Let me first say that I think the “scientific” proofs for God’s existence are very good, as far as they go (I’ll explain why that word is in quotes later). Since middle school one of my hobbies has been backyard astronomy. I am very familiar with the intelligent design arguments from cosmology and biology. They are all very good and very convincing.
So, what’s the issue? Well, for one, natural science alone can’t prove God. It needs philosophy. What then makes the scientific arguments good? They are good because they show that the chances for the design (not existence) of the universe and life due to random events are essentially zero. But the jump from probability to cause is a philosophical one. Science, does after all, require the use of philosophy. As someone once said, philosophy is unavoidable. Science can give us probability, mathematics, and descriptions of how things are. However, by definition natural science studies nature and thus cannot make the move beyond nature to the supernatural. Again, that is a philosophical move.
While science can prove that there probably is a cause that accounts for the design in the universe and among life, it cannot move beyond the cosmos for an answer. Even adopting the philosophical notion of cause and effect, science cannot tell us what the cause is like. It cannot tell us there is only one cause. It also cannot tell us that the universe was created from nothing. The best it can do is to show that a cause, or causes, arranged the universe and life in such a way to allow it to exist the way it is now.
Objections to Scientific Proofs for God
Maurice Holloway makes a general objection against proving God’s existence from natural science in his Introduction to Natural Theology. He declares,
“Because of its formal subject and method of procedure, a positive [natural] science as such is intrinsically and necessarily incapable of demonstrating God’s existence. Physics, for example, is no more capable of proving the existence of a suprasensible being than mathematics is of proving the existence of a non-quantified being. To do this, they would have to change their essence, for they would have to go beyond their proper subject and proper method; and then they would no longer be positive sciences” (455).
In other words, it is simply against the essence of natural sciences to go beyond their own study, and to do so would be to require a completely different discipline (philosophy).
Consider the specific objections to scientific arguments for God from Holloway’s work (456-457). The first objection has to do with the issue of probability and certitude. He claims,
“Since such [scientific] arguments are based upon the laws and theories of positive science, the arguments themselves can never achieve greater certitude than that of these laws and theories. And . . . the scientists dispute among themselves as to the relative truth or value of their laws and theories.”
In sum, the level of certitude of the conclusions reached are never greater than the certitude of the theories themselves. I personally think the big bang theory is on solid ground and demonstrates with practical certainty that the universe had a beginning. However, not all scientists agree with the big bang. It is in dispute. For example, does the second law of thermodynamics (see below for what this is) apply to the whole universe or not? Big bang proponents hold that it does. Opponents tend to say that it doesn’t. Such disputes bring scientific theories into question, which also brings the conclusions into question.
Holloway’s second objection states,
“Since the laws and theories of positive science are based upon sensible phenomena as in some way physically observable and measurable, they can never be used to transcend the phenomenal order. But God, as a term to be demonstrated, entirely transcends the phenomenal order. Thus any proof that is strictly and merely from positive science can never demonstrate his existence.”
This is saying what I said above, namely, natural science studies nature and, by definition, cannot rise above it. Science studies the things of this world, not the things other than this world. This is simply true, by definition. To study the cause of this world would not be natural science, but natural theology (philosophy). Science can certainly show that systems in this universe (and the universe itself) are highly designed and need a designer; however, the existence of that designer cannot be demonstrated beyond a level of probability.
His third objection is related to the second but shows that science could not tell us about the essence of the cause of the universe even if it could tell us about its existence:
“Even if we were to grant that positive science could establish the existence of some super mundane principle, it could never go on to prove that this principle is God; namely, a Necessary Being and Pure Act. To reach such a term (that is, to reach God) one would always have to resort to principles that are truly metaphysical.”
The best that something like intelligent design can do is to show that there is a designer. It does not show the designer to be separate from nature, or a single being, or that the universe as a whole was created. While the kalam argument coupled with big bang cosmology does the latter, even the big bang theory must make the jump from science to philosophy to show there was a creation. Science just tells us what this universe is like and how it works. Philosophy tells us about the nature of things, and that effects must have causes. Science certainly cannot tell us anything about the nature of the cause(s) other than it is (they are) intelligent. Categories such as “Necessary Being,” “Pure Act,” etc., are metaphysical (philosophical) categories unavailable to the natural scientist (without importing them from philosophy).
But Can the Question Be Scientific?
The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science.
Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.
Distinguishing the Scientific and the Philosophical Arguments: What’s the Difference?
Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause):
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Most of the effort is usually placed on the second premise to marshal evidence for the universe’s beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) is often invoked. It says that energy in a closed system (a system that doesn’t get energy from the outside) converts from usable to unusable energy. In other words, when we take our cell phones off their chargers the battery begins to die until it is recharged. In the absence of a charger (energy from the outside), when it dies the phone will simply not work. The move in this argument is to show that there is nothing outside the known universe that provides energy. Thus, left to itself, the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe existed from the infinite past, it would have already run out of energy by now. But it hasn’t. Therefore, the argument says that the universe has not existed forever into the past, but had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it had a beginner.
