Argument Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Argument

Is All Reasoning Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning is generally understood to be fallacious. The reason for this is that circular arguments assume what they purport to prove. At least one premise in a circular argument depends upon the truth of the conclusion, making the argument lose any justifying force. For in order to accept the relevant premise, one would have to already believe the conclusion. But if one already believes the conclusion then one has no need for the argument, and if one does not already believe the conclusion then the argument will not yield any grounds for belief.

Despite the seeming obviousness of what I have just said, it nonetheless remains startlingly popular to claim that circular reasoning is, in some cases, acceptable and — even worse — ultimately unavoidable. This claim is common among those Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists (although it is, by no means, limited to them). It is not my purpose here to critique circular reasoning in general or to offer a non-circular alternative, although I have done this elsewhere.[1] My purpose here is to critique one popular argument which purports to show that circular reasoning is unavoidable.

The argument is typically phrased something like this: “You must use reason in order to prove reason.” The thrust of the argument seems to be that since one cannot prove reason apart from reason, circularity is simply inescapable.[2] Although I don’t encounter this argument much in scholarly literature (at least not in this form) it is rather popular among internet presuppositionalists. And while I generally prefer to discuss scholarly issues, the pervasiveness of this argument coupled with the fact that I am not aware of any direct interaction with it moves me to write this article in reply.[3]

In this article, I intend to briefly explain my motivation for addressing this argument. After that, I will try to disambiguate the argument and clarify both what it means and how one might respond. After disambiguating the argument, I shall argue that it either assumes a theory of epistemic justification which can be rejected or else fails to recognize an important distinction between two types of usage. Either way, circular reasoning can be avoided.

Raising the Stakes

Before engaging the argument directly, it will be helpful to provide some motivation for examining it at all. After all, why should the argument concern us? Is it really a problem if all justification is circular in the end? Or perhaps we should not even try to justify the reliability of reasoning. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental assumption of all philosophical inquiry which needs no justification.

It would be an understatement to say that many philosophers are content to say that belief in the reliability of reason can only be justified in a circular way.[4] Still, others take the essential reliability of reason to be a fundamental axiom which is incapable of justification and needs none. But I have never found such answers to be satisfactory. I have never been content to suppose that I should require justification for my beliefs down to the bottom level but then give the foundational beliefs a free pass. Such a move seems completely arbitrary and even inconsistent. If our most foundational beliefs are unjustified, then I take this to entail that all beliefs which depend on them for their justification are likewise unjustified. I suspect that many readers feel the same way.

But this conviction forces those who hold it to face the original argument. For if there is no non-circular means of justifying foundational beliefs, then we may well have to face the conclusion that none of our beliefs are justified. For those wishing to avoid such a gloomy conclusion, there is a strong motivation for addressing the original argument.

Clarifying the Issue

Having provided some motivation, let’s turn to assess the merits of the argument. Roughly we are concerned with the claim that one must use reason to justify reasoning. Stated thusly, the claim is quite incoherent. Reasoning is a deliberative cognitive process. It is not a proposition. It is not the sort of thing which can be true or false. As such, reasoning itself needs no justification since it is an action rather than a belief. Imagine how absurd it would be to demand justification for walking, or for driving, or for swimming. Such activities need no justification precisely because they are activities rather than propositions. Once we have understood that only propositions require justification due to their potential to be false, it becomes evident that the act of reasoning does not need justification.

Sometimes the argument is phrased as a question: How do you know that your reasoning is valid? But stated in this way, the argument is guilty of a category error. Validity is not a property of reasoning but rather a property of arguments.[5] To say that one’s reasoning is valid makes as little sense as saying that one’s driving is valid. Validity simply doesn’t apply to activities.

But perhaps it will be objected that I have missed the point. After all, I am taking advantage of very poorly worded versions of the argument. And that is, of course, quite true. As I observed earlier, this argument is not as prominent among scholars as it is among those on the internet. But I do think that addressing these muddled versions of the argument is an important task because it helps us to clarify what is and what is not at issue. Moreover, it forces those who would use these problematic formulations of the argument to be more precise. Finally, pointing out the incoherence of these simplistic formulations of the argument can also serve to rob them of their rhetorical force.

Strengthening the Argument

So let me attempt to reconstruct a more sensible version of the argument. It seems to me that when someone says that we must use reason to justify reasoning, they mean that one must use their ability to reason in order to defend the proposition that reasoning is reliable. One must, in effect, assume that their ability to reason is reliable. Certainly, this is a much more robust argument. But to answer it, we must seek still greater clarification.

Before turning to answer the robust version of the argument, we must ask what is meant by the phrase “reason is reliable.” Taken quite literally it would mean that the cognitive process of reasoning itself somehow yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable. Taken in this way, the argument is saying that one must assume that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable in order to reach the conclusion that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable.

Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism

Thus construed, the argument assumes a reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is a theory of epistemic justification according to which beliefs are justified if they have been produced by a reliable process. If this is what the proponent of the argument is claiming, then we may happily agree with him. It is not at all controversial that reliabilism is guilty of epistemic circularity. This is a well-known fact which is admitted by reliabilists and critics of reliabilism alike.

Notice, however, that if this is what the argument is trying to establish, then it assumes reliabilism and reaches the uncontroversial conclusion that reliabilism leads to circularity. However, not all philosophers are reliabilists. Reliabilism’s main contender is known as evidentialism. According to evidentialism, the justification that any subject has for a belief is always relative to the evidence which that subject possesses for that belief.[6] Evidentialism seeks justification in evidence – not in reliable processes. Hence, the argument considered above will simply not work against evidentialism because it assumes a theory of justification which the evidentialist rejects.[7] As such, one need only reject reliabilism in order for the argument to fail to establish that circularity is unavoidable.

Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage

Nevertheless, evidentialists still do use reason to arrive at justified beliefs. Does this indicate that there is still some circularity on the part of the evidentialist? In order to answer this, we will need to be clear on what is meant by using reason. There are two quite distinct ways in which we use things to justify our beliefs. We use things in a justificatory sense and we also use things in a functional sense. Something is used in a justificatory sense when it is offered as a rational justification for a belief. Something is used in a functional sense when it is employed as a tool in the process of offering rational justification. Crucially, nothing about a functional usage contributes to the rational justification for a belief. It is simply a means of helping a subject see that justification for what it is. The upshot is that functional usage doesn’t even have the potential to be circular because circularity can only apply to justification.

