If I Were a Mormon: A More Coherent View of God

,

Over the past several years—especially since 2018—I’ve made multiple trips to Utah every year. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times I’ve been out there, but it’s starting to feel like a second home. I can understand why Brigham Young reportedly said, “This is the place.” It’s beautiful.

One of the things I appreciate most about Utah is the culture of open conversation. In many places, people are told to avoid discussing politics or religion. But that’s not the case in Utah. From a young age, Utahns are encouraged to think about what they believe—and to share it with others (often culminating in a two-year mission going door to door). That creates an extremely unique environment where meaningful conversations can actually happen.

Because of this culture, those who reject Mormon theology typically know why they reject it—and they are usually willing to talk about it. I sometimes joke that Salt Lake City is about half Mormon and half atheists—and much of that “other half” consists of either former Latter-day Saints (who have thrown the baby out with the bath water) or people who have moved there from California.

That said, my experiences have been mixed. While I’ve had many positive interactions, I’ve often found that deeper engagement with philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and systematic theology is not always emphasized. As a result, I often leave Utah frustrated because the conversations don’t go as far as they could.

But that seems to be changing. Increasingly, I’m meeting younger Latter-day Saints who are starting to take these disciplines seriously—thinking carefully, asking good questions, and engaging at a much deeper level. And that has led to some genuinely excellent conversations… and even new friendships. That’s exactly what we need more of.

 

Over the years, I’ve also noticed something encouraging. Many thoughtful, younger Latter-day Saints seem increasingly open to examine and refine certain theological assumptions that previous generations may have simply taken for granted. And historically, we’ve seen that the Latter-day Saint tradition is not entirely static. There have been meaningful developments over time—whether in relation to polygamy or the Church’s teachings regarding race.

 

I don’t bring this up as a criticism, but as an observation—and even as an opportunity.

If there is room for careful theological reflection and development, then perhaps there is also room to ask: What would it look like to retain the core commitments of Latter-day Saint belief while strengthening its philosophical coherence?

 

That’s the spirit of what follows. And I want this to be a genuine conversation.

If you’re a Latter-day Saint reading this, I would sincerely welcome your thoughts. Feel free to engage in the comments, reach out on social media, give me a call, or simply grab me the next time I’m in Utah. I’ve learned a lot from these conversations over the years, and I’m always open to being sharpened by thoughtful pushback.

 

So, in that same spirit, I want to offer something a bit different: If I were a Mormon, what would I believe in order to make my worldview as philosophically coherent as possible? This is not a critique from a distance. It’s an attempt to build some bridges where we can reason together (Isaiah 1:18).

The Problem of Infinite Regress

Many Latter-day Saints affirm some version of an eternal chain of divine beings—Gods begetting Gods without beginning. As their prophet Lorenzo Snow famously stated:

“As man is, God once was. As God is, man shall become.”

Bill McKeever writes:

“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression that precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “‘Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods’ (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”[1]

Taken at face value, this suggests an infinite regress of gods (and in my experience, most of the LDS members I talk with do affirm this view).

But I cannot accept an infinite regress for several reasons. Based on my study of infinity—going back to my graduate work in 2012—I am thoroughly convinced that an actually infinite past is not metaphysically possible.

Philosophy of Infinity

To see why, consider a simple point: infinity cannot be reached by successive addition. If you begin counting—1, 2, 3, and so on—you can continue forever, but you will never arrive at “infinity.” No matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. You can always add one more.

This shows something important: Infinity is not a number that can be completed—it is a limit that is never reached. That’s why an infinite future is possible in a sense—it never ends—but it is never completed.

But now consider the past. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events must have already occurred. And that leads to serious problems.

For example, consider a thought experiment often associated with the medieval philosopher Al-Ghazali. Imagine that our solar system has existed from the infinite past. Saturn takes longer to orbit the sun than Jupiter—roughly one orbit of Saturn corresponds to about 2.5 orbits of Jupiter.

Now ask: If both planets have been orbiting from infinity past, which one has completed more orbits? Intuitively, the answer should be Jupiter.

But if both have been orbiting for an actually infinite amount of time, then mathematically they have completed the same number of orbits—an infinite number. That result is absurd.

Jupiter clearly orbits faster than Saturn, so it should have completed more revolutions. Yet the math forces us to say they are equal. This is one example of the paradoxes that arise when we try to apply actual infinities to the real world.

 

We can make the same point another way. If the past were infinite, then the present moment could never arrive. It would be like trying to jump out of an infinitely deep, bottomless pit—there is no foundation from which to launch. Even if someone were given infinite jumping power, escape would still be impossible, because there is no starting point from which to begin.

 

But we are here. The present moment is real. Therefore: The past cannot be actually infinite. [And I haven’t even mentioned the Hilbert’s Hotel thought experiment.]

The Bigger Problem

These examples are not mere curiosities. They point to a deeper issue: An infinite regress of explanations fails to provide an ultimate explanation at all. Even if each step in the chain is explained by a prior step, the entire chain remains unexplained.

So, if LDS theology affirms an infinite regress of exalted beings, then it faces a serious philosophical challenge which opposes logic and reason itself.

A More Coherent LDS Starting Point?

If I were a Mormon, I would revise the model slightly. I would affirm several core LDS commitments:

 

  • A plurality of eternal “intelligences”
  • Genuine libertarian freedom
  • The importance of love and relationality

 

But I would reject an infinite regress of gods since that’s logically impossible. Instead, I would posit a foundational reality—one that explains everything else.

 

At this point, one might say: “One intelligence freely figured it out first—like a student solving a problem before the rest.”

 

That’s coherent. There’s nothing logically contradictory about it. But it still leaves a deeper question: Why that intelligence?

Appealing to libertarian freedom explains how something could happen—but not why it actually occurred. So, while this move avoids infinite regress, it still leaves us with a brute fact at the foundation of reality.

From Brute Facts to Maximal Greatness      

This is where I would go further. Rather than grounding ultimate reality in a brute fact, I would ask: What would a maximally great reality be like?

 

If God is the maximally great being, then He must possess every great-making property essentially. And one of those properties is: perfect love (1 John 4:8).

Love, however, is not something a solitary individual can fully instantiate. As Dr. Kirk MacGregor has argued, love possesses two essential features: selfless mutuality, and non-possessiveness These require: at least two persons (for mutuality), and at least three persons (for non-possessiveness).

Therefore: One maximally great being must be essentially tri-personal.[2] Nothing more, nothing less (since four or more persons is arbitrary and not necessary).

This conclusion is not derived from Scripture, but from philosophical reflection on the nature of love and greatness. Indeed, it follows from the deductive conclusion of the Ontological Argument (click here for more).

From Intelligences to the Trinity

So, if I were a Mormon, I would say:

  • Yes, there are eternal intelligences.
  • Yes, persons are real and irreducible.
  • Yes, love is fundamental.

 

But I would also conclude: Ultimate reality is not one intelligence among many, nor an infinite regress of gods—but a maximally great, tri-personal being who serves as the ultimate foundation and explanation of all contingent reality.

At that point, we are no longer talking about a being who eventually becomes a god, but a being who simply is God—necessarily and eternally.

Let’s briefly consider the logical coherence of the Trinity. To help connect these dots, consider an illustration popularized by William Lane Craig.

I do not think the Trinity is as “mysterious” as most people assume. Much of this clarity comes from my study of the immaterial soul and substance dualism. I do not merely have a soul; rather, I am a soul who has a body—and who can survive the death of that body.[3] One day, I will receive a glorified body. So, I am a soul (a spiritual substance) with one set of cognitive faculties.

This seems coherent, and if so, then it is at least conceivable that God is: one immaterial spiritual substance with three distinct centers of consciousness.          

Now, to be clear: This does not imply three separate beings or three independent substances, but one unified immaterial spiritual reality subsisting in three distinct personal ways. While most analogies of the Trinity fail (and regularly cross the line into heresy), William Lane Craig offers an illustration that helps illuminate key concepts: Cerberus.[4]

Cerberus is the three-headed guard dog of Greek mythology. The three heads cooperate to function as one effective guard dog. The idea of a multi-headed animal is not incoherent.

Now imagine Hercules is bitten by Cerberus. Would he say, “Cerberus bit me,” or “One of Cerberus’ heads bit me”? Either statement would make sense. Cerberus is one canine being, yet each head is also canine because it is part of that one being.

Now suppose Cerberus were an ensouled creature (as I believe animals are) with three centers of consciousness. Each head could say, “I think that…”.

To make this vivid, imagine Hercules slays Cerberus by stabbing him in the heart—a fatal blow that ends the life of the entire organism at once. The physical body dies. But suppose—like human persons—Cerberus possesses a single immaterial soul that survives the death of the body.

Now the picture becomes clear: One immaterial substance remains—yet it grounds three distinct centers of consciousness, each capable of genuine first-person awareness. Each could still say: “I think that…”

 

In this case, we would have: one immaterial or spiritual being with multiple “whos” (or as I like to say, “ONE what and THREE whos”).

 

The point of the illustration is modest: to show the conceptual coherence of one substance with three “whos”—not to equate God with a mythical creature.

 

Here’s the bottom line: If this is even conceivable even in a limited and analogical sense, then it is certainly not logically incoherent as many Latter-Day Saints (not to mention Muslims and atheists) have been led to believe.

Rethinking “Flesh and Bone”

 

At this point, many Latter-day Saints object: “But God has a body of flesh and bone.”

 

Interestingly, in a recent conversation, one philosophically trained Latter-day Saint told me: “Joseph Smith had no idea what he was talking about! He was a prophet, but he was not trained in philosophy, epistemology, or metaphysics. We have to take his true words with big grains of salt.”

 

That’s a remarkable admission. If that’s right, then we must distinguish between revelatory intent and metaphysical precision. And once we do that, a key assumption falls away: that “flesh and bone” must describe God’s ultimate ontological nature.

After all, Christians already affirm that the Son—the second Person of the Trinity—took on flesh and bone in the incarnation. So, we must ask: Does appearing embodied entail being essentially material?

 

Clearly, it does not. In fact, even within Latter-day Saint theology, there is already a distinction between pre-mortal existence and embodied life, which suggests that embodiment is not essential to the nature of a person.[5]

 

Moreover, as noted above, Christians already affirm that the second Person of the Trinity took on flesh and bone during His 33 years on planet earth. But that raises an important question: If the second Person of the Trinity can take on flesh and bone without ceasing to be an immaterial divine being, why couldn’t the first Person do the same?[6] In fact, if God desires to reveal Himself to embodied creatures like us, we would expect Him to appear in ways in which we can perceive and relate.

 

And this is not a foreign idea to the biblical tradition. Many theologians have long held that divine appearances in the Old Testament—sometimes understood as pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ (theophanies)—demonstrate that God can present Himself in bodily form without being essentially material.

 

If that is right, then the ability to appear embodied does not entail that God is, in His essential nature, a material being.

 

So, ultimately, if I were a Mormon, I’d realize that Joseph Smith was not trained in metaphysics and logic. Thus, I’d refrain from building a metaphysical framework on his claims. I’d still be a trinitarian.