Arguments like this are very strong, but they depend on the accuracy of interpretations and notions such as how the second law of thermodynamics works and to what extent it can be applied. Does the law apply to everything? Does it apply to the whole universe? Is the universe getting outside energy (whatever that would mean)? Thus, there is a degree of probability with this reasoning. It is based on induction and is thus not certain.
Philosophical proofs on the other hand lead to deductive (metaphysical) certainty. That is, scientific theories change, but the nature of the world does not. Not everyone agrees with such theories as the big bang (I for one do). But we can all agree (I know there are outliers) that things in the world change. From this concept of change we can deduce things about their nature and their cause. Consider the following argument that I have summarized from Thomas Aquinas that is referred to as the First Way:
Things change. In order for things to change they must be composed of act (existence) and potency (the ability to change). For a change to take place it must be brought about by something that already exists (is in act). A being in act causing change in another being cannot go backwards forever. Therefore, there must be a being that is not composed of act and potency, but is simply act. This being people call God.
Such an argument is based on the metaphysical nature of reality. Arguments like this start from existing things as effects and reason back to the nature of their causes. We can see that if this argument is sound, it shows God to be Pure Act, with no division of act and potency, and thus unchanging, and eternal (since time is classically understood to be a measuring of change).
Natural science on the other hand can at best only tell us that given what we know about the universe and life, there must exist some intelligent being, or beings, that in some way designed them (not even created them). Some iterations of the kalam argument attempt to show the beginning of the universe based on the big bang theory. There is much merit to this, but it is limited and still requires philosophical moves. Again, the scientific arguments are very strong, but they don’t go far enough to secure the God that Christians want to prove. We are not interested in simply proving a kind of god, but the God of Christianity, that is, the God just described above based on the first way.
In answering the question of whether or not the kalam cosmological argument gives us a being of classical theism based on natural science, Ed Feser retorts,
“It does not. for to get from the world to the God of classical theism, it is not enough to get from the world to a cause of the world. One must get to a cause that has the attributes distinctive of the God of classical theism—such as simplicity, immutability, and eternity—and one must get to a God who is not only the temporal cause of the world, but apart from whose sustaining causal activity the world could not exist even for an instant. And I submit that neither condition can be met without recourse to the distinction between actuality and potentiality that is at the core of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature” (“Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in Philosophy,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays, 80).
Conclusion
I hope that I have been clear that I believe theistic proofs that involve natural science are strong, but limited. Natural science alone cannot make a case for God. Further, such arguments are not as conclusive as philosophical ones, nor do they give us the God of classical theism which we can discover through philosophy. I agree with Ed Feser when he says,
“To be sure, this is not to deny that considerations from modern cosmology—or from other natural sciences, for that matter—can be useful to the natural theologian; the kalam cosmological argument, I concede, shows that much. But I maintain that such considerations can never be sufficient, and that recourse to the philosophy of nature is necessary to get from the world to the God of classical theism” (Ibid., 80).
Recommended Resources:
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46cZJSz
MAKE HEAVEN CROWDED and Take a BOLD Stand for Christ with Pastor Jack Hibbs
PodcastFrank speaks briefly on the horrific murder of his dear friend Charlie Kirk. He’ll say more in the coming days. But now Charlie would want you to hear from Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, who like Charlie, takes a bold stand for Christ.
Jack shows how in his new book, ‘Called to Take a Bold Stand: Resilient and Effective Faith for a Godless Age’. With over 35 years of ministry experience, Jack shares why sanctification, active discipleship, and making the Gospel central are the keys to standing firm in a world that opposes the truth through persecution, cancel culture, and politics. Together, Frank and Jack tackle questions like:
Get ready to be inspired, equipped, and challenged to stand boldly for righteousness and embrace the Great Commission. If your goal is to “make Heaven crowded” be sure to pre-order your copy of ‘Called to Take a Bold Stand‘ today!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Called to Take Bold Stand: Resilient and Effective Faith for a Godless Age
Why Demanding Extraordinary Evidence Makes Little Sense
3. Are Miracles Possible?, 4. Is the NT True?Many skeptics approach “the evidence” for Christianity with a closed mind. Hobbled by a number of presuppositions, they typically end up where they begin: convinced that God simply would not have made himself so difficult to detect. Many will back up their position with a challenge – because Christian claims are so “extraordinary,” they say, only “extraordinary evidence” will be sufficient to persuade them.
Upon reflection, however, it is quickly apparent that this is a rather odd, and in the end self-defeating, way to go about the task of acquiring knowledge. It’s odd because it demonstrates a misunderstanding about the way evidence works. It’s self-defeating because reviewing evidence is supposed to be done so that one can arrive at the truth about what occurred, and when one option – that God created us and sent his Son to redeem us – is set off limits at the beginning, there is only one result that can be reached. This may give the atheist comfort – his views remain unchallenged – but it is difficult to describe this as a meaningful search for the truth.