We can see the distinction more clearly through an illustration. Imagine that I am debating a friend over the existence of pencils. I am trying to convince him that pencils actually exist. Moreover, suppose that this debate is mediated by means of letters. In my attempt to convince my friend that pencils are real, I offer him numerous syllogistic arguments in support of the existence of pencils. Now let’s say that I use a pencil to write out these arguments for him. In this case, it would be quite correct to say that I used a pencil to justify my belief in the existence of pencils. But the usage was entirely functional. At no point did I use the proposition that pencils exist as a premise in an argument which concluded that pencils exist. The premises in my arguments are what I am using to justify my belief in pencils. Therefore, the justification of my belief in pencils is not circular even though I used a pencil to justify the belief. This is because the usage of the pencil was functional rather than justificatory.

This illustration is fairly analogous to what I have in mind when I say that evidentialists “use reason” to justify their beliefs. While it is true that we must think critically — we must reason — in order to justify our beliefs, we are not using reason as the rational basis for any of our beliefs. The evidence provides the justification for our beliefs and reason is just the process of evaluating it. At no point does the process of reasoning itself justify a belief. Reasoning without evidence from which to reason gets us nowhere. Reason is not some mystical ability which leads us to truth in and of itself. Reason requires to facts to work with. It is simply a necessary means for reaching justified beliefs. Critically, since we are not attributing justification to the reasoning process itself, our use of it is not justificatory. It is functional. As such, our use of reason when seeking to justify our beliefs is not circular.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article, I have assessed the claim that epistemic circularity is unavoidable since one must, in fact, use reason to justify their beliefs about the truth-finding nature of reasoning. I have determined that the argument is usually framed in an unclear and incoherent way. When it is made intelligible, it assumes epistemic reliabilism and, therefore, it is forceless against evidentialism. Any attempt to press the argument against evidentialism will beg the question against evidentialism. Moreover attempts to modify it to face evidentialism on the basis that evidentialists “use reason” fail to acknowledge the distinction between functional and justificatory usage. Since evidentialists only “use reason” in a functional sense, they are not guilty of epistemic circularity.

It has not been my purpose here to assess all arguments for epistemic circularity or to provide a detailed account of a non-circular theory of knowledge. Others more capable than myself have done this elsewhere.[8] My purpose has been minimal. I have merely attempted to show that a single popular argument for the inescapability of circular reasoning does not succeed as long as evidentialism is a viable option.

Notes

[1] See my video “Internalism Versus Externalism” available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOg5zKUYmU&t=12s

[2] For a cluster of arguments along these lines see Sye Ten Bruggencate’s video “How To Answer The Fool (full film)” available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y&vl=en&t=329

[3] In particular conversations with Seth Bloomsburg and Tyler Vela convinced me of the need for such an article.

[4] Examples include William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, and Andrew Moon

[5] To be sure, we sometimes speak of valid and invalid reasoning. But this sort of language refers not to cognitive processes, but rather to the validity of the logical inferences that the reasoning follows.

[6] Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 83

[7] See Berit Brogaard, “Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification,” in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer International Publishing, 2018, Kevin McCain editor, Pg. 55

[8] Examples include Richard Fumerton, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, Internalism and Epistemology, Routledge, 2007; Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 1989; Brie Gertler, Self-Knowledge, Routledge, 2011

Don’t Lose the Person When Winning an Argument

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

1 Peter 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the defender of the faith, otherwise known as the Christian apologist. Peter writes, “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). While this verse is imperative to the modern Christian, we must also remember the next verse where Peter states, “Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:16). Peter emphasizes how a Christian does apologetics as much as he stresses the need for apologetics.

Many times, a person may win an argument but lose the person. When presenting a case for the faith, we should never become haughty, seeking to appear intelligent or to demonstrate our superiority. Such attempts will eventually lose the person with whom you are speaking. Rather, we should seek to build friendships and bonds with others, especially those who differ from our point of view. This coincides with Paul’s teaching to the 1 Corinthians where he says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 15:2). You can be the smartest person in the world and still remain useless to the kingdom if you don’t have a loving spirit.

In your dealings this week, ask yourself if you are engaging people with a heart of love. If not, you might better go back to the drawing board and remember that it was love that created you, love that saved you, and love that grants you eternal life. Going back to Paul, he noted that there exist three things “faith, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). When engaging people in evangelism, ask yourself if your purpose is to win the person over to Christ or simply to win the argument at hand.

In my observations of online debates and forums, we as Christians have the habit of becoming nasty in our dialogues with others. Would we have come to faith if someone spoke to us the way we speak to others? Diplomacy and tact go a long way in building bridges and establishing friendships. In our conversations, it is important that we don’t lose the person in our attempts to win an argument. 1 Peter 3:16 balances 1 Peter 3:15 and is just as necessary in our approach. If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything.

An Argument From Cancer

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Robby Hall

Natasha Crain wrote a great article last year on what an apologist does when they believe they have cancer. Little did I know at the time that 6 months later, I would get the news: Stage 2 colon cancer.

I’ve tossed back and forth about writing this, but I felt two points I wanted to make were worth writing about.

Surrendering to Death

The Christian worldview is that those who are in Christ – that is, those who have repented (GR metanoeó) and put their trust in Christ, are forgiven of their crimes against a holy God, are made into new creatures and will be bodily resurrected on the last day. So why on earth should a Christian feel fear at the news they have Cancer?

I realized that I wasn’t afraid to die per se, but rather of dying itself. The idea that this life was over. I had thoughts about my wife, my daughter, my family, and friends. But I hadn’t ever resided myself to the fact of dying. I had to be Ok with dying. Ok with my daughter growing up without her father, my wife being a widow. Ok with never accomplishing some goals. I knew I would be with my God in all of His glory, but it was at this point that I understood what it meant to let go of this world.

Faith In

So just how has the study of apologetics helped in dealing with my cancer diagnosis? Before I knew what state it was and what we were looking at, I had to trust Christ no matter the news. This was much easier to do based on what I knew about the truth of the Gospels. Every argument for Christianity you can think of did not come to mind, but rather this thought “either I trust Him, or I don’t.” If I didn’t, time to get busy being an atheist. If I did, time to get busy trusting and not worrying. The evidence for Christianity acts like a seawall. You see the waves of doubt, anger, sadness, and death coming for you. But the evidence reminds you of the truth, and you put your trust in Christ. Faith is not merely an intellectual assent, but rather an active trust. But the information that led you to that faith is a solid foundation.

As it turns out, the LORD has other plans for me at this time. The surgery I had removed all of the cancer. There was no spread to lymph nodes. I have to do a 6-month round of chemo, but this is for preventative measures, and it’s an oral pill. This has also made me begin to live healthier. In fact, I’ve started training in Gracie (Brazilian) Jiu-Jitsu. I’m also heading to Scotland in the fall for a missionary support trip.

But I have confidence in the LORD that if all had fallen apart, He would have remained the same God and I would have been able to trust Him still.