If I Were a Mormon, I’d Still Be a Molinist   

If I were a Mormon, I would also continue embracing Molinism. Molinism affirms that God is omniscient and that humans possess libertarian freedom (what Mormons refer to as “agency”). If God is omniscient and knows how humans would exercise their libertarian freedom prior to the foundations of the world, then God possesses middle knowledge—that is, God knows not only what will happen in the future, but also what would happen under any possible set of circumstances God could have actualized, including the free choices of creatures.

Interestingly, there are hints within Latter-day Saint thought that seem to point in this direction. For example, Joseph Smith is associated with the idea that God’s judgment takes into account not only what people do, but what they would have done under different circumstances. This theme appears clearly in Doctrine and Covenants 137:5–10:

“I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom . . .”

 

If that’s right, then God’s knowledge includes truths about what free creatures would do in circumstances that never actually occur. And that is precisely the kind of knowledge Molinism affirms. On this view:

  • God does not determine human choices
  • yet God knows how each person would freely act in any situation
  • and God can providentially order the world accordingly

In fact, if this line of thought is correct, then Molinism may not be foreign to Latter-day Saint theology—but a natural development of insights already present within it.

Interestingly, I’ve found that many younger Latter-day Saints are sympathetic to Open Theism. But if there are truth values regarding libertarian free choices that never actually occur—as the passage above suggests—then it seems to follow that there are also truth values regarding future free choices. In other words, if it is true that a person would have freely chosen to receive the gospel under certain circumstances, then it is at least as plausible that there are truths about what a person will freely choose in the future.

And if such future-tensed truths exist, then God can know them. At that point, the core motivation for Open Theism begins to collapse.

Of course, this is only one line of reasoning. There are many additional philosophical and biblical reasons to reject Open Theism—far more than can be explored here. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Open Theism struggles to make sense of detailed or distant prophecy regarding libertarian agents, it undermines God’s ability to guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil without sacrificing libertarian freedom, and ultimately portrays a deity who is unable to secure the very goods He desires. In fact, rather than solving the problem of evil, it risks making that problem much worse (see Why I Reject Open Theism—and Why It Makes the Problem of Evil Worse).

A Note on Knowing What Is True

Now that we’ve discussed divine knowledge it’s vital to discuss human knowledge. Indeed, at this point, an important question naturally arises: How do we know which worldview is true in the first place?

 

In many of my conversations with Latter-day Saints, the answer often appeals to what is commonly called a “burning in the bosom”—a kind of internal spiritual confirmation.

 

But this raises a serious epistemological question: I have personally read the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about it—sincerely. And I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.

 

Yet I am often told:

“If you read the entire Book of Mormon, pray about it sincerely, God will tell you it is true or false.”

Now we have a problem. I prayed and “reasoned together” (Isaiah 1:18) with God, and reached the conclusion that Mormonism is false. Others have read the Book of Mormon, sincerely prayed about it, and reached the opposite conclusion.

 

Based on the laws of logic, both statements cannot be true. Truth is not relative—Mormonism is either true or false. So, what explains the difference? It seems we are left with a few possibilities:

 

  • One of us is misinterpreting our experience
  • The method itself is unreliable
  • Or God determines sincere seekers to arrive at contradictory conclusions

But if a method regularly leads sincere people to conflicting beliefs about ultimate reality, then that method cannot be a reliable guide to truth.           

This is not merely a theoretical concern. People in many different religious traditions report similar internal confirmations—often with equal sincerity and conviction—yet they arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions.

So, the question is not: “Did I have a powerful experience?” The real question is: “Is my method of knowing truth reliable?”

Scripture itself warns us not to uncritically trust every spiritual impression: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). And again: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, what should we do with this?

If I Were a Mormon . . . I Would Want to Know

If I were a Mormon, I would want to ground my beliefs in a method that reliably leads to truth—not merely one that produces powerful experiences.

 

I would not ignore those experiences—but I would test them, just as Scripture commands (1 John 4:1). I would ask:

  • Do my beliefs correspond to reality?
  • Are they logically coherent?
  • Do they provide a sufficient explanation of the world?
  • Are they supported by historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence?

In other words, I would want to follow the evidence wherever it leads—and reason together, just as Scripture invites us to do (Isaiah 1:18). Because if God is a God of truth (John 14:6), and desires all people to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), then truth is not something we need to fear.

Bottom line: a method that can confirm contradictory beliefs cannot reliably confirm truth. Thus, if I were a Mormon, I would not base my beliefs on feelings alone; I would justify them with facts, logic, reason, and evidence.

Why This Matters      

To be clear, this does not resolve every disagreement between Latter-day Saints and classical Christians. There are still extremely important differences regarding our views of scripture, revelation, and the teachings of Joseph Smith. But it does address a major obstacle: the need for an ultimate explanation of reality. If we are going to reason together, we must ask:

  • Does our worldview terminate in a sufficient explanation?
  • Or does it ultimately rest on unexplained facts?

A Friendly Invitation

My goal here is not to score points, but to build bridges. If Latter-day Saints are willing to:

  • reconsider infinite regress
  • reflect on maximal greatness
  • explore the philosophical case for a tri-personal God
  • consider the explanatory power of middle knowledge
  • and evaluate whether their method of knowing truth (epistemology) is reliable—testing spiritual experiences rather than assuming they always correspond to reality

 

. . . then we are already moving in the right direction.

The Jesus We Love

I often conclude my conversations with Latter-day Saints by focusing on what matters most: the person of Jesus. At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about the same person. After all, we both use the name “Jesus,” we both speak of His love, and we both claim devotion to Him.

But upon closer examination, the differences are significant.

On classical Christian theism, Jesus is:

  • eternal, without beginning
  • the creator of all contingent reality
  • fully divine—the second Person of the Trinity
  • a maximally great being

By contrast, within Latter-day Saint theology, Jesus is understood as a distinct divine being who is not the eternally necessary, maximally great God affirmed by classical Christianity, but exists within a broader framework in which divinity is not uniquely or necessarily possessed.

These are not small differences.

According to the logical law of identity, if two descriptions of a person are fundamentally incompatible, then they cannot refer to the exact same being in the fullest sense. So, while we may use the same name, we must at least consider the possibility that we are referring to different understandings of who Jesus truly is.

And yet, one thing I never doubt is this: Latter-day Saints love the person they call Jesus. I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. It’s real.

So, I often ask a question: “Let’s suppose that right now, we had a Road to Damascus experience—and Jesus Himself appeared before us. What would you do?”

Without hesitation, they answer the same way I would: “I would fall at His feet and worship Him.” And I say, “Yes—I would too.”

Now imagine that Jesus lifts us up, embraces us, and makes it unmistakably clear that He knows we love Him—and that He loves us more than we can possibly imagine.

Then imagine He says something like this: “I know you love me, but I want you to know who I truly am . . .  the Second Person of the Trinity.”

At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: “Do we love Jesus as He truly is? Or as we have come to subjectively think about Him?” Because love that is grounded in misunderstanding – even sincere misunderstanding – must eventually be brought into alignment with truth.

In my experience, many Latter-day Saints respond with something like, “I want the real Jesus.” Amen to that. I couldn’t agree more.

 

And when I hear that, I have real hope—because anyone who truly desires the real Jesus is already moving in the right direction. I look forward to the possibility that we will one day stand together before Him in worship.

This is why these conversations matter. Not to win arguments—but to know and love Jesus rightly. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

—Dr. Tim Stratton

References: 

[1] Bill McKeever, As God Is Man May Be?, (website article accessed 3-22-23) at: https://mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet.

[2] [Editor’s note: Assuming Kirk Macgregor’s argument is valid, up to this point, it would not follow that such a being would be tri-personal but rather that that being would be at least tri-personal. There could be other, non-arbitrary, justifying reasons for having more personages than just three. Neither Stratton nor MacGregor have shown that no such “additional reasons” exists to justify a fourth (or more) personages operating within the divine unity. Nevertheless, tri-personality – that is, the trinity – satisfies the minimal requirements for MacGregor’s trinitarian argument to work.]

[3] [Editor’s Note: Craig is stating what’s known as “Cartesian Dualism,” named after the famous dualist Rene Descartes. This is the belief that the human person is a soul, regardless of whether he or she is embodied. Another view, also within historic Christianity is hylomorphism, popularized by Thomas Aquinas, which asserts that the human person is a body-soul unity. While bodies and souls can exist independent of each other, the human person exists only by the union of body and soul.]

[4] [Editor’s Note: Craig and Moreland make their case for “Social Trinitarianism” in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], ch. 29. The Cerberus analogy has received considerable pushback. Arguably, none of the “heads” are endowed with the fullness of Cerberus, yet Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are all “fully God” – individually and collectively. For more interaction with this Cerberus illustration see the series of articles from Trinities.]

[5] [Editor’s Note: The distinction between “spirit” and “matter/body” is different in LDS theology. According to Mormon thought, “spirit” is understood to be very fine matter. As Doctrine & Covenants 131:7 says, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.”]

[6] Ibid.

Recommended Resources:

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4uoqmha

/by

Some Definitional Drawbacks In Atheism

In a previous article I wrote about how “atheism” is best understood as a belief that there is no God. Those who prefer to describe themselves as merely “lacking God-belief” would do better to describe themselves as “negative atheists” as that is the more precise term.

As a postlude to that article, I think it’s important to state why this stuff matters. I’m not confident that that this definitional minutia matters a lot. It matters. But it’s not of ultimate importance. Far more important things deserve discussion. Nevertheless, this stuff matters enough to deserve at least a little observation here. Here are some reasons why I think this stuff matters.

First, Negative Atheism Comports With God’s existence               

Perhaps the biggest most glaring problem with the “new” (negative/soft/weak) atheism is that it’s compatible with God’s existence. When atheists define their atheism as “lacking God belief,” then that atheism is “true” if indeed that person has no God-belief. Even if God exists, if that self-identified atheist really does “lack God-belief,” then his atheism is true. The reference point for that truth claim isn’t in God but in the mind of that individual. One’s atheism can be true and God exist. That’s odd, to say the least.

Second, there’s Still an Implicit Burden of Proof     

Second, the negative atheist still, presumably, thinks his or her view is rational but that amounts to a claim and claims carry their own respective burden of proof. Put another way, the atheist may be holding to his or her non-theism for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. But if he or she won’t offer an any good reasons, then he cannot honestly wear the mantle of a “reasonable” atheist. Or, at least, no one else owes them the assumption that their atheism is reasonable. His atheism could be dogmatic, fundamentalist, or otherwise thoughtless irrationality. I would assume he thinks his atheism is reasonable, but absent any justifying reasons that he is reasonable, I cannot safely assume he is reasonable. He has an implicit burden of proof, to show that his non-belief is reasonable.

Third, it’s Superfluous           

There’s already a whole set of terms addressing these categories effectively making a new sense of “atheism” superfluous. If he has a generalized skepticism regarding all theological objects, then he’s a theological skeptic. If he lacks belief in God, he’s a negative atheist. To reinvent the term “atheism” to mean “lack of God belief” just isn’t necessary, since that semantic domain is already covered without confusingly overlapping different concepts under the same term. And whenever people are blurring and redefining terms, especially when there’s an obvious agenda at work, there’s a good chance that’s a smoke-grenade. And people don’t throw a smoke grenade unless they’re trying to sneak something past you.