Extraordinarily Presumptuous
Consider: “evidence” can mean a variety of things, but as it relates to historical events, it refers to the existence of certain historical facts which directly or indirectly tend to prove that the event in question occurred. To determine whether Jesus was a real or fictitious person, whether he died on the cross, and, most significantly, whether he was bodily resurrected from the dead, the process of discernment requires a consideration of all the evidence in order to conclude with confidence that the challenged event did or did not occur. Consequently, in assessing the weight and persuasiveness of the evidence, it may appear that certain pieces of evidence line up as probative or not probative, relevant or irrelevant, weighty or weak. But refusing to even consider evidence unless it first meets the standard of “extraordinary” reflects a bias against ever reaching a conclusion. Far from being a rational position, it is the abandonment of reason, for reason does not impose upon itself such artificial restrictions.
Extraordinarily Ironic
This demand for “extraordinary” evidence is, upon reflection, also rather ironic. Christianity is in fact based on “extraordinary” evidence. It is “out of the ordinary” and “exceptional” and “not commonplace” that
This is just a partial list. Indeed, entire books and ministries have been devoted to making this case. And while the skeptic can challenge various pieces of evidence, it is difficult to gainsay both the amount and the quality of the evidence upon which Christians base their faith.
This is not to say that Christianity is not, in the final analysis, a matter of faith – it certainly is. As Paul says in Hebrews, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the convictions of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1-2). No one can see heaven or preview what eternity with God will entail. Faith provides the assurance that what Jesus promised is true; we can rest confidently in the knowledge that things not seen will be as he promised. But we don’t have “blind faith” that he once lived, or that he has the authority to carry out what he promised. Our faith, our knowledge, is based on the evidence provided by those early witnesses.
These men and women lived in extraordinary times and witnessed extraordinary things; sadly, many suffered extraordinarily for their convictions. But what they left to posterity, the evidence of what they saw and heard and experienced – whether or not it rises to the level of “extraordinary” – was certainly sufficient.
And it remains so today.
Recommended Resources:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Are You Going UP or Are You Going DOWN? Bible “Errors” Won’t Save You
PodcastEveryone you love will die. Everything you build will crumble. Everything you say will be forgotten. Everything you do will come to nothing. You and your identity will die and vanish, UNLESS…the resurrection is true. Yes, if Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead–GAME OVER–Christianity is true! But wait…isn’t a miracle like the resurrection a little too hard to believe for a rational person?
Join Frank during his recent talk at Grace Community Church in Sarasota, FL where he draws a striking parallel between the sinking of the Titanic and the resurrection of Jesus. You’ll learn why the Gospel accounts are not myths or legends, but credible eyewitness testimony that can stand up to scrutiny. Along the way, he answers pressing questions like:
There is an afterlife and what you do here on earth DOES matter. Not only for today, but also for eternity. The question remains for all of us: are you going up or are you going down? The choice is yours, choose wisely!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Digging Up the Bible
Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt Trip
What is the Role of A Priori Knowledge?
2. Does God Exist?A priori reasoning originates from a Latin word which means, “beforehand.” Knowledge gained from experience is called a posteriori, and knowledge that doesn’t require experience is called a priori.[1] Our primary concern here is with factual knowledge. For example, Little Italy is located in New York on the East Coast of the United States, Plato lived in Athens, Greece, and Seattle, Washington, is in the Pacific Northwest. This type of knowledge is often referred to as “knowledge that” or propositional knowledge because it involves statements or propositions that are [or can be] certain to be true.[2]
There are compelling reasons to consider a priori knowledge as a valid form of knowledge. For instance, the statement “bachelors are unmarried men” indicates that a certain level of experience is needed to grasp the meanings of the words “unmarried” and “bachelor.” This notion is referred to as the conceptual containment theory of truth, which asserts that the concept of the predicate is inherently contained within the concept of the subject. [3]
Is reason enough to give us true knowledge about God?
A priori knowledge plays an important role in our understanding of truth. It is a type of knowledge that is independent of experience, meaning we can grasp its validity through reasoning alone. If a proposition can be known a priori, we can determine its truth merely by thinking about it.
Here are some examples of a priori knowledge:
These propositions rely on reasoning, and their truths are self-evident. We can recognize them as true because they are defined that way, with some, like the assertion that all murder is wrong, being particularly self-evident. [5]
The Ontological Argument
A priori reasoning aids us in thinking and reasoning. For example, the ontological argument for the existence of God employs a priori reasoning. It can be structured as follows:
Given that it is rational to accept the central premise of this argument, it follows that it is also rational to accept the conclusion.[6]
The ontological argument has been defended by many philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga, who believes that it is a strong valid argument, and that this a priori argument can give us true knowledge [if it’s a sound argument].[7]
The role of a priori reasoning is important not only in philosophy but also in mathematics and science. Although philosophers such as John Locke have contended that a priori reasoning alone may be inadequate for attaining true belief or knowledge, it is significant that many contemporary philosophers, including William Lane Craig, have successfully defended the use of a priori reasoning in their arguments. Examples include the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument. These arguments illustrate the essential function of logical reasoning in the exploration and understanding of fundamental truths.