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KKslYI

August 19, 2019/by Guest

Why the Resurrection is the Best Argument for Christianity

Jesus Christ, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Robby Hall

Often, people may ask how to show that Buddhism is false or what’s a good argument against Hinduism or the New Age, etc. But in the end, one doesn’t necessarily have to argue against those worldviews as much as they need to give an argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Resurrection is the central tenet of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul stated that:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

1 Cor 15:14-19

What this means is that the implications of the resurrection weigh greatly upon the Christian worldview. So what does it mean if Christ was resurrected?

1. God is real

Obviously, if one doesn’t believe in God, a man claiming to be God and rising from the dead would seem to indicate that God does exist. However, Jesus has stated that even this wouldn’t convince the hardest skeptic. But this does not diminish the strong evidential nature of the resurrection, it only describes the skeptic’s state of mind.

2. Christianity is True

If we can be sure from the evidence that Jesus is the son of God, he died on a Roman cross for our sins, and rose from the dead, Christianity follows.

3. All other worldviews are false

The law of non-contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and the same way. The statement “all religions are basically the same” or “all religions are equally true” are patently false. However, they could all be false, even Christianity. But, the resurrection would be evidence that the Christian worldview is true and all others would be false given the identity of Jesus being confirmed by the resurrection.

If you can show good, historically reliable evidence for the resurrection (and there is), then you have done most of the work in showing all other worldviews are false and have shown the truth of Christianity as Paul stated so long ago:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15 20-28.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BwXFGf

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

February 17, 2019/by Guest

When Debating Atheists: Those Who Lack A Belief Lack An Argument

2. Does God Exist?, Debates

I just had a two hour plus debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, on the question: “What better explains reality: Theism or Atheism?” Given the title of the debate, both of us had the burden of proof to detect the cause (or causes) for certain effects we all see. That’s what scientists, philosophers, and investigators do—they observe effects and attempt to discover their causes. Since science is a search for causes, I thought Dr. Shermer, who writes for Scientific American each month, would posit adequate causes for reality in this debate. He didn’t.

But before I unpack where I think Michael went wrong, I want to commend him for his kind manner and for agreeing to engage in cross-examination. So many formal debates are nothing but dueling speeches where the two debaters never interact and can, therefore, ignore each other’s points. This debate was not like that. After we each gave 20-minute opening statements, the hour after that was a spirited back and forth, first between us, and then between us and the audience. (We then took it to a restaurant where my friends Oleg and Karina treated us to the best steaks we ever had!)

In my opening statement, I gave evidence to support my conclusion that six major effects comprising reality—presented with the acrostic CRIMES—are better explained by God, and, in fact, wouldn’t exist unless God existed. I started with the most obvious effect that needs to be explained: the Creation and fine-tuning of the universe itself. Then I moved on to our ability to Reason, the Information found in the genome of living things, objective Moral values and obligations, the existence of Evil, and an orderly natural world that allows us to do Science. (If you want more detail than a 20-minute statement, there is a chapter on each of the CRIMES in my book Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.).

In his opening statement, Dr. Shermer assumed he didn’t have any burden of proof. Instead of giving evidence how reality could be explained by causes other than God, he just claimed that science is superior and would one day find naturalistic causes for CRIMES. But that claim is, ironically, a faith position. In fact, it is a blind faith position because it’s impossible in principle to find a natural cause for each of the CRIMES.

Consider Creation. If the entire natural world (space-time and matter) had a beginning as most atheists admit, then the cause can’t be part of the natural world but must transcend it. The cause of nature must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful to create the universe out of nothing, and personal and intelligent in order to choose to create. In other words, we’ll never find a natural cause for all of nature. Whatever created nature must be beyond nature (which is what the word “supernatural” means).

The rest of the CRIMES are not subject to the scientific method either, which means, despite Dr. Shermer’s charge, they are not “God of the gaps” arguments that can one day be overturned by some future scientific discovery. For example, we’re never going to find the cause of orderly natural laws or our ability to reason—including the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics—by running some kind of experiment. We must assume those laws in order to do the experiment! In other words, science is built on metaphysical principles that can’t be explained by science—they are needed to do science.

Objective moral obligations can’t be explained through science or materialism either. If there is no God and we are all just moist robots dancing to our DNA (as Richard Dawkins put it), then how does a materialist explain the fact that love is objectively better than hate? You can’t explain that running an experiment or by appealing to mere molecules in motion.

Dr. Shermer didn’t even try. Instead, he shifted the problem by talking about how we know what’s right rather than explaining how an objective standard of rightness exists in the first place. (This is a common and illicit move by atheists: they want to focus on epistemology—how we know morality or goodness—and ignore ontology, which seeks to identify the grounding of morality or goodness.)

Michael asked the audience to think of reasons, other than God, as to why we ought not sexually abuse children. He said it’s wrong because it hurts other sentient beings and you wouldn’t want anyone to do that to you.

But those “reasons” merely appeal to other moral principles that need grounding themselves. He’s merely shifted, not solved the problem. Why is it wrong to hurt other sentient beings? Why should we follow the Golden Rule? Who said? If we’re just overgrown germs dancing to our DNA and fighting for survival, what is the cause or source of such moral obligations?

They don’t come from science or the natural world. Science can help you discover how to create a bomb, but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to use it. You need a moral standard that transcends human opinion for that. You need an immaterial, authoritative essence known as Goodness, Righteous or Justice. You need God’s Nature (see our first debate for much more on that).

It might come as a shock to atheists, but science is not the only way of discovering causes. In fact, in order to explain CRIMES, you need to use other disciplines outside of science. These may include philosophy, history, reason, and direct observation.

Dr. Shermer may scoff at philosophy, but he actually uses it as do all scientists. It’s required in order to do science. Why? Because science actually doesn’t say anything—scientists do. All data needs to be gathered and all data needs to be interpreted. Science doesn’t gather and interpret the data; it’s scientists applying philosophical principles who do that. The philosophical principle that Dr. Shermer applied was to rule out God in advance. Michael kept saying, “God is not an explanation.” Well, how does he know that? He’s assuming what he’s trying to prove. He’s not showing it; he’s merely asserting it.

Perhaps Dr. Shermer thought he didn’t have to provide reasons for atheism because—according to him—atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. “It just means we don’t believe in God. Full stop.” He said atheism entails no other beliefs. (By the way, that’s another philosophical position, not a scientific one).

But if Michael just “lacks a belief in God”, then he’s only making a statement about his psychological state and nothing about external reality. Yet the cause of external reality is what we were there to debate! So why did he even show up?

