond.We cannot favorably respond to God without God enabling us to do so. 

⁶ It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. ⁷ Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”^{[b] 8} In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. ⁹ For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”^[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. ¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”^{[d] 13} Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”^[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”^[f]

¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”^{[g] 18} Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:6-24 .
 DH6. The Geographical Distribution of Theistic Belief: The distribution of theistic belief is uneven around the world. Why does the epistemic or moral defectiveness of non-believers vary dramatically with cultural and national boundaries? For example, why is more than 95% of Saudi Arabia Muslim, while Thailand is 95% Buddhist and only 5% theist? Given the widely held assumption that, generically speaking, epistemic and moral defects are evenly distributed among the world's peoples, it is hard to see how that question could be answered.

I guess in Lowder's mind, "theists" means "Christian". The thing to remember is that all people are sinners and fall short of the standard or morals that God has set. I wouldn't expect more than a wide distribution or morals that don't line up to God's ultimate standards.

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

DH7. The Temporal Distribution of Theistic Belief. Maitzen argues that especially compared to naturalistic explanations, none of the theistic explanations of blameworthy or blameless non-belief accounts for how the global incidence of theistic belief has varied dramatically during the existence of the human species.

William Rowe has identified another, more specific fact about divine hiddenness.

I'd like to know how would Lowder of Maitzen know just how theistic (defined as belief in existence of god(s)) beliefs have varied among human throughout the entire time humanity has existed. There is no way they can know that.

DH8. Divine Hiddenness during Tragedies. Just as loving parents would, say, comfort a child undergoing chemotherapy, we would expect a loving God to comfort human beings who suffer as the result of tragedies. If theism is true, then God loves his creatures and wants all of his creatures to love Him in return. However, many people find it hard to love God when they do not understand the reasons for their suffering and God seems so far away. In other words, even if God has a reason for allowing tragedies, He could still comfort victims of suffering so that they know He loves them. Yet there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God's comforting presence.This is not at all what we would expect if theism were true. However, if atheism is true, we would expect victims of tragedies not to experience God's comforting presence for the simple reason that there is no God. Thus, God's silence in the face of tragedies is much more probable on atheism than on theism.

Finally, Paul Draper has classified the history and success of science as an aspect of divine hiddenness.

 This point assumes two things: 1. That God is obligated to love everyone to the same degree and in the same manner. 2. That everyone is one God's children. The Bible does not tell us this. Why would Maitzen come to that conclusion. Where did he get that from? He didn't get it from Biblical Christianity.

DH9. The History and Success of Science. In Draper’s words, “The problem here is not the problem of why, if God exists, she would allow reasonable non-belief, but rather the more fundamental problem of why, if God or other supernatural beings exist, science can completely ignore them and still explain so much." Since this argument is one of Dacey’s arguments, let us turn to McElhaney’s critique now.

I have to reiterate, there is no reason at all to think you can understand the universe by ignoring God. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science

Here is McElhaney:

Logic and mathematics are the key to science. God didn't just create reality he created all the mathematics and logic on which science is based. The pioneers of what we consider modern science know something that has been lost by people who make arguments like this one: studying science is studying God. The more we learn about the universe the more we understand about the one who created it. Why would nature follow discoverable laws? Why is the universe understandable to any degree? The fact that the universe is understandable to a growing degree shows that there must be a mind behind it. The creation isn't mean to tell us everything we need to know about God, but it helps us understand and know God .

Reply: McElhaney’s comments are a textbook example of the fallacy of understated evidence. He is arguing—asserting might be a better word, for he hasn’t actually stated an argument in the above paragraph—that the intelligibility of of the universe is evidence favoring theism over naturalism. For the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s right about that. The fact that the universe is intelligible hardly exhausts what we know about its intelligibility. Given that the universe is intelligible, the fact that so much of our universe is intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency is much more probable on naturalism than on theism. See here and here.

I'd like Lowder to explain why he thinks the universe is intelligible? If the universe is the product of directionless and purposeless random processes driven by natural selection why would it develop in such a way that is intelligible to the human mind? I see no reason to conclude that naturalism would lead to the expectation of intelligibility.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Physical Minds

Here is McElhaney:

There is no reason to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body.. Yes, the damaging a person's body or brain affects a person's ability to think and interact with the world mentally. Duh! From a Biblical point of view, remember that humanity is not intended by God to exist as disembodied consciousness. A whole human being has a sound mind and body - which is for what Jesus came died for us to have. The expectation that we should be able to scientifically measure and observe the whole of the human person is naive.