Fourth, it’s confusing

Fourth, religious and theological discussions can get quite confusing. Inconsistent or faulty terminology makes things worse. Often I find that when atheists and theists disagree using terms like “faith,” “belief,” “theism,” or “atheism,” the core of our disagreement often boils down to non-standard language. I understand that language is flexible and I’m not denying stipulated or tentative terminology. But even then, it’s helpful to recognize the normal meaning of a term and then clearly point out how it’s being used in a non-standard way in this conversation. Without at least some exposure and acceptance of conventional terms, we can’t get very far in our discussions. When we don’t align on key terms,  understanding and entertaining them–whether or not we agree with them–we tend to get so busy talking past each other we don’t actually make any progress in pursuit of truth.

Fifth, it’s like Sitting on the floor and calling it a chair        

Fifth, many Atheists don’t seem to understand that they have a whole history and set of terms already available to them. But either they haven’t looked into it, or they are misinformed, so they mislabel or try to reinvent things–not thinking it through very deeply. In this way, the history of atheism is like a big house with lots of furniture and those particular atheists are sitting on the floor calling it a chair. A lot of people, myself included, are interested in serious academic dialogue on matters like God’s existence, religious truth, and the possibility of miracles. So, I’ve done some work to discover these terms and understand my own views and the views of other religions and non-religious outlooks. It shouldn’t be necessary for a Christian theist to have to teach atheists about their own array of conceptual and terminological options, just so we can eventually engage on these topics. I value vigorous dialogue. Ideas matters. And language matters. But ultimately, lives matter more, and I’d like to be able to be challenged and critiqued while offering the same in a mutual pursuit of truth. If atheists won’t even accept a chair I’m offering them, from their own ideological “house,” then we probably won’t be able to sit down to a civilized conversation. If we can agree on some of the furniture here. We can then both pull up our chairs, draw up a pot of tea, and sit down to a lively discussion instead of pleading with some atheist Jack on the floor to come join us at the debate table.

Sixth, it’s an affront to positive atheism      

Negative atheism is an implicit affront to positive atheism. Negative atheism implies that positive atheism isn’t convincing enough to persuade them to that position. Positive atheism, being the belief that no God exists, has a burden of proof because it’s making a claim about reality that, in reality, there is no God. That position is either reasonable or it is not. If it is reasonable, then negative atheists would be within their epistemic rights to adopt positive atheism instead of negative atheism. But instead of identifying themselves as “positive atheists,” the negative atheist has declined the offer.

Seventh, it risks duplicity      

Seventh, related to the last point, negative atheism risks duplicity. Why would a person present himself or herself as an atheist in the negative (lack of belief) sense when there is, underneath that posture, is an abiding commitment to positive atheism or agnosticism that better describes their actual beliefs? It’s confusing and unclear, at best, to hide one’s positive atheism or agnosticism underneath a veneer of negative atheism. At worst, it’s strategic dishonesty where a person is pretending to be more open-minded, or less committed than they actually are.

Every positive atheist is also a negative atheist, technically speaking. By believing that no god exists, one is also lacking belief in God’s existence. But then that person is more clearly and precisely described as “positive atheist.” Negative atheism is a superfluous distracting descriptor for them. Meanwhile, one could be an agnostic negative atheist in the sense of refraining from God belief because one thinks that knowledge of God isn’t happening. If some people are atheist in the classic sense then why stipulate a modified sense that hides one’s underlying position? Audiences are left wondering whether those people can defend that position or whether they are too scared to show their hand for fear it might be a losing hand.

Eighth, it’s imprecise 

As mentioned above, if a person claims to merely “lack belief in God” that position begs for the follow-up question: “Are you the agnostic kind or the (positive) atheist kind?” If one halts at the point of merely “lacking belief in God,” then the intellectual train has stalled out before arriving at a good stop. That position is manifestly imprecise. We can’t be clear about everything, but we would do well to be clear where we can. Here we can be very clear. Any aversion to clarity risks the duplicity mentioned above.

Ninth, poor terminology makes for poor thinking  

Mangled and blurry words tend to generate equally mangled and blurry thinking. If we’re aiming at truth, we do well to aim for clear and careful thinking. And to do that we need clear and honest terminology. Redefining atheism from a metaphysical stance (No God exists) to a psychological stance (I have no God-belief) is a seriously problematic shift. For the reasons stated above, it should be clear how poor terminology makes for poor thinking.

As a Christian theist I affirm that God exists, Jesus is God and God’s son, and He rose from the dead to save us from our sins. I also believe that God gave us rational faculties that, when used correctly, assist us in discovering and understanding how Jesus is the answer to the most important questions in life. I have a vested interest in helping Christians and non-Christians alike to think better. Rationality, sound logic, and critical thinking are pre-evangelism. They won’t do everything, but they are still important. Words matter to me, because words carry messages, and some messages are matters of life and death.

We need strong minds, humble hearts, and willing hands before we are ready to receive the big challenging Gospel message. But critical thinking poses a stark challenge to the Christian faith as well. Whatever the church has acquired that’s untrue, misstated, or errant–what’s liable to be critiqued into oblivion by discerning congregants. Christian theology is subject to revision and division. And critical thinking is a big part of that painful process. When it comes to atheists, I want every atheist to be the most rational, most reasonable, and most critically discerning person they can be. I understand that many of them will never come to faith in Christ. But it’s at least a service, a way to love them, regardless of what they do with that well-intended service. And for some of atheists, their ability to think well and their passionate pursuit of wisdom will drive many of them to their knees before God. I do not apologize for taking confusing terms, and opaque concepts and holding a light to them so that atheists and theists can see them better, weigh them more fairly, and think clearer for it.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4tsXCm8

 

/by

Which God When There are 3,000 to Choose From?

When I went to university, I encountered the biggest intellectual doubt I’ve ever faced as a Christian: How can I be sure that Christianity is true? Here was my thinking: “Can I really claim that I have the right religion when there are 3,000 others to choose from?” You might have come across a form of this argument via the atheist comedian Ricky Gervais.

As I went to university, I knew that I couldn’t keep my faith, nor share it with any real conviction, unless I knew that Christianity was true (1 Cor 15:14). I had to know which God was the correct one. Ultimately, philosophy was the primary force that drove the cementation of my Christian faith.[i]

Categories of Theism

As I wrestled with this doubt, I discovered that I didn’t have to lucky-dip my way through 3,000 religions until I found the correct one. There’s actually a much simpler way. It turns out that every single and particular religion can be grouped into one of five metaphysical categories, which are:

  1. Atheism, which holds that there is no God beyond the universe.
  2. Polytheism, which believes in many gods.
  3. Pantheism (and its cousin panentheism), which essentially teaches that God and the universe are the same thing.[ii]
  4. Deism, which claims that God created the universe but then left it alone.
  5. Monotheism, which believes in one supreme, personal, and active God.[iii]

To this day I am unaware of a sixth possible option for a way the world could work (though I am open to being corrected).[iv] I explicitly note here that “agnosticism” is not a category of worldview. It’s just a placeholder label for indecision. Agnosticism doesn’t affirm anything metaphysical about the universe.

Can you see how, suddenly, the 3,000 problem looks very different? Philosophical reasoning helped me to realize that the question is not, which God of 3,000? The question can be swiftly pruned to become, which of these five?

Putting Each Worldview to the Test

And then, after such an exercise, the gods can be put to the test. Each of these five categories needs to be scrutinized, and it is my contention that only monotheism stands up to the test.

  1. Atheism arguably demands the most blind faith of all. It requires the belief that there is nothing beyond the universe, and that everything came from nothing.[v] But there’s a more thorny problem than this: if our minds are nothing more than chemical compositions of atoms fizzing around in our brains, then we cannot trust ourselves to arrive at the truth, including the supposed truth that atheism is true. In turn, the Problem of Evil is similarly reduced to the natural course of the universe’s atomic rhythm. I cannot commit to a category that is self-defeating in the pursuit of truth and denies the meaningfulness of evil.
  2. Polytheism runs into a different kind of logical problem. A truly infinite being cannot share its infinity with any other, because if two beings differ in any way, then one must lack something the other has, and yet an infinite being lacks nothing. Moreover, even the ability to judge and distinguish between multiple gods requires an outside standard by which to judge said gods.[vi] But polytheism doesn’t appeal to an outside and greater standard, which thereby also paralyses it from denouncing evil.[vii]
  3. Pantheism (and its cousin panentheism) says that the universe shares in the ontological nature of God – and so faces two serious obstacles. First, we know that the universe had a beginning, and yet God is eternal, so there must be a distinction between God and the universe.[viii] Second, if God and the universe were identical, then evil would of necessity share in God’s nature and therefore lose its moral repugnance, which doesn’t sit well with anyone who has experienced suffering.
  4. Deism pictures a God who created the universe but then left it alone. Deism therefore, like atheism, requires the rejection of every single claim throughout history that God has acted miraculously. But, more than that, deism cannot explain why we exist right now, because the universe is entirely dependent on being sustained in its existence every single second. Likewise, deism has to reject that there is a Problem of Evil, because such evil can only be appealed to if there is a universal moral law by which to judge it, and such a universal law requires being sustained in existence every single second.

One Option Remains

None of the first four categories provided me with a satisfactory explanation for how the universe works. Hence, by a process of elimination, I was left with monotheism, which actually fulfills the problems with the other categories. Monotheism provides an explanation for how we got something from nothing and how we can reason to truth (contra atheism), it accounts for one infinite being as the universal standard for all things (contra polytheism), it distinguishes created reality from the uncreated (contra pantheism and panentheism), and it supplies an explanation for the sustained existence of the universe and the moral law within it through a God who has revealed himself (contra deism).

More than that; all of the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (fine-tuning, cosmological, moral, contingency, transcendental) are tailored to monotheism, so I also found positive arguments for a monotheistic God’s existence, on top of the negative arguments against the alternatives.

As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek put it, monotheism gives the “true box top” – the picture that makes everything else make sense.

“This discovery helps us to see not only what [reality] looks like, but what it cannot look like. Since the opposite of true is false, we know that any non-[mono]theistic worldview must be false. Or, to put it another way, of the major world religions, only one of the [mono]theistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, or Islam – could be true. All other major world religions cannot be true, because they are non-[mono]theistic. This may seem like a grandiose claim – to deny the truth of so many world religions . . . but by simple logic . . . mutually exclusive religions cannot be true. Just as certain football players are rightfully cut from the roster of possible players because they lack necessary abilities, certain world religions are rightfully cut from the roster of possible true religions because they lack necessary qualifications.”[ix]

Narrowing the Field

More needs to be said about how religions within the metaphysical category of monotheism account for the Problem of Evil. There is not enough space to address that here. More also needs to be said about which is the true religion within the category of monotheism. Monotheism (unlike deism) requires a knowable God who has revealed himself.

The only three religions within monotheism which proffer a knowable God are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Therefore, by deploying sound reasoning to this question within the Philosophy of Religion, the inquirer is no longer left to choose between 3,000 options; nor even five, once atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and deism have all been ruled out.

The inquirer is left with just three: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.[1] One of these has to be true.

References:

[1] Let it be noted that these three religions collectively house over half of the world’s population.

[i] “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and other addresses (New York: HarperCollins, 1949, repr., 2001), 58.

[ii] Editor’s note: Panentheism affirms that all the universe is “in” God somehow. For example, the universe is God’s body and “God” – as spirit – is really just the divine soul that inhabits this universal body.