If two homicide detectives discover a dead body with a knife in his back, bloody footprints leading out the door, and a cryptic note from the killer, both should hunt down a suspect. If one detective shows evidence that suspect A is the cause of this murder, the other detective isn’t doing his job if he merely says “I just lack a belief suspect A is the murderer,” and I’m not required to investigate anymore. He should give reasons why A isn’t the real murderer, and then provide evidence that another suspect had the ability, motive, and actually committed the murder.

Dr. Shermer did not do that. He neither refuted the evidence for my suspect (God) nor did he identify another suspect who could account for CRIMES. The materialistic causes he suggested—evolution, quantum vacuums, and speculations about aliens and bouncing universes— even if true require causes or preexisting laws themselves and have no ability to cause the immaterial aspects of CRIMES.

Instead of providing evidence for his position, Dr. Shermer did what most atheists do in debates. Despite being materialists, they grant themselves immaterial realities such as the laws of logic, math, morality, and orderly natural laws, and then extol the virtues of science that require those laws while making complaints about how God is running the universe.

Without an objective standard by which to judge, they steal a standard from God and judge that there’s too much evil in the world, God is evil, or if God existed He would do things differently (like heal everyone or write the atheist’s name in the sky). And don’t forget—religious people are stupid and religion is evil. None of that shows there is no God or explains reality in the absence of God. In fact, evil actually demonstrates God’s existence because there would be no thing such as evil unless there was an objective standard of Good, which is God’s nature.

In short, atheists don’t have arguments—they have complaints. And complaints are not arguments.

So what best explains reality: theism or atheism? I gave my case for theism. I’m still waiting to hear the case for atheism.

Frank Turek is an American Christian author, public speaker, radio host and the president of CrossExamined.org. He is the author of four books: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to make their Case, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. A former aviator in the US Navy, Frank has a master’s degree from the George Washington University and a doctorate from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

September 1, 2018/by Guest

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.

First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.

Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.

Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.

Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).

One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.

Forgiveness

If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W

July 17, 2018/by Guest

The “Hardware” of Life Argument

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Podcast: Play in new window

By Steve Williams

“I can see the fingerprints of God when I look at you I can see the fingerprints of God and I know its true you’re a masterpiece that all creation quietly applauds and you’re covered with the fingerprints of God”

~from Fingerprints of God, by Stephen Curtis Chapman

The common scientific view of the “hardware of life” (that is, the physical components of living systems) is, as Biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986).

Unfortunately, Dawkins (like many others in his field) has succumbed to a logically fallacious assumption that a supernatural explanation is not within the “pool of live options” to explain this appearance of design. Why not? Well, to summarize the common opinions of materialists like Dawkins, it’s “not science”. But what is “Science”?

Louis Pasteur once said “Religions, philosophies, atheism, materialism, or its opposite–none of these is relevant to the matter…I might even add that, scientifically speaking, I am indifferent to them all. The question is purely one of fact”. In other words, science should be “the un-biased search for truth” without philosophical preconceptions. That definition was always the ancient understanding of the term.

Since the so-called “Enlightenment” that swept through Europe in the 1700’s, and especially since the proposal of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 1859, however, intellectual activists have been trying to add the qualifying concept of “within naturalistic explanations” to the definition. What that means, in effect, is the addition of a bias to the search for truth.

This bias first “got its legs” from the writings of an apparently bitter atheistic Scottish philosopher named David Hume in the 1700’s. Hume proposed a set of reasons why the supernatural should be ruled be ruled out of consideration as an explanatory mechanism. Not long afterwards, these reasons were shown to be fallacious (we’ll examine this in a later chapter), but at the time, it was as if Europe was eager to unfetter itself from religion, and atheism blossomed somewhat throughout the continent.

Most modern philosophers (even agnostic ones) find Hume’s arguments to be almost laughably illogical, but many atheists unknowingly cite him today as if he was “the Christ” of their belief system. For a full-length treatment of this subject, see John Earman’s book Hume’s Abject Failure, but suffice it to say for the moment that modern humankind has nowhere near a broad enough scope of reality to eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. To the contrary, there are many things in our experience that defy naturalistic explanations.

The philosophical name of the most common scientific form of atheism is “Materialism”, and it claims that not only is there no God, but that there is nothing even like God in the universe. Although it has taken root within the Biological sciences, it has done so to a much lesser extent within Astronomy, Philosophy, and Physics. Many Americans would probably be surprised to know that polls show that the percentage of PhD’ed scientists overall who identify themselves as Christians and who go to church is roughly the same as the percentage in the population at large. Unfortunately, the small minority who identify themselves as atheists is much louder and more aggressive though, so they exert a disproportionate influence on the media, academic standards committees and the like.

Luckily for all who respect unbiased inquiry, many Philosophers who are experts in logic by definition (logic being a subset of Philosophy), have objected vociferously, especially in the past 40 years, to this effort, and have recognized that the scientific method is at stake. As I wrote before, it seems that the key element that catalyzed this mindset since the late 1800’s is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Biologists became so enamored with it over the years that they invested heavily in deepening and entrenching their paradigms based on that assumption, and are not willing to consider that major problems have developed within it. Pride in Biology, and a reluctance to admit being wrong might be a factor. One has to wonder if there are spiritual and carnal reasons that admitting the mere possibility of the existence of the metaphysical is so daunting to some. Since Darwinian Evolution seems to be the lynchpin of this type of thinking, let’s take a hard look at it.

The concept of life arising from non-life by random chance is called “abiogenesis”. This concept is the “creation story” of Darwinian Evolution. But what are the odds of the building blocks of life coming together by random chance in a way to provide even the possibility of life? Harold Morowitz, an agnostic Yale University physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Morowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10^{100,000,000,000}. (1) Wow! How can we grasp such a large statistic? Well, it’s more likely that one would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week!

In response to the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins – A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:

The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle. (2)

Sir Frederick Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 10⁵⁰(ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik’s Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment!

Biological “Hardware” (Complex Structure) Argument

According to a leading Darwinist, the odds of component parts in close proximity assembling into a single-celled creature are 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}_.
According to probability theorists, anything with lower odds than 1 in 10⁵⁰is mathematically impossible.
Therefore, the spontaneous generation of life is mathematically impossible.

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. (3)

Crick’s assessment of the hopelessness of the spontaneous generation of life on earth led him to subsequently postulate a theory called “Directed Panspermia”, which held that space aliens “seeded” life on earth. As Philip Johnson observed, “When a scientist of Crick’s caliber feels he has to invoke undetectable spaceman, it is time to consider whether the field of prebiological evolution has come to a dead end.” (4)

Ever since the discovery of DNA in 1953, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution has faced increasing challenges yearly as more and more evidence for the complexity of the cell has been discovered. In 1996, Dr. Michael Behe (professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University) released a book entitled “Darwins’ Black Box”, which detailed an argument against Darwinian Evolution known as the “irreducible complexity” of biological structures and systems. In the 11 years since the publication of the book, it has been attacked from every angle by atheistic scientists, yet its central thesis has only gained strength, as the debate has exposed the weakness of Darwinian counter-arguments, and the naturalistic (atheistic) philosophical biases that lurk behind them.