Reply: McElhaney’s response indicates he has badly misunderstood Dacey’s argument from physical minds. Contrary to what McElhaney claims, there is good reason “to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body” on the assumption that theism is true. Theismentails the existence of at least one unembodied mind, namely, God’s mind. Therefore, theism provides at least some antecedent reason to expect that human minds will be embodied/disembodied. See here.

Just because God is unembodied (and this ignoring Jesus (second part of the Trinity who is embodied)  does not mean that a complete whole human being does not need to be embodied. No where in the Bible does it say that the human mind is independent of the brain or the body. The soul and the spirit are not the same thing and I think it's better to just be honest and say that we don't really know how the mind, body, soul, and spirit are really related to one another only that you need all of it to be complete human being. To claim that there is no soul is simply overreaching and claiming to know something that you can't possibly know.  Just like there are people who have experienced diminished mental faculties and changes in personality with damages to the brain, there are people who have experience brain damaged and not experienced mental or personality changes.  Both are true. Therefore, honestly, you can't say that this is evidence of there not being a soul or anything more than being human than the material aspect of being.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evolution

McElhaney:

The thought that evaluating the universe as poorly designed is very stupid. In order to come to that conclusion means that you know what the design criteria and limitations and the final conclusions. We don't. For example:  try coming in off the street and telling an engineer that his/her design is flawed and not knowing nothing about why the engineer made the choices that was made. You'd be an ignoramus.

Reply: The evidential argument from biological evolution doesn’t even need the concept of “poor design.”

Maybe, but that is what Darcy focused on in the video. Let's see if Lowder does any better.

Here’s a brief, informal statement of the argument.

To be sure, biological evolution is logically compatible with theism; God could have used evolution to create life. But if theism were true, God could have also used many other methods to create life, methods which are impossible if naturalism is true. In contrast, if naturalism is true, evolution pretty much has to be true. 

I disagree that macro evolution has to be true, but given that Lowder admits that God could have used evolution to create life, let's agree for the sake of his argument (he needs all the help he can get.)  God can use whatever method God desires to create the universe and put life wherever God desires to put it. Given that evolution does not explain how life actually started on earth, it is problematic for naturalism.

Furthermore, since theism implies a metaphysical dualism, it is antecedently likely on theism that minds are fundamentally nonphysical entities and therefore that conscious life is fundamentally different from nonconscious life. But this in turn makes it likely that conscious life was created independently of nonconscious life--that evolution is false. Thus, the scientific fact of biological evolution is more likely on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. See here.

Given that evolution cannot explain the origin of consciousness, it is a blow against naturalism but not being able to explain where consciousness comes from doesn't mean that human mind and  human soul must be independent of the brain. We don't have enough information explain it one way or the other...yet. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evil

McElhaney:

There is no such thing as pointless suffering. God has given us what we need to eliminate measles and malaria and many other issues, but we choose not to. Why don't we? Greed and power. Could God supernaturally change this so we would not have to do anything about it? Yes. God chooses not to based on His own will and reasons. Not one of us can know all the good that will or has resulted  or the bad that was and will be restrained or avoided. God does not have to explain his reasons to us. And God does tells what we need to know - that is what science and scripture are for. .God does comfort his people when they suffer. For example that is what many people who have experienced terrible pain and suffering have found out firsthand.

Reply:

1. If theism were true, God could prevent tragedies in many different ways, ways that would not take away our free will or our ability to develop moral character.

Yes. Who says that God does not? It's not mutually exclusive. God prevents and allows tragedies.  I still wanna know who told Lowder that we have free will or we have any moral character at all apart from God. Of course an atheist can act morally, but only because God gives him grace to do so.

2. As Draper has argued, proponents of the Free Will Defense (like McElhaney) “neglect to ask whether or not humans are worthy of the freedom* to seriously harm others. A good parent gradually increases a child's responsibility as the child becomes capable of handling greater responsibility. Children who are unworthy of a certain responsibility are not benefitted by parents who give them that responsibility.” On the assumption that theism is true, “one would expect God to give all or some humans less responsibility and in particular no ability to do serious evils-until they freely* developed the strength of character that would make them worthy of greater responsibility.” The fact that human freedom is not scaled according to strength of character is much more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

I think this shows more than anything else just how much Lowder does not understand what I am saying. Given that we are all sinner and deserving of hell, any worthiness we may have of some level of responsibility comes from God himself..God can choose to impart that strength of character in any way that God chooses. Human freedom is scaled no according human ability but according to God's will. And God does add more responsibility as our abilities to handle them grows and increases. 