The Laws of Logic
The Laws of Logic are not based on a posteriori knowledge but rather on a priori knowledge; the laws of logic require the use of reason. For example: 1. If God did not exist, the laws of logic would be merely human conventions. 2. The laws of logic are not merely human conventions. 3. Therefore, God exists.[8] Some might argue that A priori being unavoidable is a contentious claim, but when you consider 10 + 10 = 20 this requires A priori reasoning, and you can know this independent of experience.
When it comes to gaining knowledge of God’s existence, I believe that we can know that God exists independent of experience (A priori), but I also believe that we can have knowledge of God experientially, meaning that God can be personally known.
References:
[1] Bruce Russell, A Priori Justification and Knowledge “Plato.Stanford.edu Accessed July 17th 2025
[2] Dan O’Brian, An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2006), 4
[3] See, Brandon C. Cook, Plato.Stanford.edu/Subject Predicate Accessed April 29, 2025 [Editor’s Note: In a sentence, the “predicate” is the verb-phrase. It says something about the subject (noun/pronoun) of the sentence. For example, in the sentence “The cow jumped over the moon,” the phrase “the cow” is the subject, and “jumped over the moon” is the predicate.”
[4] [Editor’s note: The statement ‘All murder is wrong’ is a disputed example. Moral irrealists, a.k.a., moral relativists, are can argue that it’s only wrong sometimes, relative to the situation.]
[5] See DePaul, Hicks, in https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ [Editor’s note: Again, this is a disputed example. Moral theorists don’t have to grant a priori status to the statement “all murder is wrong.” It could be an intuition, strongly held belief, faith-claim, etc, and it could even be true moral knowledge for other reasons that are’t a priori.]
[6] Rasmussen J., 2018 in G. Oppy(ed), Ontological Arguments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276 [Editor’s Note: The Ontological Argument, even in this “possible worlds” framing, remains a deeply disputed and unresolved line of argument. To my knowledge – Dr. John D. Ferrer – it’s not considered a sound argument by any atheistic, agnostic, deistic philosophers of religion, and it’s not even considered a sound argument by an strong majority of theistic philosophers. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the philosophy of religion, in part, because it demonstrate a potential application of a priori reasoning. If this argument is sound, then the definition of God is basically sufficient evidence, by itself, to conclude that God exists.]
[7] [Editor’s Note: An argument is “sound” if it is valid and it’s premises are true.]
[8] Craig, William Lane. “Do the Laws of Logic Provide Evidence for God?” The Good Book Blog – Biola University Blogs. Last modified May 3, 2024. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2017/do-the-laws-of-logic-provide-evidence-for-god.
Recommended Resources:
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
As the newest member of Bellator Christi, Seattle native, Justin Angelos, brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics. He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mNLiub
How to Win Gen Z Back to the Truth of Christianity with Shanda Fulbright
PodcastGen Z is showing surprising signs of revival—but will it last? As young people flock back to church, the future of their faith may hinge on how parents, pastors, and mentors respond right now! Frank teams up with certified apologist and former California public school teacher, Shanda Fulbright, to discuss some of the challenges associated with discipling the younger generation and what parents can do to help kids ground their beliefs in facts instead of feelings. Together they answer questions like:
If you’re a parent, mentor, or simply care about the future of the Church, you won’t want to miss this practical conversation along with Shanda’s course for middle school students, ‘Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God‘! The PREMIUM version starts on MON. 9/8 and includes 13 LIVE Zoom sessions with Shanda, or you can guide your child through the SELF-PACED course at any time during the year!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God
ShandaFulbright.com
WesleyHuff.com
Apologetics Canada
Why Philosophical Proofs For God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs
2. Does God Exist?Let me first say that I think the “scientific” proofs for God’s existence are very good, as far as they go (I’ll explain why that word is in quotes later). Since middle school one of my hobbies has been backyard astronomy. I am very familiar with the intelligent design arguments from cosmology and biology. They are all very good and very convincing.
So, what’s the issue? Well, for one, natural science alone can’t prove God. It needs philosophy. What then makes the scientific arguments good? They are good because they show that the chances for the design (not existence) of the universe and life due to random events are essentially zero. But the jump from probability to cause is a philosophical one. Science, does after all, require the use of philosophy. As someone once said, philosophy is unavoidable. Science can give us probability, mathematics, and descriptions of how things are. However, by definition natural science studies nature and thus cannot make the move beyond nature to the supernatural. Again, that is a philosophical move.
While science can prove that there probably is a cause that accounts for the design in the universe and among life, it cannot move beyond the cosmos for an answer. Even adopting the philosophical notion of cause and effect, science cannot tell us what the cause is like. It cannot tell us there is only one cause. It also cannot tell us that the universe was created from nothing. The best it can do is to show that a cause, or causes, arranged the universe and life in such a way to allow it to exist the way it is now.