[iii] [Editor’s Note: Some distinguish monotheism from “finite Godism”, wherein God is somehow less than the greatest possible being. That’s the conclusion of Harold Kushner in When Bad things Happen to Good People? (1981). And it’s implicit with some unorthodox schools of Christian thought such as open theism (Greg Boyd). Nevertheless, these can also be seen as varieties of monotheism as they affirm that only one God exists. The point is that, even if the majority view within monotheism is tied to “maximal being ontology” (Anselm’s “that than which none greater can be conceived”), as long as it’s only one-God in view, that can be loosely understood as “monotheism.”

[iv] Ibid.

[v] If an atheist wishes to claim otherwise, then he is no longer appealing to atheism but to some other category of theism.

[vi] Polytheism puts “into the universe a third thing in addition to the two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God.” C.S. Lewis, “The Invasion,” in Mere Christianity (ProQuest Ebook Central: HarperCollins Publishers), 48. Accessed 10 April 2026.

[vii] The explanation for evil on polytheism is chalked up to the existence of some ‘evil’ god or gods.

[viii] Pantheism would have me believe that I am God. But that would require me to go from a state of not knowing that I am God to a state of realising that I am, in fact, God. Such a change is impossible for an infinite being.

[ix] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, “Miracles: Signs of Gullibility or God,” in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004), 198-199.

Recommended Resources:

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

/by
Defining Atheism: Belief in No God or No Belief in God

Defining Atheism: Belief in No God or No Belief in God

Is Atheism the absence of God-belief or the present belief that there is no God? Traditionally, “atheism” refers to the belief that there is no God. But in the last 20-30 years, it’s become popular to treat the term as a kind of agnosticism, “having no belief in God” or simply, “lacking God-belief.” Who’s right? And what does it matter?

Atheos

Let’s go back to the Greek word from which we get our word “atheism.” “Atheist” is a translation of the Greek: atheos using the alpha privative “a” – which translates as “un-/non-/dis-/not/no,“ and the term “theos” (God). It literally translates as “No God”. Note, it’s not a merger between the alpha privative and the english term “theist” or “theism.” Rather “atheist” as a whole word is a translation of the whole word “atheos.” The alpha privative negates theos, as in, “no God”, or “godless.” as opposed to negating theism which would be “no God-belief.” As it stands with atheism, if the original meaning were drawn entirely from etymology it would mean simply “godless,” “ungodly,” or “without God.” And this indeed is one of the definitions we find for the term in its Ancient sources. In that time, it also had the primary definition of “denying God/gods” which followed by implication from the notion of “godless;” if a person truly believed in a grand judge over all the universe he would not live/teach/think as if no such being existed.

The idea, however, of withholding/refraining-from belief about some God, though present in ancient Greece and Rome, tended to be subsumed under terms like “skepticism” (gk: skepticos) or “materialism” or “atomism” (a form of materialism). Atheos however was used to describe a different phenomenon. Thus the effective meaning of atheos is something like, “[immorally] godless” or “disbelief in God.”

Were someone to translate ancient and classical uses of atheos into “no belief in God” they would do an injustice to the text since that is simply not how Greeks and Romans were normally using the term when they first coined it, nor when they continued using it over the years. Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning. When we apply etymology to the English word “atheism,” we have “athe” (from atheos “no God/Godless”) + “-ism” (belief). Belief then characterizes the “no God” hence we have, “Belief in no God.” And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which it’s affixed. So, the belief is positive, the object of belief is negative. It is “belief in no God” or “belief in Godless[ness].” For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, “theos-a-ism” or, “No belief [in a] God.” The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.

Christian Atheists?     

In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being “atheists.” Of course, they still believed in God but because they rejected the Greco-Roman pantheon of Gods, they were slandered as “atheists” by comparison. They did not simply “lack belief” in the Roman Gods, rather they consciously rejected those God’s. They denied the existence of the Greco-Roman Gods (Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, etc.). The “lack of belief in God” was already covered under the concept of “skepticos,” (skepticism), namely it was a theological skepticism. That’s a disposition of distrust, doubt, or non-belief regarding God’s existence. The term Atheos was not a good fit for that concept. Atheism was a somewhat non-skeptical position for it took a position, making a claim that “no God exists.”

Compared to the plethora of Gods in the Greco-Roman pantheon, rejecting all but one is practically equivalent to atheism. So, despite it’s misapplication, the term “atheism” stuck. Even ambivalence could have been tolerated among the Romans as they did with many agnostic philosophers (though the term “agnostic” had not been invented yet). But conscious rejection of the Roman Gods was seen as an intolerable affront to the state. As we can expect from ideas that are deeply rooted in human nature and the human psyche, the idea of “atheism” survived for centuries with both connotations intact: “godless” and “disbelief in God.”

In recent times, however, the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified.

Strategic Advantage   

First, in debates it is generally the better strategy to rebut the opponent’s case rather than to have to be pre-occupied defending one’s own case. A softened definition of atheism allows for this. With negative atheism, the atheist doesn’t carry any burden of proof since that burden is on the participant/s making a positive case of some sort: “God exists” or “God does not exists.” But to claim, “I have no belief about God” is not a positive case. Therefore it requires no defense.

Presumption of Atheism        

Second, Antony Flew’s important article “The Presumption of Atheism” (1972) argues that the default or neutral position for humanity is atheism. Building on the point just made, Flew argues that the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate that “belief in God” is reasonable. Essentially, Flew is arguing that negative/soft/weak atheism is man’s natural disposition, or if it is not, it is the intellectually justified default position. It is up to the theist to make a positive case for theism.

Logical Positivism       

A third factor which might have played a part in this redefinition is the onset of British positivism, like that of A.J. Ayer. Ayer, among others, suggested that claims must be empirically verifiable or analytically (by-definition) true if they are to be linguistically meaningful.[1] Theology, for Ayer, is not true, but neither is it false. It is without meaning since its reference to God lacks analytic veracity and empirical testability so the notion cannot even be entertained as a proposition. It is like trying to argue “I believe in ‘ouch’” or “I don’t believe in ‘um’.” These terms “ouch” and “um” are emotive/gibberish terms that defy cognitive belief or disbelief. “Truth” and “falsity” do not apply to them, and, according to Ayer, nor does it apply to any God-talk. Ayer’s positivism was all the rage for a while, but today, few people are conscious advocates of this “logical positivism,” even though its scope and influence is incredibly widespread. Ayer’s positivism ultimately proved self-defeating since every attempt to say the theory of positivism, failed to satisfy it’s own criteria for meaningfulness.

Understanding these three possible influences together: 1) The strategic advantage of negative atheism (“no belief in a God”), 2) combined with “The Presumption of Atheism,” and 3) a positivistic disposition–it makes complete sense why many contemporary atheists want to define their own camp in negative terms as “without theism, no belief in a God” instead of the historic and traditional use of the term (“disbelief in God),.” But does this view not overlap with agnosticism?

The Complicating Landscape of Non-Theism             

Antony Flew and A.J. Ayer are 20th century figures, who emerged from the secularizing influence of German rationalism, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Freedom of Religion in the West, evolutionary theory with Darwin’s Origin of The Species. The landscape of non-theism was vast and complicated in the late 19th and early 20th century. To help organize the ideological furniture in the growing domain of disbelief, Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term “agnostic” in 1889. He used this term to describe his own conviction that knowledge about God’s existence or non-existence is impossible. He did not consider himself an atheist, but found himself being called one. He was not a positive atheist–for he was not denying God’s existence. Nor was he a theist–since he wasn’t affirming God’s existence either. Neither was he simply a theological skeptic–since he believed that knowledge of God was not yet (or perhaps ever) possible. His agnosticism is practically indistinguishable from the modern category of “negative atheism” which also lacks belief in God, and also allows that God’s existence could prove unknowable even if He/she/it really existed.

Not surprisingly, the borders between “atheism” and “agnosticism” are often blurry or invisible. So, for atheism to be distinct, defensible, and publicly viable, it needs the help of some categorical distinctions since atheists are widely diverse and do not necessarily hold a party line when they don the moniker “atheist.” Somewhere in the Modern era there seems to have been a division then in both Agnosticism and Atheism, rendering four categories from the previous two.

  • Negative/Weak/Soft Atheism–”no belief in God”
  • Positive/Strong/Hard Atheism–”belief in no God”
  • Weak Agnosticism–”knowledge of God does not exist”
  • Strong Agnosticism–”knowledge of God is impossible.”

And another catch-all term can be added to these:

  • Theological Skepticism–distrust, disbelief, or doubt regarding theological objects

I’m borrowing these categories from Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and William Rowe as they’re quite helpful in clarifying some of the subtleties that arise in these debates. These are not, however, standardized, and do not necessarily reflect the long history or widescale contemporary usage of “agnostic” and “atheist.” I recommend these categories for clarity of usage, but we should be careful not to follow, thoughtlessly, the contemporary popular usage of “atheist” and “atheism” as being weak atheism or weak agnosticism. Etymology, history, and many contemporary standard sources defy that definition. Don’t believe me? Check some of the sources listed below.

At this point you may be wondering why all this matters? What difference does it make? At minimum, clear thinking and precise language are generally good. We should be clear and precise where we can. Besides that general benefit I give, in a different article, nine reasons why this definitional problem with atheism is important.


Positive Atheism is the majority sense of the term “Atheism” according to its historic usage

  • Emmanuel Haldeman-Julius, “The Meaning of Atheism,” Little Blue Book 1597, box 24. Self-Published under Haldeman-Julius Publishing, 1931, accessed 13 April 2026 at: https://infidels.org/library/historical/e-haldeman-julius-meaning-of-atheism/
  • (1942) Ferm, Vergilius. “Atheism” in Dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Dagobert D. Runes (New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library, 1942, republished 1951).
  • “Atheism,” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Vol. 1. (Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Company, 1960).
  • Paul, Edwards, “Atheism,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1. (London, Collier-MacMillan, 1967).
  • Paul Edwards, ed., “Atheism” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 1973).
  • “Atheism,” Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA, 1984).
  • “Atheism,” Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary Unabridged (Springfield, MA 1993).
  • William L. Rowe, “Atheism,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward Craig. Routledge, 1998.
  • Kai Nielsen, “Atheism,” Encyclopædia Britannica (2009).

Positive atheism is also the primary or exclusive definition for “atheism” in the following current sources:

Blackburn answers the question “what do you personally mean by ‘atheism’” by saying, “Actually I prefer the label ‘infidel’ to that of ‘atheist’. I suppose an atheist thinks there is a definite, intelligible question to which the answer is ‘no’, and agnostics also think there is such a question, and that the right answer is ‘don’t know’. But I doubt that there is a definite intelligible question about ‘the existence of God’.”–See below, (2008) Simon Blackburn

Representing Modern trends to normalize negative atheism as the standard sense of “atheism” are the following sources:

  • Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992, pg. 99
  • Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification Temple Univ. Press, 1990, pg. 463
  • Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy 2d rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2008. [Blackburn is an atheist].
  • American Atheists Society, “What is Atheism,” org (2015) at: http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
  • org, “Definitions,” Infidels.org (includes extensive referencing and quotations of original sources) at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

Notes:

[1] The seminal text for “logical positivism” is A.J. Ayer, Language Truth and Logic (New York: Penguin, 1936).