3. Of course, it's logically possible that God has a reason for allowing tragedies, a reason we humans do not understand. But it's also logically possible that God has extra reasons for preventing tragedies, reasons we also do not understand. We have no antecedent reason to believe that, if God exists, God’s unknown reasons for allowing tragedies outweigh God’s unknown reasons for preventing tragedies.

I'd like to know why Lowder would think that God does not prevent some tragedies for reasons that we also do not understand. Why would Lowder think that God does not stop or restrict more tragedies or evils that God allows? I see no reason at all to make that assumption. 

4. Finally, as we saw earlier, there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God’s comforting presence.

There are also many victims of tragedies who report feeling God's comforting presence. I know I have. The fact that some people don't feel God's comforting presence might be explained by their not believing in God in the first place.

² Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,^[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, ³ because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. ⁴ Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. ⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. ⁶ But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. ⁷ That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. ⁸ Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:2-8

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

Just found out this great example of a "hand-waving" argument. 

For what it's worth, at least I'm not the only one who thinks Jeff Lowder's arguments don't work against my particular arguments. Here's Carrier from page 290 of my anthology, The End of Christianity:

We cannot predict from “a very powerful self-existent being created life by design” that he would do this by creating trillions of galaxies and billions of light years of empty intergalactic space and then sit around and twiddle his thumbs for ten billion years before finally deciding to create life in just one tiny place. That’s not even expected at all, much less with 100 percent certainty.16

-------------
16. See extensive analysis of this point in: Nicholas Everitt, The Non-Existence of God (New York: Routledge, 2003), 213–26; and John Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments (Trafford Publishing, 2008), 95–110.

This is hand-waving at its best. People who make such "arguments" cannot tell you how they know that  that there a better design is possible.  The Bible does not tell us that God did not not create life anywhere else  in the universe. The Bible does not tell us  one way or the other. It's silly to think that the size of the universe and the time scales involved is not part of the design. Richard Carrier and John Loftus' expectations are ill-informed. It takes time to bake a cake with the chef's intervening throughout the process. Why would the universe and the story of humanity be any different. The Bible tells us that it's not a surprisxe to God and that God has been doing a lot more than just "twiddling his thumbs".

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

Debunking Christianity: The Case Against Theism (Austin Dacey)

Today an interesting post was put on Debunking Christianity. It's a video of Austen Dacey attempting to show that the thought that atheism is true and assert that Christian theism is false. He says the there is no evidence for the existence of God and then provides five evidences that he believes shows that there is no God. This is nothing new and no more credible when he dredges them up.





He claims that there is overwhelming evidence for Athesim

1. Hiddenness of God

This thought amazes me! God is not hidden too well if I and so many others have found him.  Just because someone has not found God doesn't mean that God is not able to be found. I wrote more about this at  FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions

2. Success of science

Logic and mathematics are the key to science. God didn't just create reality he created all the mathematics and logic on which science is based. The pioneers of what we consider modern science know something that has been lost by people who make arguments like this one: studying science is studying God. The more we learn about the universe the more we understand about the one who created it. Why would nature follow discoverable laws? Why is the universe understandable to any degree? The fact that the universe is understandable to a growing degree shows that there must be a mind behind it. The creation isn't mean to tell us everything we need to know about God, but it helps us understand and know God .

3. Mind-brain connection

There is no reason to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body.. Yes, the damaging a person's body or brain affects a person's ability to think and interact with the world mentally. Duh! From a Biblical point of view, remember that humanity is not intended by God to exist as disembodied consciousness. A whole human being has a sound mind and body - which is for what Jesus came died for us to have. The expectation that we should be able to scientifically measure and observe the whole of the human person is naive.

4. Evolution

The thought that evaluating the universe as poorly designed is very stupid. In order to come to that conclusion means that you know what the design criteria and limitations and the final conclusions. We don't. For example:  try coming in off the street and telling an engineer that his/her design is flawed and not knowing nothing about why the engineer made the choices that was made. You'd be an ignoramus.