Have you ever wondered if Charles Darwin himself would still believe in Darwinian Evolution (or macro-evolution) if he knew all of the evidence that has accumulated for and against it up to this time? Well, there is an interesting quote in which Darwin stated his own minimum standard for assessing whether or not his theory would withstand the tests of time:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (5)

In Darwin’s day, it was assumed that cells were very simple. In the last half of the 20th century, however, it has come to light that inside each living cell are vastly complex molecular machines made up of various protein parts. Organs, which are made up of these complex cells, have also been shown to be much more complex than previously believed.

The blueprints for assembling the protein parts for cells and organs in correct timing and order are encoded into our DNA, which is similar to binary computer code, although it is quaternary (having 4 letters instead of 2). The density of the information encoded into DNA staggers the imagination; there is enough information-storing space in a half-teaspoon of DNA to store all of the assembly instructions for every creature ever made, and room left over to include every book ever written!

In addition to the incredible information-storing capacity in DNA, there are machines and systems in biology which vastly exceed mankind’s creative capacity in terms of their complexity. For example, the blood-clotting mechanism requires a sequence of 20 different proteins (each of which has an average chance of 1 in 8.03 x 10 to the 59th power of forming by random chance!) triggering one another like dominoes falling in order, until a fibrin mesh scaffolding is formed for the clot itself.

If you subtract any one single protein (regardless of where in the sequence of 20), this scaffolding fails to form, and no blood clot is possible. Without clotting, any creature with a circulatory system would bleed to death from a tiny wound, similarly to what happens to hemophiliacs.

Now think about how this compares to Darwin’s criterion for his own theory. Macro-evolution requires a mutation for every step, each of which needs to confer an advantage in surviving or creating offspring to be retained by natural selection. Even if we grant the creation of proteins by random chance (which is extremely unlikely), at steps 1, 2 ,3, 4, etc. on up to and through step 19, there is no advantage conferred toward the production of a blood clot until step 20 is completed! If you reduce the complexity by any single component (regardless of where in the sequence the single component is), the system doesn’t work, and has no reason to be retained by natural selection. This is Irreducible Complexity.

Let’s look at another example. The Bacterial Flagellum is a tail-like protein propeller attached to one end of a bacterium that propels the organism through its environment via rapid rotations (like a miniature outboard motor driving a whip in circular motion). It has components that are remarkably similar to a man-made outboard motor, such as a rotor, a U-joint, a stator, a driveshaft, a propeller, bushings, and O-rings.

There are at least 40 different protein parts required for the assembly of a flagellum. Many of the flagellar proteins control the construction process, switching the building phases on and off with chemical triggers at just the right times, and setting up construction in the proper sequence. It is an engineering marvel. If you deduct 1% of the parts, you don’t have a 99% functional bacterial flagellum; it becomes completely dysfunctional, and you have nothing but a hindrance (probably fatal) to any organism attached to it. The following picture hints at its complexity…

Consider the fact that it is conservatively calculated that the odds of this incredible structure forming by random chance is 1 in 10 to the 1170th power. (6) According to probability theorists, anything with a chance lower than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is mathematically impossible, so it doesn’t matter how much time you give it—it simply won’t occur by chance alone.

Just recently, a vastly more complex gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle was discovered. Here is an piece on it from www.evolutionnews.org:

Souped-Up Hyperdrive Flagellum Discovered

Evolution News & Views December 3, 2012 5:05 AM

Get a load of this — a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli.

If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1, a marine bacterium described by Japanese researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Edited by Howard Berg, Harvard’s mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella.

Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath…. the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle.

To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action.

Electron micrographs included in the paper show that the model is not unrealistic. These flagella really are tightly packed in a sheath, suggesting that the bundle acts like a gear-driven hyperdrive.

Here we have used electron cryotomography to visualize the 3D architecture of the sheathed flagella. The seven filaments are enveloped with 24 fibrils in the sheath, and their basal bodies are arranged in an intertwined hexagonal array similar to the thick and thin filaments of vertebrate skeletal muscles. This complex and exquisite architecture strongly suggests that the fibrils counter-rotate between flagella in direct contact to minimize the friction of high-speed rotation of individual flagella in the tight bundle within the sheath to enable MO-1 cells to swim at about 300 µm/s. (Emphasis added.)

At microbial level, that’s more than 10 body lengths per second. The authors were clearly excited by this engine, sounding like young men checking out high-performance cars, talking thrust, gear ratios and torque.

MO-1 is a magnetotactic bacterium capable of orienting its cell body along the geomagnetic field lines by using magnetosomes. The MO-1 cell has a flagellar apparatus with two lophotrichous [containing numerous flagella in] bundles. In contrast to peritrichously [flagella all over the cell] flagellated bacteria, MO-1 cells swim constantly in a helical trajectory toward magnetic north, and the trajectory changes from right-handed to left-handed without changes in velocity or direction. The cells are able to swim as fast as 300 μm/s, which is nearly 10-fold faster than E. coli and Salmonella. Although the flagella of the other types of bacteria usually work individually or by forming a loose bundle to produce thrust, the flagellar apparatus of MO-1 is a tight bundle of seven flagella enveloped in a sheath made of glycoproteins. This unique architecture appears to be essential for the smooth and high-speed swimming of MO-1.

They can’t see actual gears, of course, but physics demands that the mechanism of rotation must have something like it:

We hypothesize that, whereas each of the seven flagella has its torque-generating motor, the 24 fibrils counter rotate between the flagellar filaments to minimize the friction that would be generated if the flagella were directly packed together in a tight bundle. A schematic diagram representing our hypothesis is presented in Fig. 6. The flagella are represented as large brown gears and the fibrils are represented as small blue-green gears. The flagella and fibrils rotate counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively, as indicated by the arrows, to minimize friction (Movie S1). Although there is no direct evidence that the fibrils can rotate freely in the opposite direction as the flagellar filaments with which they are in direct contact, we think this is the simplest interpretation to explain the superior function afforded by the complex architecture of the MO-1 flagellar apparatus.

Considering the very tight packing of the 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that are in direct physical contact within the sheath, there appears to be no other way for the flagella to rotate at high speed without the counter rotation of the intervening fibrils. Although the fibrils and the surrounding sheath are in direct contact, the friction between them would be small because of the stocking-like flexibility of the sheath. This design must be playing an essential role in the fast, smooth rotation of the flagellar apparatus that allows the rapid swimming of MO-1.