Objections to Scientific Proofs for God
Maurice Holloway makes a general objection against proving God’s existence from natural science in his Introduction to Natural Theology. He declares,
“Because of its formal subject and method of procedure, a positive [natural] science as such is intrinsically and necessarily incapable of demonstrating God’s existence. Physics, for example, is no more capable of proving the existence of a suprasensible being than mathematics is of proving the existence of a non-quantified being. To do this, they would have to change their essence, for they would have to go beyond their proper subject and proper method; and then they would no longer be positive sciences” (455).
In other words, it is simply against the essence of natural sciences to go beyond their own study, and to do so would be to require a completely different discipline (philosophy).
Consider the specific objections to scientific arguments for God from Holloway’s work (456-457). The first objection has to do with the issue of probability and certitude. He claims,
“Since such [scientific] arguments are based upon the laws and theories of positive science, the arguments themselves can never achieve greater certitude than that of these laws and theories. And . . . the scientists dispute among themselves as to the relative truth or value of their laws and theories.”
In sum, the level of certitude of the conclusions reached are never greater than the certitude of the theories themselves. I personally think the big bang theory is on solid ground and demonstrates with practical certainty that the universe had a beginning. However, not all scientists agree with the big bang. It is in dispute. For example, does the second law of thermodynamics (see below for what this is) apply to the whole universe or not? Big bang proponents hold that it does. Opponents tend to say that it doesn’t. Such disputes bring scientific theories into question, which also brings the conclusions into question.
Holloway’s second objection states,
“Since the laws and theories of positive science are based upon sensible phenomena as in some way physically observable and measurable, they can never be used to transcend the phenomenal order. But God, as a term to be demonstrated, entirely transcends the phenomenal order. Thus any proof that is strictly and merely from positive science can never demonstrate his existence.”
This is saying what I said above, namely, natural science studies nature and, by definition, cannot rise above it. Science studies the things of this world, not the things other than this world. This is simply true, by definition. To study the cause of this world would not be natural science, but natural theology (philosophy). Science can certainly show that systems in this universe (and the universe itself) are highly designed and need a designer; however, the existence of that designer cannot be demonstrated beyond a level of probability.
His third objection is related to the second but shows that science could not tell us about the essence of the cause of the universe even if it could tell us about its existence:
“Even if we were to grant that positive science could establish the existence of some super mundane principle, it could never go on to prove that this principle is God; namely, a Necessary Being and Pure Act. To reach such a term (that is, to reach God) one would always have to resort to principles that are truly metaphysical.”
The best that something like intelligent design can do is to show that there is a designer. It does not show the designer to be separate from nature, or a single being, or that the universe as a whole was created. While the kalam argument coupled with big bang cosmology does the latter, even the big bang theory must make the jump from science to philosophy to show there was a creation. Science just tells us what this universe is like and how it works. Philosophy tells us about the nature of things, and that effects must have causes. Science certainly cannot tell us anything about the nature of the cause(s) other than it is (they are) intelligent. Categories such as “Necessary Being,” “Pure Act,” etc., are metaphysical (philosophical) categories unavailable to the natural scientist (without importing them from philosophy).
But Can the Question Be Scientific?
The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science.
Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.
Distinguishing the Scientific and the Philosophical Arguments: What’s the Difference?
Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause):
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Most of the effort is usually placed on the second premise to marshal evidence for the universe’s beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) is often invoked. It says that energy in a closed system (a system that doesn’t get energy from the outside) converts from usable to unusable energy. In other words, when we take our cell phones off their chargers the battery begins to die until it is recharged. In the absence of a charger (energy from the outside), when it dies the phone will simply not work. The move in this argument is to show that there is nothing outside the known universe that provides energy. Thus, left to itself, the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe existed from the infinite past, it would have already run out of energy by now. But it hasn’t. Therefore, the argument says that the universe has not existed forever into the past, but had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it had a beginner.
Arguments like this are very strong, but they depend on the accuracy of interpretations and notions such as how the second law of thermodynamics works and to what extent it can be applied. Does the law apply to everything? Does it apply to the whole universe? Is the universe getting outside energy (whatever that would mean)? Thus, there is a degree of probability with this reasoning. It is based on induction and is thus not certain.
Philosophical proofs on the other hand lead to deductive (metaphysical) certainty. That is, scientific theories change, but the nature of the world does not. Not everyone agrees with such theories as the big bang (I for one do). But we can all agree (I know there are outliers) that things in the world change. From this concept of change we can deduce things about their nature and their cause. Consider the following argument that I have summarized from Thomas Aquinas that is referred to as the First Way:
Things change. In order for things to change they must be composed of act (existence) and potency (the ability to change). For a change to take place it must be brought about by something that already exists (is in act). A being in act causing change in another being cannot go backwards forever. Therefore, there must be a being that is not composed of act and potency, but is simply act. This being people call God.
Such an argument is based on the metaphysical nature of reality. Arguments like this start from existing things as effects and reason back to the nature of their causes. We can see that if this argument is sound, it shows God to be Pure Act, with no division of act and potency, and thus unchanging, and eternal (since time is classically understood to be a measuring of change).