5. Pointless suffering 

There is no such thing as pointless suffering. God has given us what we need to eliminate measles and malaria and many other issues, but we choose not to. Why don't we? Greed and power. Could God supernaturally change this so we would not have to do anything about it? Yes. God chooses not to based on His own will and reasons. Not one of us can know all the good that will or has resulted  or the bad that was and will be restrained or avoided. God does not have to explain his reasons to us. And God does tells what we need to know - that is what science and scripture are for. .God does comfort his people when they suffer. For example that is what many people who have experienced terrible pain and suffering have found out firsthand.


Debunking Christianity: The Case Against Theism (Austin Dacey)

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: "If Good and Evil Exists, God Exists" featuring Peter Kreeft

Over at his blog, Truthbomb Apologetics, posted a great video of Dr Peter Kreeft explaining why the fact that there is good and evil means that God does exist. It's a good argument for God's existence using morality.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: "If Good and Evil Exists, God Exists" featuring Peter Kreeft

Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?

Yesterday I came across a couple of blog posts that had a video message of Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson answering the question: "Does the Universe Have A Purpose?" Turns out today, I found something even better. Dr Tyson was one of twelve scientists and theologians who answered this question.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence M. Krauss, Jane Goodall, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, and Elie Wiesel — all well-respected leaders in their respective fields — sought to answer the question to the best of their abilities. It may surprise you that half said “yes,” the universe operates with intent or exists to achieve something.

Their answers are included in a PDF e-book you can read here, Anyone who is interested in thinking about and discussing this subject should read the e-book. I'm not going to respond to each person's view but there were a few things that really stuck out to me. 

Dr Krauss is an atheist so I was really interested to see how he would answer this question.

Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine
guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss

The issue here is the statement that science is capable of uncovering positive evidence of God's purpose. I think that is akin to a hammer and a nail trying to figure out what they are being used to build. Or trying to figure out what an artist is creating and you can only see part of the work. Unless the artist tells you what it is, you haven't clue until either you can see more or the work is finished. Krauss also wrote:

Thus, organized religions, which put humanity at the center of some divine plan, seem to assault our dignity and intelligence. A universe without purpose should neither depress us nor suggest that our lives are purposeless. Through an awe-inspiring cosmic history we find ourselves on this remote planet in a remote corner of the universe, endowed with intelligence and self-awareness. We should not despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and celebrate our brief moment in the sun. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss

I would agree that there is no need to despair and we should humbly rejoice in the gifts we have. But having gifts mean that there must have been a gift giver. We lack the ability to talk about such things without talking about God even if we try to deny God's existence. Krauss' seems to answer thus: I don't know if  the Universe has a purpose but even if it does, there is no God. This is a very unsatisfactory answer but without God, it's the only answer possible.

Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one…
Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe—which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged. - Dr David Gelernter

Although Dr Gelernter believes there is a purpose, I do not fully agree with the purpose he seems to think it is. He pointed out that people do create things - and some of these things are good. Given human propensity to selfishness and self-fulfillment, we act against ourselves when we do good and generous things too. It isn't default behavior and sometimes it isn't easy to choose the right thing especially when it is uncomfortable. Almost as if  we are constantly at war with urges and feelings that will destroy us but that we can't fully control. Kind of like described in  Romans 7. So while we should be working to better the world and help others (begging the question who gave us that purpose), it can't be the purpose of the universe. Gelernter says the universe has a purpose but he conflates it with the purpose of the universe.

Science is a voyage of discovery, and as with all such voyages, you have to believe there is something meaningful out there to discover before you embark on it. And with every new scientific discovery made, that belief is confirmed. If the universe is pointless and reasonless, reality is ultimately absurd. We should then be obliged to conclude that the physical world of experience is a fiendishly clever piece of trickery: absurdity masquerading as rational order. Weinberg’s aphorism can thus be inverted. If the universe is truly pointless, then it is also incomprehensible, and the rational basis of science collapses. - Dr  Paul Davies

Dr Davies makes the provocative point that if the universe is pointless than so is trying to understand it. Goodbye, Science. I agree. If science is meaningful than the object it is focused on must also be meaningful - purposeful. I don't think Davies spends much time explaining what that purpose is, but that isn't the question.  Davies instead discusses why he thinks we cannot say that the Universe has no purpose.