With powerful evidence of design like this, did the researchers become converts to intelligent design? We can’t know, but would PNAS have printed such a paper without an obligatory tribute to unguided materialistic evolution? Evolution is not mentioned until the last paragraph:

Taken together, these features of the MO-1 flagellar apparatus represent an advanced level of evolution of a motility apparatus. It is also intriguing that the same pattern of an intertwined hexagonal array in two evolutionary distant systems: the basal bodies of flagella and fibrils of the MO-1 flagellar apparatus, and the thick and thin filaments in vertebrate skeletal muscle. Similar architectures of filamentous structures presumably evolved independently in prokaryotes and eukaryotes to fulfill the requirements for two very distinct mechanisms to generate motion: counter rotation and axial sliding.

OK, so the Darwinists got their offering, but it leaves a bad aftertaste: now, they have to believe that advanced mechanisms for generating motion evolved not just once, but twice — completely independent of each other. Thanks a lot, guys. Wait till the intelligent-design movement hears about this.

Oops, too late.

(http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html).

Going back to our previous subject, what if we just ignored the previously mentioned problems of forming the first cell, and assume that we’re starting the Darwinian process from the bacterial level and advancing to the human level? On page 153 of the book Who Was Adam?, Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross cite one of the world’s most prominent evolutionists, Dr. Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine, as calculating the minimal odds of human beings evolving from the bacterial level to be 1 in 10 to the 1 millionth power. Three physicists, John Barrow, Brandon Carter and Frank Tipler, did roughly the same calculation but included some important factors that Ayala overlooked, and came up with the number 1 in 10 to the 24 millionth power. Again, according to probability theorists, any event with lower odds than 1 in 10 to the 50^th power is mathematically impossible. Therefore unguided Darwinian evolution is mathematically impossible!

Reduced to a propositional argument, it might go like this:

Biological “Hardware” (Complex Structure) Argument

According to leading Darwinists, odds of humans evolving from a single-celled creature are 1 in 10^24,000,000_.
According to probability theorists, anything with lower odds than 1 in 10⁵⁰is mathematically impossible.
Therefore, Darwinian evolution of human beings is mathematically impossible.

Now, these two sets of odds (totaling to 1 in 10^{100,024,000,000}) seem overwhelming to say the least; why would scientists insist that creations like these could have come about by evolution? To re-iterate, it seems that biological science has become dominated by atheistic philosophers. Science is “a search for truth”, but the oligarchy in control in this day and age is trying to change that to “a search for truth by naturalistic (atheistic) means”. To them, the idea of God is unacceptable, so science cannot consider even the possibility that God created this universe and all that is in it.

Take a look at the following quote by prominent Darwinist Richard Lewontin, and consider whether his viewpoint is logically sound. Unfortunately, this quote seems to be representative of how many Darwinists think, and how they want everyone else to think:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (7)

One wonders why such a concerted effort is made to deny the metaphysical into the pool of live options. Perhaps the following quote by another prominent Darwinist named Aldous Huxley provides some insight:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption … For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. (8)

Now, just for fun, look at the following Bible passage, and think about how it relates to the quotes above:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. –Romans 1:20-22.

Perhaps this is a good place to ponder a quote from Nobel-Prize winning organic chemist Christian de Duve:

If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe. (9)

God has indeed left His signature in nature in its irreducible complexity and fine-tuning. Darwinism has failed repeatedly when tested as an explanation for the existence of life. Hundreds of scientists have recognized this and have signed a document called the “Dissent from Darwinism” (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) to express their disagreement with philosophical naturalism dominating science through Darwinism. We simply need to “have eyes to see, and ears to hear”, and stop listening to atheistic philosophers disguised as scientists, who try to insist that the supernatural or metaphysical is off-limits for science. “Reasonable faith” is going in the same direction to which the evidence is pointing. The teachings of the Bible, understood properly, merge perfectly with science.

This article is chapter 3 From What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t know (But Should), by Steve Williams

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ch6MsY

January 2, 2018/by Guest

Does an Objective Moral Compass Point to God?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Question

Hey Tim,

A question from your fellow Nebraska Reasonable Faith chapter director! When discussing the Moral Argument with my Reasonable Faith chapter in Omaha, I received some pushback from one of our members, who just so happens to have his Ph.D. in meta-ethics. The objection he had to the Moral Argument was to the premise, “If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.” Erik Wielenberg, an atheist philosopher from DePauw University, proposes a model by which the atheist is able to hold to objective morality without the need for the existence of God. I’ll restate his model as best as I can (apologies for the long question, but there’s a lot to discuss).

Wielenberg proposes that there exists some of what he calls basic ethical facts. These are ethical facts that are metaphysically necessary, substantive (actually mean something and are not tautologous), and brute. Brute facts, according to Wielenberg, are facts that need not be explained in terms of other facts. An example of a basic ethical fact is the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. This fact isn’t true in virtue of any other facts, but rather it just is the case that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. In other words, the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad needs no explanation.

Here is where I think Wielenberg has a good point. We as theists seem to hold to the existence of God as being a necessary, substantive, and brute fact. When he says that theists hold to the existence of God as being an example of this kind of fact, he is speaking in an ontological sense, not an epistemological one. Certainly, we can come to know the fact that God exists through explanations and other facts, but the truth of the fact of God’s existence is not dependent on other facts, thus making it a brute fact. So why does Wielenberg point this out? Well, his argumentative purpose in pointing to types of brute facts to which theists are committed is to show that the theist cannot consistently reject his (that is, Wielenberg’s) proposed means of accommodating objective morality in an atheistic worldview simply by rejecting the tenability of the existence of brute facts. With this in mind, Wielenberg sees no guiding principle as to which facts are brute and which ones require further explanation. They need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. If we accept his analysis of brute facts as correct, then it seems we need to give some sort of reason as to why ethical facts are facts in need of further explanation and cannot be considered brute. Because if ethical facts can just be considered as brute facts, then it seems atheism would have no trouble accounting for objective morality since it is false that these ethical facts need a foundation (because they’re brute).

Let me show you what I mean. As Christians, we might say that something is good because it approximates God’s nature. In saying this, we imply that we believe that the Good is God’s nature. If this is the case, then we seem to be positing a basic ethical fact: An action is considered good if it approximates God’s nature. We don’t have an explanation for why this is the case, but rather we simply seem to hold it as a brute fact! So, what’s the issue for the atheist then? If Christians are allowed to posit certain basic ethical facts that require no explanation, then it seems arbitrary to say that atheists cannot do the same when they posit basic ethical facts such as “causing pain for fun is morally wrong.” Both sides must posit these basic ethical facts that have no external foundation.