Natural science on the other hand can at best only tell us that given what we know about the universe and life, there must exist some intelligent being, or beings, that in some way designed them (not even created them). Some iterations of the kalam argument attempt to show the beginning of the universe based on the big bang theory. There is much merit to this, but it is limited and still requires philosophical moves. Again, the scientific arguments are very strong, but they don’t go far enough to secure the God that Christians want to prove. We are not interested in simply proving a kind of god, but the God of Christianity, that is, the God just described above based on the first way.
In answering the question of whether or not the kalam cosmological argument gives us a being of classical theism based on natural science, Ed Feser retorts,
“It does not. for to get from the world to the God of classical theism, it is not enough to get from the world to a cause of the world. One must get to a cause that has the attributes distinctive of the God of classical theism—such as simplicity, immutability, and eternity—and one must get to a God who is not only the temporal cause of the world, but apart from whose sustaining causal activity the world could not exist even for an instant. And I submit that neither condition can be met without recourse to the distinction between actuality and potentiality that is at the core of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature” (“Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in Philosophy,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays, 80).
Conclusion
I hope that I have been clear that I believe theistic proofs that involve natural science are strong, but limited. Natural science alone cannot make a case for God. Further, such arguments are not as conclusive as philosophical ones, nor do they give us the God of classical theism which we can discover through philosophy. I agree with Ed Feser when he says,
“To be sure, this is not to deny that considerations from modern cosmology—or from other natural sciences, for that matter—can be useful to the natural theologian; the kalam cosmological argument, I concede, shows that much. But I maintain that such considerations can never be sufficient, and that recourse to the philosophy of nature is necessary to get from the world to the God of classical theism” (Ibid., 80).
Recommended Resources:
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46cZJSz
The Demon Delusion? Recent Evidence They Exist
PodcastAre demons real—or just a delusion? The recent Minneapolis Catholic school shooting may be one of the clearest examples of demonic activity ever covered by the mainstream media. Frank takes a hard look at the shocking details surrounding the tragedy where a trans-identifying individual left many clues behind to demonstrate his delusion before deliberately targeting innocent children. He’ll answer tough questions like:
The most dangerous thing about deception is that you don’t realize you’re being deceived! If you or someone you know needs to confront demonic influence without falling into despair, the only source of true freedom is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Tune in to gain practical tools from Scripture to overcome fear, resist the enemy’s lies, and stand firm in a culture increasingly hostile to Christianity.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
The Josh Howerton Podcast – The Most *OVERT* Demonic Activity I’ve EVER Seen
Hollywood Heroes by Frank & Zach Turek
When Propaganda Wears a Habit: Why Apologists Must Guard the Truth
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsNote: The original version of this article was published on Dr. Orr’s Substack.
The present version has been substantially revised and adapted by the author.
When Tucker Carlson aired the episode Here’s What It’s Really Like to Live as a Christian in the Holy Land (2025), the optics were powerful. His guest, Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos, appeared cloaked in a black Orthodox veil, her presence suggesting sanctity and authenticity. The fact that she was also the sister of George Stephanopoulos, longtime ABC political commentator, made the segment doubly compelling. The habit and the surname prepared audiences to assume her words carried both religious authority and cultural weight.
On the surface, she seemed to speak truth about Christian suffering in the land of Christ’s birth. In reality, what she offered was not gospel witness but a politicized narrative—an apologetic for propaganda. This is not about attacking a nun or a television host; it is about recognizing how propaganda undermines Christian credibility.
Christian apologetics must resist the lure of propaganda, for when believers trade truth for political narratives or survival strategies, they undermine the very credibility of the gospel whose power rests on historical reality and Christ’s Lordship. Carlson’s broadcast gives us a case study in how easily symbols and stories can distort Christian witness, and why apologists must anchor every defense of the faith in uncompromising truth.
Truth as the Foundation of Witness
The problem is not only what Mother Agapia said, but how Western audiences received it. Many viewers, unfamiliar with the history of Arab Christianity or the survival strategies of dhimmi life, mistook her testimony for unbiased truth. Yet her narrative echoed centuries of Christian communities navigating life under Islamic subjugation.
Under dhimmi status—a framework that allowed Jews and Christians to live under Muslim rule but only as second-class subjects—Christians developed “survival apologetics.” These rhetorical strategies defended not the gospel but communal existence. When this survival instinct becomes the measure of witness, truth is displaced, and credibility is lost.
Symbol vs. Substance in Apologetics
In the Western imagination, the nun’s habit symbolizes purity, moral authority, and spiritual integrity. Carlson framed Mother Agapia not as a political actor but as a “holy witness,” inviting viewers to hear her with reverence. As Roland Barthes observed, such symbols often function as “mythological signs”—they communicate meaning before arguments are tested.
But apologetics demands discernment beyond symbols. Peter calls believers to “set apart Christ as Lord” before making any defense (1 Pet. 3:15). No veil, robe, or role guarantees truth. The apologetic task is to measure every witness against Scripture, not appearances.