Recommended Resources:

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 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife, Hillary Ferrer, with her ministry, Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

This blog is adapted from the original version at: https://bit.ly/defining-atheism 

/by

The Ultimate Kalam Cosmological Argument Resource List: 80+ Curated Picks from Top Philosophers and Apologists, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: this blog series was originally posted as a single blog. The section “Introduction to the Kalam” is repeated here in both entries, for context, for the reader.]

Introduction to the Kalam

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is one of the most widely discussed arguments for the existence of God in contemporary philosophy and apologetics. It goes like this:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Though it sounds simple, the implications are profound. If the universe had a beginning—and beginnings require causes—then something (or Someone) beyond time, space, and matter must have brought it into being. The Kalam has sparked conversations among scientists, philosophers, theologians, and skeptics alike, making it a cornerstone of modern theistic argumentation.

This post brings together over 80 carefully curated resources—from beginner-friendly explainers and historical texts to scholarly journal articles, courses, and public debates. Whether you’re a curious newcomer or a seasoned thinker in apologetics or philosophy, this guide will give you a comprehensive, well-organized entry point into one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence. It’s also a valuable resource for influencers and educators looking to explore, share, or teach the Kalam with clarity and depth.

Books

This section features the most influential and insightful books on the Kalam Cosmological Argument—ranging from historical surveys and philosophical explorations to scientific defenses and academic volumes. Whether you’re a newcomer building your library or a thought leader looking for rigorous material, these books belong on your shelf.

Advanced Scholarship (Peer‑Reviewed)

This section features rigorous academic articles, journal exchanges, and scholarly critiques that shape the forefront of Kalam-related discourse. These works are best suited for readers with a background in philosophy, theology, or cosmology—or those looking to dive deep into technical and high-level debates.

William Lane Craig vs Wesley Morriston

These articles represent one of the most well-known scholarly back-and-forths on the Kalam:

William Lane Craig vs Graham Oppy

Graham Oppy has written some of the most sustained academic critiques of Kalam:

Other Peer-Reviewed & Academic Contributions

Beyond the headline debates, a wealth of rigorous scholarship continues to refine, expand, or critique the Kalam argument from diverse angles—metaphysics, cosmology, logic, and philosophy of time. These peer-reviewed papers and encyclopedia entries offer depth, nuance, and fresh perspectives for those looking to explore the broader academic conversation.

Practical Tools & Courses

If you want to take the next step—by teaching, debating, or studying the Kalam Cosmological Argument more systematically—this section is for you. These tools and courses range from structured learning environments to interactive platforms that help you map, test, and communicate your ideas more effectively.

  • Apologetics 201: The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Equip FREE Course
    A structured course that breaks down the logic and application of the Kalam in apologetics, including assignments and video lectures.
  • Kialo Edu (structured debate & argument mapping platform) FREE
    A powerful tool for visually mapping arguments and objections. Perfect for classroom use or personal exploration of Kalam’s structure.
  • HyperWrite Debate Assistant (AI argument generator) PAID
    An advanced writing assistant that helps generate and refine arguments from both sides of an issue. Can be used to simulate objections and test your responses to Kalam.

What to Do with All This

With over 80 curated resources, you now have everything you need to explore the Kalam Cosmological Argument from every angle—philosophical, scientific, theological, and practical. If this guide helped you, pass it on. Share it with your small group, your skeptical friend, your favorite apologist, or your online audience. Every click spreads clarity in a world full of noise Don’t keep it to yourself—someone out there is one good argument away from rethinking everything.

Did I miss something?

Know a blog post, video, paper, or podcast that should be on this list? Drop it in the comments—I might just add it.

References:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3OUC2IM

/by

The Ultimate Kalam Cosmological Argument Resource List: 80+ Curated Picks from Top Philosophers and Apologists, Part 1

Introduction to the Kalam    

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is one of the most widely discussed arguments for the existence of God in contemporary philosophy and apologetics. It goes like this:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Though it sounds simple, the implications are profound. If the universe had a beginning—and beginnings require causes—then something (or Someone) beyond time, space, and matter must have brought it into being. The Kalam has sparked conversations among scientists, philosophers, theologians, and skeptics alike, making it a cornerstone of modern theistic argumentation.

This post brings together over 80 carefully curated resources—from beginner-friendly explainers and historical texts to scholarly journal articles, courses, and public debates. Whether you’re a curious newcomer or a seasoned thinker in apologetics or philosophy, this guide will give you a comprehensive, well-organized entry point into one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence. It’s also a valuable resource for influencers and educators looking to explore, share, or teach the Kalam with clarity and depth.

Foundational Overviews (General Primers)

This section includes easy-to-understand introductions to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. These resources are perfect for readers who are completely new to the argument and want a clear, jargon-free explanation of its structure and significance.

Most Common Objections Answered    

The Kalam argument has its critics—and rightly so. A good argument invites challenge. In this section, you’ll find accessible responses to the most frequent objections raised against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including misunderstandings about causality, the multiverse, and the nature of God. Whether you’re sharpening your own understanding or preparing to teach or debate, these resources will help you engage with clarity and confidence.

Classic and Contemporary Debates 

Some of the most memorable moments in apologetics happen when world-class thinkers go head-to-head. This section collects major debates and responses surrounding the Kalam Cosmological Argument. These exchanges cover everything from cosmology and quantum mechanics to metaphysics and philosophy of time. Whether you’re a student, teacher, or influencer, these are essential for sharpening your understanding and seeing the argument tested under pressure.

Dialogues & Deep Dives

Not every idea needs a textbook—sometimes the best insights come from a good conversation. This section features interviews, discussions, conference panels, and informal debates that bring the Kalam Cosmological Argument to life. Whether it’s philosophers hashing out disagreements or apologists breaking down complex ideas in plain English, these dialogues make the argument more accessible—and more human.

FAQs

Even after understanding the core structure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, many people still have tough follow-up questions. This section tackles the most common philosophical and scientific pushbacks—about time, causality, infinity, and the nature of God. Each entry provides a focused, accessible explanation or rebuttal that you can reference, share, or use to deepen your own understanding.

. . . . Did I miss something?   

Know a blog post, video, paper, or podcast that should be on this list? Drop it in the comments—I might just add it.

Recommended Resources: 

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4uy8C3w

/by

The Current Argument from Information for the Existence of God

Introduction

The argument from information in contemporary terms is a novel teleological argument[1]  for the existence of God with its deepest roots in the mid-20th century. Most would describe its origins differently, including many proponents of this argument. They would begin their history of it with William Paley’s “watch in the heath” argument from 1802. Both arguments point to an object with unknown origin and reason from features of the object to the conclusion that it was designed by some intelligence rather than “naturally” occurring. Some modern design arguments are similar to Paley’s, such as Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity or Douglas Axe’s functional coherence. However, these types of arguments do not appeal to the concept of information as William Dembski’s specified complexity argument does. Ideas like irreducible complexity and Paley’s watch argument mostly appeal to a common-sense inference from the mechanical aspects of biology. But an argument from information is a different type of argument. Paley’s and others’ explication of what these features are simply could not have been understood the way modern information argument proponents understand it until the advent of information theory in the mid-20th century. Applying this argument to living things had to wait until the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, which showed that DNA is quite literally a digital message string exactly as information theory describes. Information theory deals with coded digital messages usually sent over long distances with modern technology. The contemporary argument from information as formulated by Dembski and others is intended to be the general logical form of many different types of design inferences, including all the ones mentioned above. In this article, I will explain what the contemporary argument from information is and show why it is among the most compelling arguments for the existence of God today.

What is Information?

First, we need to understand the difference between analog and digital information. Most people think “digital” just means “electronic.” However, in information theoretic terms, “digital” means “discrete” or “discontinuous.” Analog information is like the lines of a drawing or a geometric curve on a graph. In order to exactly copy this type of analog information, one would have to have a perfect replica of the drawing at every point of every line. Digital information is much different, because it only depends on the characters in a message string and the code in which those characters are used. If I changed the font of this document, that would change the analog information, but it would not change the digital information. Digital information is superior to analog in the sense that it is much harder to copy analog information or translate it to some other medium. Copying the Mona Lisa, for example, is making a copy of analog information. Copying this sentence is copying digital information, and it does not depend on one’s handwriting skill in the same way that copying the Mona Lisa would depend on one’s painting skill. Digital information is the kind of information in DNA, and the kind referred to in the context of the information argument.

Digital information is measurable. Because it depends on a code, for example the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet, the number of total possible message strings can be compared to the number of message strings allowed by a particular message to get a numerical ratio. So let’s say we use the alphabet with no additional characters to spell out the phrase “METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL.” Because there are twenty-three positions in this string, and twenty-six possible characters at each position, we can calculate the ratio of strings we actually have, which is one, compared to the total number of possible strings, which is 26^23, or ~3.5×10^32. Since we only have one string, this ratio would simply be 1/3.5×10^32 or 3.5×10^-32. Notice that if we increase the number of characters in the code, say by adding some punctuation characters like spaces and periods, this increases the denominator and makes the ratio smaller. Whereas, if we increase the number of possible message strings, say by making some of the letters in our message string variables that could be any character, that would increase the number in the numerator, making the final ratio bigger. Intuitively, we know that the amount of information would decrease if there were more possible message strings, meaning the message is less specific, and increase if the code were more complex, thus excluding more possibilities. So, in information theory we simply take the reciprocal of this ratio as our raw information measure. Normally it is converted into base 2, represented as a logarithm, and called “bits.”

Notice that DNA can be converted into an information metric in precisely this way. Since DNA has four characters, A, T, C, and G, we can take any length of DNA and turn it into a number 4^n, where n is the length of the DNA segment counted in bases. Protein sequences can also be converted into information metrics similarly. Since there are twenty amino acids normally in proteins (there are a few extremely rare additional ones), we can take any length of protein and turn it into a number 20^n, where n is the length of the protein sequence. We will return to this later.

Conceptually then, information is measured by comparing the number of possible messages represented by our message string to the total number of possible messages for any message string of the same length. This identifies information as a reduction of uncertainty. A character string of “xxxxxxxxxx” where “x” could be any number between zero and nine has no reduction of uncertainty and therefore no information. Whereas, a string of 0123456789 represents only one possible string out of 10^10 total possible strings for this length and this code. That is quite a lot of information. But the key point is that even very short message strings can contain a high amount of information by excluding a large number of possible message strings. And even having the same message string but making the code more complex eliminates more possibilities, so information can increase by changing the code even though the message string itself doesn’t change. Given that the size of the code used, which dictates the number of possibilities excluded, is usually the determining factor in how much information we have, it makes more sense in information theory to talk about the number of possibilities excluded than the number we actually have, which is usually only one, that is, the one identified by our message string. This is why information is defined as the exclusion of possibilities, also stated as a reduction in uncertainty.[2] This is called Shannon information after its originator, Claude Shannon.[3]

Complex Specified Information     

Shannon information does not necessarily have to mean anything. It can be a random jumble of characters signifying nothing. But there does seem to be a kind of information that intuitively seems to come from intelligence, like the words on this page. William Dembski noticed this and formulated a definition of this special kind of information. He called it specified complexity, or complex specified information. Complexity is essentially the same thing as Shannon information; it’s a measure of the improbability of an occurrence. This is just the thing that actually occurs compared to the number of possible things which could have occurred. Specification is harder to define. Originally, Dembski defined it as an independent pattern.