We could say something similar about moral obligations. As Christians, we might say that, if God commands you to do something, then you are morally obligated to do that thing. Well, why is this the case? It seems to me this fact has no explanation, and thus it is a brute fact. Why couldn’t the atheist merely posit a basic ethical fact that says “you ought not to do something that is morally wrong”? Both facts posited here by the theist and atheist have no external foundation, and thus both seem equally justified.

I know Dr. Craig will be debating Dr. Wielenberg on this very topic next year, but I thought we might get a head start on the conversation. Keep fighting the good fight brother! Thanks!

– Scott Olson

Tim’s Response

Hey Scott! It’s great to receive a fantastic question from a good friend (and a fellow RF Chapter leader)!

I am really looking forward to William Lane Craig’s interaction with Erik Wielenberg this February. I have not discussed this matter with Dr. Craig so I have no idea as to what “angle” he is going to take with Wielenberg. With that said, however (and with all due respect to Wielenberg), I think there are several problems with his proposed model.

“Need Not” vs Cannot

Regarding the claim that basic ethical facts and God share the same three properties — metaphysically necessary, substantive, and brute — is not accurate (or so it seems to me). This is because God is metaphysically necessary and simply CANNOT (as opposed to “need not”) be explained by other facts. However, as you noted, other facts like the premises in the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument demonstrate that a necessary being (God) must exist. Ethical facts seem to be necessary as well, however, if they are metaphysically necessary in all possible worlds, it seems that these facts CAN ONLY be explained by other facts — the existence of God and the purpose in which He created mankind. It is important to note that if one asserts that brute facts “need not” be explained by other facts, it does not logically follow that these facts cannot be explained by other facts (I will discuss these other facts below).

You noted that Wielenberg claims that,

An example of a basic ethical fact is the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. This fact isn’t true in virtue of any other facts, but rather it just is the case that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. In other words, the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad needs no explanation.

I disagree! It seems to me that causing pain for fun is unloving; however, the question is raised: is it bad to be unloving? How would we ground this truth or come to know it is true if it is in fact true? The fact that it is bad (missing the mark of the purpose of human existence) to cause pain for fun is explained by other facts. The fact that causing pain for fun is bad, wrong, and/or evil is explained by the fact that God created humanity on purpose and for the specific purpose to love Him and all other people (from our neighbors to those who consider us enemies). Since causing pain for fun is definitely unloving, then causing pain for fun does not approximate to the objective purpose of the human existence (an objective truth about humanity irrespective of the subjective opinions from humanity). To a degree that a thing or being does not approximate to its objective purpose, then to that same degree that thing or being is objectively “bad.”

Actions can only really be good or bad in relation to an ultimate and objective purpose (this does not exist on atheism). So, it might be objectively true that torture causes pain; however, claiming that “causing pain for fun is bad” is nonsensical if life was not created on purpose and for a specific purpose. Namely, we were created to love our fellow man, not harm him.

So, if humanity was not created on purpose and for a specific purpose, then I contend that there are no objective ethical facts regarding human actions. Take homosexuality, for example. If Jesus is right, then God created human sexual relationships to specifically approximate to the following model: one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime (Matthew 19). Thus, it is objectively true that this is one of the specific purposes humans were created to follow. If one engages in homosexual actions — let alone gay marriage — then they are objectively wrong and “missing the mark” (sin). However, if God does not exist, then humans are accidental and there is no objective purpose of our existence or standard in which humanity was created to approximate.

If God did not create humanity to only have heterosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage, then there would be nothing objectively wrong with having premarital sex or any sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. These sexual boundaries are only objective if God really did create humans to approximate to the one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime model of marriage that Jesus advocated. Humans are free to disagree with God, but they are subjectively disagreeing with the creator of humanity about the purpose and plan He had in mind for humanity. Thus, humans would only subjectively disagree with an objective purpose in which humans were actually created to attain.

Thus, if atheism is true, then there is nothing objectively wrong with anything — including homosexual marriage. With that said, however, it would also not be objectively wrong to persecute homosexuals (See A Biblical Argument for Gay Rights)!

It follows that when ISIS cuts the heads off of homosexuals, atheists, and Christians, these Muslims are opposing the objective purpose of human life and thus, they are objectively wrong. When the Nazis slaughtered Jews, the Nazis were not loving their fellow humans and thus, they were objectively bad. When white supremacists are violent to humans of another skin color or Antifa is violent towards those with different political ideas these groups are all objectively wrong and missing the objective mark and purpose of life. Since the objective purpose human life was created for is love, it is objectively evil not to love. That is easy to remember because LOVE backwards is EVOL.

Consider the following argument:

If a truth corresponds to reality, it is objectively true [apart from human opinion].
2. If God created humanity for a purpose, then this purpose is a truth that corresponds to reality.
3. Therefore, if God created humanity for a purpose, then this purpose is objectively true.
4. God created humanity for a purpose. [To Love God and all people]
5. Therefore, God’s purpose for creating humanity is objectively true [apart from human opinion].

It follows from this argument that if one acts in a manner that is not loving toward God and all people, then they are objectively wrong in their behavior. They are not approximating to the objective purpose of life and are thus, “bad” and “missing the objective mark” (a.k.a., sin).

On Purpose & For a Purpose

Now, if God does not exist, then life was not created on purpose or for any specific purpose. Thus, on an atheistic worldview, there is no objective purpose to the existence of humanity, and thus, there is nothing really good, bad, right, or wrong — let alone evil — with any manner in which one chooses to behave toward his fellow man or woman. There is no objective plan, purpose, or goal about humanity in which humans have a choice to approximate or not.

You noted that,

If we accept his analysis of brute facts as correct, then it seems we need to give some sort of reason as to why ethical facts are facts in need of further explanation and cannot be considered brute

I do not accept his analysis of brute facts as correct, but even if I did, ethical facts make no sense to postulate apart from a design plan or purpose of mankind which is true irrespective of the subjective opinions offered from mankind. Ethical facts are necessary in that they are grounded in the nature of a necessary being in which any possible world — including the actual world — is contingent. Moreover, if God created this world and all humanity on purpose and for the specific purpose of love, then it is true apart from a human subjective opinion that humans ought to love one another. After all, this would be the reason humans exist.

You pointed out that,

As Christians, we might say that, if God commands you to do something, then you are morally obligated to do that thing. Well, why is this the case? It seems to me this fact has no explanation, and thus it is a brute fact.