Why Credibility Matters in Apologetics
Mother Agapia claimed Christians are leaving Bethlehem because of Israeli occupation. While the demographic collapse is undeniable, her explanation was misleading. Historians have shown Bethlehem’s decline stems primarily from Islamist harassment, discriminatory laws, and economic pressures. By contrast, Israel’s Christian population has grown under protections of law and freedom of worship.
The apologetic point is critical: if Christians are careless with political truth, unbelievers will not trust them with theological truth. The resurrection rests on historical reliability. If we distort the facts in politics, why should anyone trust us about history’s most important fact—the empty tomb?
The Dhimmi Reflex and the Gospel’s Call
As Bernard Lewis observed, Christians under Islamic rule often shifted blame onto Jews as a way to preserve their safety. This “dhimmi reflex” continues today when Arab Christians echo nationalist propaganda instead of confronting Islamist hostility.
But Jesus warned against making survival the highest good: “Whoever would save his life will lose it” (Matt. 16:25). True apologetics refuses to sacrifice gospel truth for cultural or political survival. The early martyrs knew this well—burning incense to Caesar may have seemed like a minor concession, but it betrayed Christ’s Lordship. Apologetics today must embody the same fidelity.
It is worth noting that such compromises often arose under severe pressure. Christians living as minorities have faced hard choices. Yet the lesson for us today is not to condemn but to learn: fidelity to truth, even when costly, has always been the mark of authentic witness.
The Cost of False Witness
Mother Agapia’s credibility was already in question after her discredited claims during the 2002 Bethlehem siege. Yet Carlson presented her as trustworthy, as though a habit and a surname sanctified her words.
But apologetics cannot sanctify distortion. Its task is to defend the hope we have in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15), a hope grounded in truth. The gospel rises or falls on historical reality. Once Christians become comfortable bearing false witness for political ends, we erode the foundation of our apologetic witness.
Conclusion: Apologetics Anchored in Christ Alone
Mother Agapia’s appearance was praised as bold truth-telling, but in reality it was propaganda cloaked in sanctity. Her surname gave her visibility, her habit gave her credibility, and Carlson’s platform gave her reach. Yet none of these could sanctify distortion.
We are not called to defend propaganda—we are called to defend Christ. When Christians compromise truth for cultural approval, survival strategies, or political alliances, they may gain short-term credibility with the world but they lose credibility for the gospel. As Jesus warned, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Matt. 16:26).
The apologetic task is not to prop up narratives but to bear faithful witness to Christ, crucified and risen. The world will only trust our defense of the resurrection if it sees us defending truth in every sphere of life. In an age when media spectacles masquerade as reality, the most powerful apologetic is fidelity: setting apart Christ as Lord, and proclaiming Him with integrity, courage, and unwavering commitment to truth.
Recommended Resources:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)
Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.
Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.
He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.
How to Raise Gender Confident Kids with Dr. Jeff Myers and Dr. Kathy Koch
PodcastWhat does it really mean to be male or female? You may not be confused, but your kids could be—and if you don’t help them now, they may come to believe they’re trapped in the wrong body. So how do you guide them with the truth before the culture hijacks their hearts and minds?
This week, Dr. Jeff Myers and Dr. Kathy Koch of Summit Ministries join Frank to discuss their new book, ‘Raising Gender-Confident Kids: Helping Kids Embrace Their God-Given Design‘. Tune in as Jeff and Kathy reveal how parents can protect and prepare their children for these cultural lies and provide practical tools to guide the conversation. Together, they’ll coach parents on how to instill hope and confidence in kids by embracing their identity in Christ and answer crucial questions like:
In today’s world, countless young people feel invisible, misplaced, or pressured to believe that “gender-affirming care” is the solution—when in reality, it leads to a psychological and physical dead end. Be sure to grab a FREE copy of Jeff and Kathy’s book at GenderConfidentKids.com while supplies last, packed with 200 conversation starters to make these tough discussions easier and more effective!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
GET YOUR FREE BOOK HERE! GenderConfidentKids.com
Summit Ministries
Celebrate Kids
What is the Meaning of Life?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsAncient philosophy began when people started thinking about ultimate reality. These early philosophers proposed theories about the ultimate elemental stuff which everything else comes from or is made of. Some of the early theories were earth, air, fire, or water. One ancient philosopher, Democritus, even suggested that everything is made up of tiny particles he called atoms. If Christianity is true, however, and I believe it is, then when the final curtain of reality is pulled back, we won’t find earth, air, fire, water, or atoms. Instead, we’ll find loving relationships between three divine persons. Ultimate reality, from which everything else comes, is a God which exists as a Trinity: three divine persons united in one essence and united in Their loving relationships with Each Other.
I’ve become convinced that chapter 17 in the Gospel of John provides us the clearest window to look inside this trinitarian love. Peering through this window will help us understand the very meaning of life itself. In John 17 Jesus, God the Son, prayed to God the Father like this: “You, Father, are in Me and I in You…. You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:21a, 24b). If God is ultimate reality, and I believe He is, and if He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is a key part, if not the key part, of ultimate reality.