More recently, however, Dembski and Ewert have defined a specification as similar to a different kind of complexity called Kolmogorov complexity. Kolmogorov complexity is the shortest algorithm that can reproduce some Shannon information.[4] For example, if we have two copies of the same message string, a Shannon information measure would count that as double the amount of information of a single copy, but it seems intuitive that this is not really double the amount of information. Kolmogorov complexity would say that one can make an algorithm which is shorter than the two copies simply by having only one copy of the Shannon information, plus an algorithmic command to repeat it once, reproducing two copies of the same Shannon information. This would be much less information measured as Shannon information than two entire copies, but slightly more than just one copy. So Kolmogorov complexity is like the absolute minimum amount of algorithmic information required to represent some amount of Shannon information. This sounds somewhat redundant, but as the example above shows, it is a useful concept.

Similarly, Dembski and Ewert have defined a specification as a short description, or perhaps the shortest description.[5] This is another information measure of how much information we have. Instead of being measured according to the number of possibilities excluded, a specification refers to the information measure of its description. They mean this quite literally in terms of some language and the minimum number of words, like Kolmogorov complexity, needed to describe the artifact in question. They discuss how information measured in this way is somewhat relative to the language used but show that most real languages give similar results. For example, English has about 200,000 words in common usage, and therefore one word in English is about 17.6 bits, which they round up to 20 bits.[6] They give an example of how to apply this to a protein function like “binds ATP” whose two words would constitute a 40-bit specification.[7] They give an equation for how to relate complexity metrics with specification metrics to give a numerical result for specified complexity. A large result means a large amount of specified complexity. In words, a low probability (which is a high complexity) combined with a short description constitutes specified complexity.

Dembski has always argued that specified complexity is the property of objects we intuitively recognize as the artifact of intelligent design.[8] Specified complexity represents the feature we see in letters drawn in the sand, or Mount Rushmore. These arrangements are highly improbable, but of course virtually any arrangement of grains of sand on a beach or rock faces is highly improbable. It is not just improbability but improbability paired with a specification that indicates design. Other examples, say a vortex swirling in a liquid or a crystal growing into a precise geometric shape, have short descriptions, i.e. specifications, but with high probability. The high probability here is due to laws restricting possibilities so that the occurrence of the vortex or crystal is a highly probable result. So even though it seems to have a pattern that we might identify as a specification, a design inference is not triggered because the event is not highly improbable. But if we see both, as in Mount Rushmore or a message drawn in the sand, we infer design. Specified complexity is a rigorous way to show this feature of designed objects.

The famed fine-tuning argument is a special case of specified complexity. Two things are required: a very low probability and a specification. In the fine-tuning argument, the low probabilities of the various natural constants are combined with the specification of a natural world that supports complex life. Luke Barnes has shown how the range of possible values compared to the range of values which are life permitting can be calculated.[9] The improbability of all these constants fitting into those ranges, especially in combination, is more than astronomical. “Universe supporting complex life” constitutes the short description required for a specification. Extremely high complexity (low probability) corresponds to a short description (specification), and we are justified in inferring design.

The same fine-tuning argument can also be applied to biology.[10] In fact, complexity calculations, as already shown above, are much easier in the context of DNA and the genetic code. They are even more straightforward in the case of protein sequences. In the case of specifications, proteins are also quite straightforward, as most of them already have short descriptions in the existing scientific literature that usually are a succinct description of their function. Naturally occurring proteins almost all have high specified complexity and result in a design inference according to this formulation of the information argument. There are some exceptions which generally prove the rule due to either their short sequence length, low specificity of function, or both, such as the ice-fish anti-freeze proteins which are best explained as the result of random mutations.[11]

Various objections have been raised to this general argument, but they usually fall into two categories. They both claim that Dembski’s theory is wrong and that natural, that is, non-designed processes can generate complex specified information. One way of trying to show this is through the use of computer models called “evolutionary” or “genetic” algorithms. Programs like Ev and Avida were claimed to have created exactly this sort of complex specified information through evolution-like processes programmed into the algorithm involving random variations acted on by a simulation of natural selection. Dembski, Robert Marks II, and Winston Ewert over several years published a series of papers showing how these programs all cheated by including what they called “active information” into the program ensuring that it would succeed.[12] Active information is information added by the programmers or designers of the program that made it look like it was being generated by these simulated evolutionary computations. In this same research, they proposed the Law of Conservation of Information.[13] Essentially, this says that any information output of such an algorithm must be equal to or lesser than the information input. Dembski and Ewert are working on a forthcoming book on all of this research.[14]

Complex Specified Information in Biology  

Another class of objections appeal to work in biochemistry rather than computer simulations that shows evolutionary or biochemically simulated evolutionary processes creating complex specified information. By the early 2000s, most of these types of objections were not much more than hand-waving or anecdotal. But then a biochemist named Douglas Axe published a series of papers culminating in hard evidence that the number of stable, functional protein folds is extremely rare in the protein sequence space. This is similar to Luke Barnes showing how rare the values for the fine-tuned constants are in the possible range of values. Both show that the actual values and sequences we have are extremely rare, thus exhibiting extremely high complexity. Axe was even kicked out of his lab just prior to completing his research for apparently ideological reasons.[15] He was able to publish his final paper showing that the rarity of a stable, functional folding domain for a protein called TEM-1, a commonly used beta-lactamase enzyme, was between 10^-64 and 10^-77.[16] This immediately suggested that functional protein folding domains are designed by an intelligence. Axe also calculated that any stable, functional protein fold of sequence length 153, the same length as the folding domain he studied, would have a probability in the sequence space of 10^-74.

Several objections were raised over the years since 2004. Some had technical objections, but none have been published. Axe has publicly stated that one was submitted for publication which he reviewed and subsequently was not published.[17] Other objections claimed that another way of doing the experiment gives a different result, namely a much larger probability for stable functional protein folding domains on the order of 10^-11 to 10^-12. Dembski and Ewert mentioned such examples and argued that the function in question is common enough that design is not indicated in such cases.[18] But a more direct answer to this objection is that these studies were in vitro, not in vivo. Axe’s study was done inside a real living organism, and these other studies were done in test tubes. The difference is that in a test tube there are no other biological molecules around to interfere or be interfered with. A protein in a real biological context doesn’t just have to perform its function. It must also avoid performing other functions; that is, it must avoid interactions with other biological molecules that would interfere with their functions or have its own function interfered with. This likely means that the constraints on the proper functioning of proteins in a real biological context are much higher than in a test tube. In other words, it doesn’t matter if a protein can bind ATP in a test tube if it would bind nearly everything inside a real organism, thus killing it. That is why real, naturally occurring proteins require such high specificity. It is not only the function that must happen; it must also exclude all other functions. This objection fails to recognize a key feature of information: excluded possibilities are much more numerous and more important in information measures than the possibility that actually obtains. These in vitro studies generate a large number of random sequences from scratch and test for bare function. Most of them are not naturally occurring and were not tested in a real organism.

In 2006, Dan Tawfik’s lab published a study[19] which generalized and confirmed Axe’s number of 10^-74. Tawfik studied ten proteins of different types and found that two out of every three random mutations reduced the thermodynamic stability of their folds by 1 kcal/mol or more. Since Axe’s version of TEM-1 was barely stable, this means that in this context any such mutation would likely have destabilized the fold. Since two in three mutations destroy the fold and therefore the function resulting from the fold, it is a simple matter to calculate the number of sequences which would likely work versus not. The number of amino acids that would work at each position is 1/3, and if the sequence is 153 amino acids long, simply take the number of characters that work to the power of the number of positions in the sequence, just as we did for DNA above: (1/3)^153 = 10^-73.[20] This is within a single order of magnitude of Axe’s calculation, confirming Axe’s result.

Intelligence is the Best Explanation for Complex Specified Information   

But why does specified complexity indicate intelligent design? This is a more philosophical question that was taken up by Stephen Meyer.[21] Meyer takes Dembski’s and Axe’s work, along with others, and puts the finishing touches on it. Meyer studied the philosophy of science of Charles Darwin and one of his major influences, geologist Charles Lyell.[22] Meyer notes that Lyell argued that historical science, the science of understanding natural history and origins,[23]  should utilize causes now in operation to explain past events. Meyer simply asked the question, “What is the cause now in operation that explains complex, specified information?” He argues this cause is intelligence, and so we can infer intelligent cause for complex, specified information by the same rules that Lyell, Darwin, and the historical sciences generally use.

Scientific inferences today are understood as inferences to the best explanation, which is technically called an abductive argument.[24] Abductive inferences, or inferences to the best explanation, cannot rule out all other possible explanations. All they can do is compare competing explanations to see which one is better. In order to do this, scientists weigh competing hypotheses and try to test them against each other to see which one survives the tests. Meyer argues that intelligent design is the best explanation for information in precisely this way and therefore follows the rules of scientific inference and succeeds as the best explanation for complex, specified information.[25]

The argument from information is thus well supported both scientifically and philosophically in two major examples: the physical constants according to fundamental physics and the information in DNA, both required for life to exist. This argument persuaded the famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew to admit that God exists[26] and has been mentioned by many prominent atheists as being the most compelling argument for theism. The current argument from information is different and stronger than past versions of the design argument. It has identified the rigorous logical, mathematical, and philosophical basis of the intuitive design inference we all use every day. This argument has been applied to artifacts in nature which could not have been designed by human beings, some of which could only have been created by a supernatural intelligence simply because no natural intelligences could have been around at the time.  It is one of if not the best current argument for the existence of God.

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: Teleology refers to “goal-directedness”, especially in terms of “design” and “intelligent design.” If an item shows signs of teleology that means it looks to be designed by some intelligence to serve a purpose. If teleology were to be found in natural objects like animals, plants, rocks, and rivers, then that would suggest an intelligent designer of those things. If it’s found crafted objects like buildings and books, that suggests man-made design to serve whatever purpose the craftsman intended. The “Teleological Argument for God” is also called the “Design Argument for God.”]

[2] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 154.

[3] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 135.

[4] William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002), 59-62.

[5] William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 2nd ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 151-152.

[6] Ibid., 348.

[7] Ibid., 427.

[8] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 81-82.

[9] Luke Barnes, “A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument,” Ergo 6, no. 42 (2019-2020). https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0006.042/–reasonable-little-question-a-formulation-of-the-fine-tuning?rgn=main;view=fulltext (accessed December 10, 2024).

[10] Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hossjer, “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 501, (Septermber 2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071 (accessed December 10, 2024).

[11] Abirami Baskaran et al. “Anti freeze proteins (Afp): Properties, sources and applications – A review,” International Journal of Biological Molecules 189 (31 October, 2021): 292-305.

[12] William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14, no. 5 (2010): 475-486.https://evoinfo.org/publications/search-for-a-search.html (accessed December 10, 2024).

[13] William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information,” in The Nature of Nature, ed. Bruce Gordon and William Dembski (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009), 381.

[14] William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 2nd ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 472.

[15] Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (n.p.: HarperOne, 2016), 49-51.

[16] Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology 341, no. 5 (August 2004): 1295-1315. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283604007624 (accessed December 10, 2024).