Similarly, the universe has evolved over its 14 14 14 billion years of current existence by the directionless, unguided processes that are manifestations of the working out of physical laws: it has not been made for the purpose of providing platforms to enable cheetahs to stalk their prey or humans to generate great art or to entertain delusions. That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator’s inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious. - Dr Peter Williams Atkins

I must admit every time I read or hear something from Dr Atkins I am amazed at his close-mindedness. I see nothing wrong with the ideas that cheetahs and humans beings can have purposes for existence. He seems to find the who discussion distasteful because he has already made up his mind. The problem with agreeing that the universe has a purpose is that one has to then wonder what that/those purpose(s) is/are and who decreed it?

In the deep mystery of God’s vast creative experiment there may be many facets that we, in human terms, would relate to as purposes of the universe. I believe that, incredibly, this includes the creator’s self-revelation though human intelligence and personalities. With God’s experiment comes the freedom of choice, and I choose to believe in a purposeful universe.
My thoughtful atheistic friends who deny that the universe has any ultimate meaning are also men and women of faith. Perhaps intimidated by intimations of design, they seek to understand the universe in other ways. Ironically, they themselves may well be part of the purpose of the universe. - Dr Owen Gingerich

Amen.

Remember, our observable universe is just a tiny region among a large variety of regions, each with different properties. And many of these regions in the universe are sterile and inhospitable and thus lifeless (which makes it especially difficult for them to be observed!). Thus, say some scientists, there is no fine-tuning. And likewise, there is no purpose.
But I don’t agree. The fundamental scientific theories that support the multiverse require complex mathematics. The fact that these fundamental theories are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens’ evolution is something I find quite . . . puzzling.
The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery.
This is why, at the end of the day, I can’t refrain from thinking that there actually is
purpose in the universe. - Dr Bruno Guiderdoni

Dr Guideroni's comments definitely intrigue me. When I read his essay, I think he is saying unequivocally that the universe has purpose. But at the beginning of the e-book, the first page is a tally of all 12 scholars in the e-book on what their conclusions are. Guiderdoni is marked as "very likely" but in place in his discussion does he describe his conclusion as just very likely. I think he makes a very compelling case for the Universe having purpose.

Science has given us a glimpse of this reality, by revealing the strange objects and concepts, almost irreducible to our familiar world, that lie behind entities such as the cosmos, matter, life, and mind. Through music, art, and literature, we have been allowed to approach another facet of this reality, emotional and esthetic, rather than intelligible. With philosophy and religion, we have become aware of its ethical and mystical aspects. Encompassing all in a single manifestation, love has introduced us into its very heart.
It will be noted that there is no logical need for a creator in this view. By definition, a creator must himself be uncreated, unless he is part of an endless, Russian-doll succession of creators within creators. But then, why start the succession at all? Why not have the universe itself uncreated, an actual manifestation of Ultimate Reality, rather than the work of an uncreated creator? The question is worth asking. - Dr Christian De Duve

Dr De Duve  argues against a God that is not in the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed uncreated. And the Universe is not eternal. The question has been asked and answered.

The fact that we can ask such a question at all suggests an affirmative answer. The
impassioned search for meaning, perhaps our species’ most distinctive trait, is not a
longing that lifts us out of the universe, or that takes place outside of nature. We are, after all, as much a part of nature as roaches and rivers. So too is our thirst for meaning.
If we accept evolution, as indeed we must, our longing for meaning is nature—in the same sense that birdsong and the howling of wolves are nature.

Purpose, after all, means quite simply the bringing about of something undeniably and permanently good. Is that what is going on in the cosmos?
As long as you are drawn toward truth, so also is the natural world that gave birth to your mind.
The two, after all, are inseparable. As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to
what is timelessly worth treasuring. - Dr John F. Haught

Dr Haught is right that we have an inborn desire and curiosity to know - everything. I agree that asking such questions as to what is the universe's nature and purpose is itself part of humanity's purpose. So this is a start to understand what the purpose of the universe is.

So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last but not least. Dr Tyson said that he was not sure if the universe has a purpose but he is sure that people who believe God are wrong. One problem with his reasoning is that none of the reasons he gives in his essay means that there is no God giving the universe purpose. The thing is that according to the Bible, humanity arose and everyone has been born and raised and lived and died in the times and places God has desired. If it literally took 99% of cosmic history what of it? That's not inefficiency, that's what the Creator decided "after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11). You can view Dr Tyson essay in an illustrated video.


Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: What Caused God? featuring J.P. Moreland

J.P. Moreland (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I'm glad Chad posted this video. Dr JP Moreland answers the question "What caused  God?" He answers it well!


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: What Caused God? featuring J.P. Moreland