Since God existed as a loving fellowship of divine persons, it can seem puzzling why He bothered to create us. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create us, human beings in His image, to expand this fellowship of love so we could share in the joy and love of the inner life of God. In other words, God created us for loving relationships, to love Him, to love each other, and to be loved back. Jesus continued in John 17, praying, “You [God the Father]. . . have loved them [Jesus’ disciples] as You have loved Me [God the Son]. . . . Father, I desire those You have given Me to be with Me where I am. . . . I made Your name known to them. . . .so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them” (John 17:23-26).
Understanding that our very purpose as human beings is to have loving relationships with God and with each other gives us insight about the meaning of life. I’m convinced that the very meaning of life is to enjoy loving relationships with God and with others. All of us eventually recognizes that the most important thing in life is our loving relationships. These relationships change throughout our lives, of course; when we’re younger, our most cherished relationships are usually with our parents, later in life our friends, and then often a spouse. But on our death bed we all acknowledge that the most important part of life was our loving relationships, that they’re the very meaning and purpose of life. We all know this to be true, but Christianity explains why this is the case—because we were created by a God of love to enjoy loving relationships.
This purpose God had in creating us can be seen in the very first human relationship, the marriage of Adam and Eve. They were created in God’s image to reflect the Trinity in the sense that they were separate, unique, individual persons, but they were to come together in love to be united as one (Gen. 2:24). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the famous German pastor put to death by the Nazis for opposing Hitler, wrote that in Adam and Eve’s union they expressed “the two complementary sides of the matter: that of being an individual and that of being one with the other.”[1]
One of the ways Adam and Eve were to express their love for God was through their obedience to Him. The Bible says loving God and obeying God are closely connected—1 John 5:3 says, “This is what love for God is: to keep His commands.” Some think God’s commands are harsh and authoritative, but such people fail to understand the purpose of His commands. As His creatures it’s true that God has authority over us, but His commands flow not from despotic desire to control us but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing there is—loving relationships with Him and with others. God’s commands are instructions for the path which best achieves the purpose He created us for—loving relationships. That’s why Jesus said the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Matt. 22:36–40).
Unfortunately, Adam and Eve made a terrible choice and disobeyed the only command God gave them. If obeying God is the way we love Him, then disobedience is the opposite of loving God. Concerning the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, John Hare at Yale wrote, “…the basic command is not about the fruit, but is the command to love God that comes out of the experience of being loved by God. Refraining from the fruit is merely a symbol of that response.”[2] Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and because of all of our own evil choices, humanity’s relationship with God has been ruined, and the consequences have been disastrous. Adam and Eve’s choice introduced physical death to the human race, but even worse, our loving relationship with God was broken. The Bible calls this eternal death because it means continuing forever in this state of being relationally separated from God.
Thankfully though, in spite of our evil choices, God still loves us. And because He loves us, He orchestrated a way to fix our broken relationship with Him. One of the divine persons, God the Son, became human and lived the perfect life of loving obedience that we’ve all failed to live. He loved God and loved others perfectly to give us an example to follow. But He went further than that and died on a cross to pay the punishment we all deserve for our evil choices. God promised that anyone who chooses to trust in Jesus and what He did for us on the cross will be forgiven of their evil choices, reconciled back to God, and welcomed into heaven to spend all eternity enjoying loving relationships with God and with others. This is all summed up by the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16—”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Jesus explained in John 17 what eternal life is all about; there He said, “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent—Jesus Christ” (John 17:3).
God desires that everyone be reconciled back to Him through faith in Christ, but He doesn’t force this decision on anyone. Those who decide not to trust in Christ will continue to be relationally separated from God for all eternity. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says those who die in this state “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the Lord’s presence.” God lets them choose what they want, but that’s not what He wants. In John 17 Jesus expressed His desire to restore humanity back to the trinitarian fellowship we were created for. He prayed that “the glory which You [God the Father] have given Me [God the Son] I have given to them [Jesus’ disciples], that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:22-23).
Someday God will step into history to make all things right. We often cry out for that day when we see all the evil and suffering around us. But we need to remember that this is going to be a day of judgement where God will punish evil and hold humanity accountable for what we’ve done. For those, however, who’ve embraced His forgiveness through faith in Christ, He has promised that He’ll put an end to the death and suffering which we’ve caused by our evil choices. Revelation 21:4 says that “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Sometimes we wonder what God is waiting for. Why doesn’t He do this now? Peter gives us the answer in 2 Peter 3:9—“The Lord does not delay His promise [His coming judgment], as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.” The reason God hasn’t stepped into history to make all things right and judge humanity for our evil is that He’s patiently wanting more people to trust in Christ and through that faith be reconciled back to Him. Why not make that decision to trust in Christ for forgiveness today? If you do, please let me know. I’d be thrilled to know that through this website someone became a Christian and was restored back to a right relationship with the God who loves them.
References:
[1] Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 3, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997, p. 99-100.
[2] God’s Command, Oxford Studies in Theological Studies, Oxford University Press, 2015, page 30
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4n2AwA5