[17] Sean McDowell. The Debate over Evolution and Intelligent Design (w/ Doug Axe). https://youtu.be/YGggxHBqPRc?t=1557 (accessed July 3, 2025)

[18] William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 2nd ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 427.

[19] Shimon Bershtein et al. “Robustness – epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein,” Nature 444 (2006): 929-932.

[20] Brian Miller, “A Dentist in the Sahara: Doug Axe on the Rarity of Proteins Is Decisively Confirmed,” Evolutionnews.org, February 18, 2019. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/a-dentist-in-the-sahara-doug-axe-on-the-rarity-of-proteins-is-decisively-confirmed/ (accessed December 10, 2024).

[21] Stephen C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117, no. 2 (2004): 213-239. https://www.discovery.org/a/2177/ (accessed December 10, 2024).

[22] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (n.p.: HarperOne, 2009), 160.

[23] Ibid., 409.

[24] Ibid., 152-154.

[25] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (n.p.: HarperOne, 2009), 347-348.

[26] Antony Flew, How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (n.p.: HarperOne, 2008)

Recommended Resources: 

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Ben Kissling grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska and currently resides in Dallas, Texas. He has a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Nebraska and is currently enrolled in the M.A. in Science and Religion program at Biola University. He has worked in many different laboratories, as a youth pastor and a high school teacher, but origins science is his lifelong passion.
[Source: https://creation.com/en/people/ben-kissling]

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46QRQlU

/by

Moral Argument 3.0: How Neuroscience Bolsters Objective Morality

Thinkers for centuries have strived to develop arguments to prove the existence of God.[i] Who’d have thought that neurosurgeons would find keys to rocket the traditional Moral Argument into the 21st century? The earlier moral arguments used reason, logic, and common internal thoughts and human experience to make a case for God’s existence.[ii] The Immortal Mind (2025),[iii] by brain surgeon Dr. Michael Egnor and mind researcher Denyse O’Leary, takes the venerable case to new cerebral and spiritual levels.

Argument 1.0 The Standard Moral Law Argument  

The Moral Law Argument (Argument 1.0) includes three main Elements:[iv]

  1. Every law requires a lawgiver.
  2. Moral laws exist.
  3. Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

These “laws” refer to rules governing human behavior, not physical or mathematical laws. Argument 1.0 is inductive, meaning it draws from observed regularities rather than providing absolute certainty. We draw an inductive conclusion when, for example, we say “any horse-like animal with black and white stripes is a zebra,” because we have seen many zebras and every one was striped that way.

Inductive arguments also can flow from thoughts and intuitions that seem to describe reality. For example, (premise 1) “every law requires a lawgiver.” That idea comes from experience but also from the intuitions about cause and effect. There is always a cause for any effect we see. If we imagine a moral law, there must be: (1) a cause for the mental process of imagining; and, (2) a cause for formulating the moral law in the way we imagine it.

The claim that moral laws exist (premise 2) is often debated, but finds support in ideas such as the concept of a perfect moral ideal, the existence of objective moral standards, near-universal agreement on core morals, the need for external standards in moral debates, the human senses of guilt and justification, the futility of arguing right and wrong without binding rules, and the risk of societal breakdown if everyone were the final judges of their own behavior. Many find these considerations persuasive in arguing for an objective, perfect lawgiver.

Common moral laws exist in the real world. In The Abolition of Man (1943),[v] C.S. Lewis collected examples of such laws found in nearly all societies: justice, fairness, honesty, respect for human life, charity and compassion, respect for elders, sexual morality, courage and honor.

Argument 1.0 persuades many that an objective and perfect lawgiver exists, based upon reason, logic, and experience.[vi]

Argument 2.0 The Moral Laws are Designed Software

Moral Law Argument 2.0 uses computer science and technology concepts to bolster the Moral Law Argument.[vii] It starts by seeing that moral laws and their underlying moral values are non-material ideas. They are not reducible to physical materials or forces.

We cannot describe moral ideas and laws in purely material terms. But if we want to build robots who make moral decision, then we must consider how to place moral laws into concrete forms in robot technology. The problem is: how is it even possible to install into the most “intelligent” robots even basic moral laws, such as “always obey humans, do not harm humans, and protect yourself from harm”? This problem poses an overwhelming challenge to the smartest human designers using all available methods.

Some of the top challenges for programming a moral robot are: (1) making it understand the moral law involved; (2) getting all the massive information needed to decide moral questions; and (3) tracing in advance all the results of actions that produce consequences extending far and wide in many unexpected ways.

Crucially, the robot example does show that moral laws and decisions are non-material. They don’t reside in the robot’s hardware; they are in the software. Software, without exception, is ultimately sourced in a mind, having a purpose, a plan, a way to engineer the procedures, and foresight about how software and its consequences play out.

If we assume the human mind exists solely in the human brain, then comparing the brain to a robot’s computer hardware brain is plausible. In the robot, moral laws are software. By analogy, the moral laws would be software directing the human brain hardware also. As software, moral laws come from an external intelligent source of software, which we call the moral lawgiver.[viii] Argument 2.0’s objective truths about morality software establish the Moral Argument beyond what earlier thinkers considered.

Argument 3.0: Moral Laws Do Not Reside in the Brain

Argument 1.0 works with observations, logic and intuitions, while Argument 2.0 shows that if moral laws were solely within the human brain and mind, they nevertheless were designed by an outside intelligent source of moral knowledge.

Argument 3.0 adds to the Moral Law Argument’s position that a superior mind created and knows the perfect ways for humans to act and be good rather than evil. Opposing the argument is the reigning “scientific” materialist worldview that asserts everything observed is explainable as undirected interactions of matter and energy only. Scientists typically assert the human mind is identity with or at least resides in the brain, and therefore human ideas about morality exist there, too.

In The Immortal Mind, the authors explain that specific regions of the brain control distinct activities of the mind: sensory perception, physical movement, memory, and emotion. Other activities, however, including intellect, reason, abstract thought, and free will, do not appear to map so neatly.

Pioneering neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891 – 1976) conducted over 1,100 ethical, painless, open skull brain operations on fully conscious patients, keeping careful notes while mapping the brain extensively using electrodes. Stimulating certain regions would spark memories or trigger emotions. After thousands of experimental probes, Penfield found he could never force a patient to reason, reflect, or choose. Abstract thought and free will never appeared on command.

Even seizures that hijack brain circuitry never produced genuine reasoning; at most there appeared only compulsions, obsessions, memories and illusions, or emotional surges. Epileptic seizures give physical and sensory experiences and can also retrieve memories – but they don’t hallucinate mathematics or logic. Similarly, they don’t expound principles of morality, fairness or law.

Neuroscience and Near Death Experience Evidence

Four other lines of mind-brain research show that crucial functions of the human mind are not contained in the brain alone. First, is the widely-known example of surgery that splits the brain’s two hemispheres to alleviate epilepsy. After the surgery, the patient’s personality and mental functions are nearly all intact. Two half-brains do not produce two personalities or two minds. Connections among neurons alone do not create the mind.

Second, and jaw-droppingly, many children are born with only part of a brain, even as little as 5% of the average brain matter of neurotypical kids. Although some die soon after birth, many not only survive but exhibit a unique personality and carry on a near-normal life. This fact shows brain matter alone does not establish the consciousness and ability to think and act.

Third, and quite astounding are the reports from conjoined biological twins who are born sharing parts of the same body and brain. Conjoined twins may share physical functions of the brain, but not the immaterial aspects of a separate personality and self-hood. They each have their own consciousness, abstract reasoning, personal identity, individuality, and free will.

Fourth and perhaps most dramatic is the overwhelming evidence of near-death experiences (NDEs). John Burke’s book, Imagine Heaven (2015), [ix] systematizes the many common features reported when individuals are as close to death as medically detectable but are later revived to consciousnesses. The experiences include out-of-body travel, feeling total peace and being overwhelmed by pure love, encountering deceased humans they knew, conversations with a being of light, and undergoing a full life-review.[x] The Immortal Mind spotlights the veridical NDEs, which occur when the revived person reports seeing and hearing things while out-of-body that the person could not otherwise have known but are independently and objectively verifiable.

The Immortal Mind declares: (1) verified NDEs confirm each human has an immaterial aspect, i.e., mind or soul, that exists despite the clinical death of the brain; and (2) all NDEs confirm the person’s immaterial mind or soul retains self-identity and its personality during and after the experience.

Moral Laws Draw from Sources Outside of the Brain

Moral laws and moral decisions flow from selfhood, logic and reasoning, and abstract ideas. They only secondarily relate to emotions, physical pain, brain size, and nerve stimulation responses. The seemingly simple concept of fairness, for example, is an abstract idea. Understanding and applying fairness gives rise to the huge discipline of law itself, with all of its defining, categorizing, analyzing, policy choices, as well as the rules and procedures to operate the legal system.

The Immortal Mind’s science-based reasoning shows the mental features such as moral laws and decisions do not reside in the brain. This conclusion supports the Moral Law Argument (1.0) by showing there do exist moral laws that human minds possess independent of their brains.

To date, none of the NDE reports that I’ve seen say the NDErs know everything about right and wrong while away from the human brain’s operation. The NDErs, instead, universally report being astounded at all they were seeing and hearing, and also knowing they have more to learn or more to do in their earthly lives. Often, NDErs are either told or decide themselves that the “right” thing to do is return their bodies. The NDErs do not claim total knowledge and wisdom of morality. If anything, the NDErs are humbled by the non-material existence they saw.[xi]

Moral Argument 3.0 thus shows that moral laws are non-material, that human understanding of moral laws is not total. Moreover, human understanding of moral laws is not a brain feature but a non-material mind feature,[xii] and human minds know them independent of their Earthly life. From these points we see that objective moral laws exist in the realm of non-material mind,[xiii] and they come from a lawgiver also in the immaterial realm. More science has thus supplied more evidence of a Creator God.

References: 

[i] See J. Brian Huffling, “An Intro to Arguments for God’s Existence,” Crossexamined.org,

https://crossexamined.org/an-intro-to-arguments-for-gods-existence/

 

[ii] See Paul Rezkalla, “5 Common Objections to the Moral Argument,” Crossexamined.org,   https://crossexamined.org/tag/moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

 

[iii] Michael Egnor & Denyse O’Leary, The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (Worthy Books, 2025), https://www.amazon.com/dp/1546006354/

 

[iv] J. M. Njoroge, “Must the Moral Law Have a Lawgiver?,” Christian Library, https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/must-moral-law-have-lawgiver

 

[v] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1943), Ch. 2, Appendix, https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229

 

[vi] See Erik Manning, “Every Christian Should Begin to Master the Moral Argument Today,” Crossexamined.org, https://crossexamined.org/every-christian-should-begin-to-master-the-moral-argument-today/

 

[vii] Richard W. Stevens, “Objective Evidence for God,” Salvo (No. 47, 2018), https://salvomag.com/article/salvo47/moral-law-argument-20

 

[viii] Richard W. Stevens, “Whether Humans or Robots, We Need Moral Programming,” Salvo (No. 42, 2017), https://salvomag.com/article/salvo42/bot-behavior

 

[ix] John Burke, Imagine Heaven (Baker Books, 2015), https://www.amazon.com/dp/080101526X/

 

[x] “Can You See the Supernatural?” (Frank Turek with Lee Strobel),

https://crossexamined.org/can-you-see-the-supernatural-with-lee-strobel/

 

[xi] See George G. Ritchie w/ Elizabeth Sherrill, Return from Tomorrow (Chosen Books, 2023),

https://www.amazon.com/Return-Tomorrow-George-G-Ritchie/dp/0800763009/

 

[xii] Brian G. Chilton, “Defense of the Immaterial Soul,” Crossexamined.org,

https://crossexamined.org/defense-of-the-immaterial-soul/

 

[xiii] See Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife, (Simon & Schuster, 2012), https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195/

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Richard W. Stevens is a retiring lawyer, author, and a Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Walter Bradley Center on Natural and Artificial Intelligence. He has written extensively on how code and software systems evidence intelligent design in biological systems. Holding degrees in computer science (UCSD) and law (USD), Richard practiced civil and administrative law litigation in California and Washington D.C., taught legal research and writing at George Washington University and George Mason University law schools, and specialized in writing dispositive motion and appellate briefs. Author or co-author of four books, he has written numerous articles and spoken on subjects including intelligent design, artificial and human intelligence, economics, the Bill of Rights and Christian apologetics. Available now at Amazon is his fifth book, Investigation Defense: What to Do When They Question You (2024).

/by

How The Multiverse Theory Could Challenge Your Child’s Faith

What comes to mind when you hear the word “multiverse”? Do you (a) cringe, (b) hink of your kid’s favorite Marvel movie, or (c) do you cock your head like a confused (but very cute) puppy? In case you chose “c,” the term “multiverse” refers to a theory that we live in one of many (potentially even an infinite number) of universes. It makes for MARVELous movies (see what I did there?). But what happens when this theory makes its way into the minds of our kiddos as a plausible explanation of reality? Can this affect their view of God?

How a “Multiverse” Replaces God        

The mainstream scientific consensus is that the universe as we know it had an ultimate beginning at “The Big Bang.” This is a massive problem for someone wishing to maintain a naturalistic worldview (a worldview in which no God exists). Why? Because in nature, things don’t pop into existence out of nothing! Especially things that just happen to lead to unimaginably complex systems that produce life, irreducibly complex systems, and also advanced, rational, sentient beings. But even if one accepts mainstream science, the naturalist still has another card to play. What if our universe were just one of an infinite number of universes? What if there were some kind of natural, eternal universe-generating system, and we just happen to live in a lucky universe in which a planet that is ideal for hosting advanced human life exists? If it’s true, then belief in a creator is unnecessary because everything in existence has a natural explanation. Anything “super”-natural can be ruled out.

The multiverse theory is becoming more popularized, and it’s being introduced to us and our kiddos through entertainment like movies (for example: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse) and even a spiritually dangerous social media trend called “reality shifting.”[1]

And, I’m not gonna lie, it’s fun to think about! It is the perfect setup for a fictional fantasy world. But it’s also an excellent opportunity to have conversations with our kids and teach them some good ol’ critical thinking.

Why The Multiverse Theory is Unreasonable: The Kalam Cosmological Argument         

In a previous blog post, [I] introduced “Classical Apologetics,” as a branch of apologetics in which we argue for the existence of God, but not specifically for the Christian God (those arguments come later). The Kalam cosmological argument (sounds confusing, I know, but stick with me) is a classical apologetic argument that, if true, rules out the possibility of a multiverse that emerges from pure naturalism (a God-less reality). It argues that God is necessary to explain the reality of our universe.

The argument is simple enough to teach to even young kids. It goes like this:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If, after examination, this line of argumentation is determined to be sound, then the next step is to ask some questions about this “cause.” How do we get from a “cause” to God? Couldn’t the “cause” be an effect of another cause, which is an effect of ANOTHER cause forever and ever? Hold your horses, we’ll get there! We need to take a closer look at the first two premises.[2]

How do we get from a “cause” to God? Couldn’t the “cause” be an effect of another cause, which is an effect of ANOTHER cause forever and ever? #Kalam #apologeticsShare on X

FIRST PREMISE: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  

For every effect, there must be a cause. If I find a $5 bill on the ground of a parking lot, it would be silly for me to assume that it accidentally assembled itself from the elements. I can reasonably infer that somebody dropped it. Why? Because nothing happens for no reason. This is the basis of science. We have to assume that whatever we are studying has a reason or cause for its properties in order to search for the reason or cause!

SECOND PREMISE: The universe began to exist.  

This premise relies on reason alone (as opposed to hard evidence), but can be supported with current scientific evidence.[3] If the universe may have existed eternally in the past, then this premise, and therefore the entire argument, fails. Likewise, if a multiverse-generating system can exist, then the argument fails. So, the goal is to show that it is logically impossible for the universe (or whatever system caused the universe) to be eternal. Whatever is not eternal has a beginning.

Now, let’s defend this premise. We’re going to get into the concept of infinity. You might want to grab a cup of coffee or a Bubbl’r . . .

If the universe does not have a beginning, then there would have been an infinite number of moments before this moment right now (called an infinite regress). But can there be an infinite number of past moments? Well, if so, it is difficult to see how we could ever arrive at this moment today since it would take an infinite number (an unending number) of moments to get here! Philosopher and professor Douglas Groothuis likens it to attempting to jump out of a bottomless pit.[4] An infinite past seems to be a logical absurdity.

That wasn’t too bad, was it? Keep sipping that coffee or energy drink because we need to dive a little deeper into infinity as we consider our conclusion.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe has a cause.       

Thus far, we’ve established that anything that begins has a cause. We’ve also reasoned that the universe must have a beginning. At this point, we can conclude that the universe, therefore, has a cause.

Well, isn’t it a ginormous leap to immediately assume that this cause is God?! What if the multiverse theory is true? What if the cause of our universe is some kind of eternal multiverse-generating system? Here’s the problem: Even the multiverse theory would depend on an infinite number of past events. Remember that nothing happens for no reason. Every effect has a cause. So, there would need to be a cause for our particular universe to have emerged within that system. And that cause would need to have a cause, and so on. Anything that requires an infinite regress is arguably a logical absurdity that we can reasonably rule out, including a multiverse.

Further, the existence of an infinite number of universes also seems to lead to logical absurdities. Philosophers who defend the Kalam cosmological argument, like William Lane Craig, maintain that an actual infinite number of anything is impossible. Imagine an infinite number of Hot Wheels cars. Take away 100 Hot Wheels. How many do you have left? You still have the same number – infinity! Infinity minus 100 is still infinity. So, would it be possible for an infinite number of universes to exist? Some say “no way, Jose,” because it would lead to mathematical absurdities.

Got a little extra brain power? Check out this mind-bending video describing Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel, a classic example of how an actual infinite leads to absurdities.

Image from https://steemit.com/steemstem/@mcfarhat/hilbert-s-grand-hotel-paradox.

What (or Who) is this “Cause”?

So far, we have made a case that our universe needs to have an ultimate cause. And based on our discussions about the infinite, I think it is reasonable to assume that this cause cannot lead us to an “infinite regress” (an effect by a cause, which is itself an effect of another cause, on and on into the infinite past). In other words, the cause we are searching for cannot itself be caused. We are talking about an “uncaused cause.” Some would call this a “brute fact” about reality. It just “is,” and it always “is.” It was, and is, and is to come. . . Hmm. . . sounding familiar to anyone?

We can make some more inferences about this cause. We know that the cause cannot be bound by anything that is contained within the system of our universe, since it came before those things. Space, time, and matter are all contained within our universe. This means that the cause necessarily transcends space, time, and matter. Our cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Is this describing anyone you know? 😉

At least from our puny human perspective, anything that can bring our reality into existence from no prior physical reality must be insanely powerful. Not only that, but an impersonal power or system that is uncaused could never choose to do anything. (Choice requires some kind of agent with a mind.) So a personal agent makes more sense than an impersonal force that just happened to spit out an amazingly beautiful and intricate universe from nothing.

If our argument stands, this means that a powerful, uncaused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal agent is responsible for causing our universe to exist. I think that’s a pretty good description of what many of us call “God,” don’t you?

Teaching the Kalam Cosmological Argument to Your Kids          

This might seem like a lot for your little ones. But keep this in mind: younger kiddos don’t need to understand ALL that we presented here to benefit from the argument. If they can grasp the idea that our reality must have a cause, you can talk with them about why God is the best explanation.

One way to teach this to younger kids is to have them make a painting. Then come back to the painting sometime later and exclaim, “No way! Look at this awesome painting – it created itself!” Your child will likely protest, “Silly mom, I made that painting!” Take that opportunity to go outside and recognize the beauty of creation. Could all of this have assembled itself? Or does it need a Creator?

For older kids, keep it simple to start. Talk about the main points of the argument:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Ask them their thoughts. Let them ponder and ask questions. If your kid asks, “What caused God?” explain that God never began to exist. God is eternal, so He does not need a cause. We encourage you to give them the freedom to wrestle with this. If your child starts to sound like he believes in the multiverse, don’t panic. This isn’t a hill to die on. If we don’t allow kids to grapple with science, philosophy, and theology, they might grow up to feel as if they were indoctrinated rather than trained to think for themselves.

That being said, if the evidence truly does point to our universe having an absolute beginning, that is very compelling evidence for the existence of our Creator. So, let’s look at the Kalam cosmological argument as a way of removing a potential barrier to our kids’ faith, rather than as a way to force them into agreement that “Science proves God!”

If the evidence truly does point to our universe having an absolute beginning, that is very compelling evidence for the existence of our Creator. #apologetics #kalamShare on X

Resources for Digging Deeper

Mombrain-Friendly Level Resources

Brainy-But-Not-Bonkers Level Resources

Straight-Up-Nerd Level Resources

  • BOOK: Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2022), 207-39.
  • BOOK: Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2013), 242-44, 265-79
  • VIDEO: Dr. Douglas Groothuis teaches the Kalam cosmological argument, https://youtu.be/AsqEznikq6c?si=udvR3StXiqMwEoCf 

References:

[1] “Reality shifting” is a practice in which people try to shift their consciousness to other realities in the multiverse. Read more here: https://www.wikihow.com/What-Is-Shifting-Explaineda

[2] A “premise” is a statement or proposition. A logical argument called a “syllogism” consists of two premises and a conclusion. If the two premises can both be proven true, then the conclusion must be true (so long as the conclusion necessarily follows the two premises).

[3] For scientific support for the cosmological argument, see Chapter 3 of Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Crossway, 2004), 73-94.

[4] Dr. Douglas Groothuis teaches the Kalam cosmological argument in this video: https://youtu.be/AsqEznikq6c?si=Xwz4HSiAwpVVDJRT

Recommended Resources: 

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

 

Alexa Cramer is a Blog and Podcast Contributor and Video Content Creator with MamaBearApologetics.com. She’s also a homeschool mom of two. She became obsessed with apologetics after a season of doubt that nearly stole her faith. Alexa has a background in film and video and will willingly fight anyone who doesn’t agree that DC Talk is the best band that ever graced the earth.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mfDVuD

/by

What is the Role of A Priori Knowledge?

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:

  1. All unmarried men are bachelors.
  2. Two plus three equals five.
  3. All murder is wrong.[4]

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:

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

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

/by