Some Christians “might say” this kind of thing, but I do not. Well, I am sure I probably have said similar things in the past, but if I am being careful to articulate my views clearly, then I contend that something is objectively good for a human if it approximates to the objective purpose of human existence. This objective purpose of the human existence must be up to something external to humanity, and thus, cannot be up to humanity. Thus, this fact does have an explanation! Moreover, it stands to reason that a perfectly intelligent and loving being would only issue commands to humanity that approximate to God’s loving purpose for creating humanity (which is a purpose true apart from the human opinion). Thus, although we have the freedom to disobey God’s commands since God has eternal human flourishing in mind, we ought to choose to approximate to His commands.

However, God gives us the freedom to choose not to flourish. This brings me to my final point:

An Eternal “Or Else!”

If atheism is true (and human persons are not immaterial and eternal souls), then all humans ultimately share the same fate. If this is the case, why should it matter if one chooses to live like Mother Theresa or Hitler — like Gandhi or Ted Bundy? If atheism is true, each one of those individuals is equal in that none of them are experiencing any punishment or benefit for choosing to approximate to any supposed moral brute facts in the absence of God. In fact, it could be argued that Hitler and Bundy experienced more physical pleasures during their lives than Mother Theresa or Gandhi. If all people always share the same ultimate fate, then why should anyone care how they live on earth. Why should Hitler and Bundy not “go for the gusto”?

Jesus offered a big “or else” to humanity! If one does not wish to live according to the Law of Christ and God’s purpose for humanity — to always love all people — they are free to spend eternity apart from God’s loving plan. They are free to do things their own way for eternity. Jesus referred to this state of affairs as hell.

If Wielenberg’s view were true — even if it could account for abstract objective moral values — why should anyone care? So what if some things are objectively wrong to do? We are all just going to die anyway! And who cares about legacy either? Eventually, the entire universe is going to suffer a cosmic heat death (there will be no heat, light, or life anywhere in the entire universe) and ultimately “no one will remember your name” or any of your supposed moral actions you performed. In the end, this atheistic attempt to desperately account for objective morality is fairly useless. After all, what good is a moral theory if one has no reason to act morally?

Conclusion

So, to recap, it seems to me that there are at least three problems with Wielneberg’s model. First, the assertion that one “need not” provide an explanation does not entail that one cannot provide an explanation. Second, if God exists and created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose, then this purpose would logically ground human actions as objectively good or bad. Atheists have no access to this foundation. Third, on Christian theism, Jesus provides an eternal “or else,” which provides an additional reason to approximate to the Law of Christ.

I just do not see how Wielenberg’s view is tenable if humans are accidental and that it is not a fact of the matter that humans were created for the purpose of love and flourishing. There is no objective standard about human existence in which we were created to approximate if atheism is true. There is no such thing as “missing the mark” or the objective purpose of our existence. On atheism there is no objective purpose — and that is why there is nothing really wrong with homosexuality or anything else if God did not create humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose.

Thus, on Wielenberg’s view, the phrase, “causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad,” is metaphysically meaningless. This is due to the fact that on atheism, “bad,” does not have any real meaning in a logically broad sense. If God did not create humanity on purpose or for a specific purpose, then one cannot logically claim that causing pain for fun is “bad” or “wrong,” because there is no objective purpose to the human existence in which causing pain for fun does not approximate. The reason Wielenberg’s view is useless is because phrases like, “causing pain for fun is bad and wrong,” are vacuous. On atheism, these claims literally mean nothing!

Thanks for the great question, Scott! I hope to see you in Rhode Island at the next Reasonable Faith chapter director annual meeting. If not, I am only a three-hour drive away!

Your friend and brother in Christ,

Tim

Original Blog Post: http://bit.ly/2zWlVCq

November 21, 2017/by Guest

The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

Why does anything at all exist? Why isn’t there just nothing? This is the first philosophical question I ever remember asking myself. I remember lying in bed at night when I was about 6 years old, and I asked and pondered this very question. I thought to myself “Everything must have been made by God. If God didn’t exist, then nothing else would exist either. Since everything exists, God must exist. But what if God didn’t exist either? Then nothing else would exist.” It was only 15 years later that I discovered that my childlike insight was actually developed into a sophisticated philosophical argument for the existence of God long before I was even born. In fact, I had even forgotten that moment of reflection when I was a small child until I started reading about the argument as an adult. Then I remembered.

The argument is called “The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence”. Sometimes it’s referred to as “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, the reason why it is called that is that the argument was first formulated by the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The argument’s premises are:

1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3: The universe exists.

4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence.

5: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Now, this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false. Let’s examine the premises to see what reasons can be given for affirming them.

Premise 1: Everything That Exists Has An Explanation Of Its Existence (Either In The Necessity Of Its Own Nature Or In An External Cause).

*Types Of Explanations – There are 2 types of explanations for why something exists. X was either caused to exist by something that exists outside of and prior to X or X exists out of a necessity of its own nature (I.e its non-existence is impossible and it depends on nothing outside of itself to bring it into or keep it in existence). Something was either caused to exist by something else or it exists out of logical necessity.

*This Premise Is Self-Evident – We all intuitively know that whatever exists has some sort of explanation as to why it exists. Imagine you were walking in the forest with a friend and found a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how the ball came to be there. If your friend said to you “Don’t worry about it. The Ball just exists inexplicably” you would either think he was crazy or was joking around. Either way, you’d never take seriously the notion that the ball just existed there with no explanation for why it existed or how it came to be there.

Whatever it is we think about, whether it be cars, trucks, chairs, tables, people, houses, trees, balloons, mountains, planets, galaxies, etc. we know that they must have some explanation for their existence. Nothing exists for no reason. Even little children know this. Why else would they ask Mom and Dad “Where do babies come from?” They know that they have an explanation for their existence. They know that they don’t exist inexplicably.

*Objection: Does God Have An Explanation Of His Existence?

Critics of this argument frequently object to this premise by saying that if everything that exists must have an explanation for why it exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. If God exists, then the premise applies to Him as well. However, that would demean God as it would mean something existed outside of God Himself which brought Him into existence. In other words, God would have a Creator and we would have a Heavenly Grandfather. Now, if we make God an exception to premise 1, the skeptic would rightly accuse us of special pleading. And moreover, he could ask that if we’re allowed to make God an exception to premise 1, why not exempt the universe?

This objection does not succeed. Read the first premise again. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)”. We would agree that God’s greatness would be diminished if he had anexternal cause for His existence. But that’s not the only type of explanation there is. One category of existence-explanation is necessary existence. What the Christian Apologist would say in response is that God does indeed have an explanation for His existence, but that explanation is that He exists by the necessity of His own nature. If God exists, He cannot not exist. His non-existence is logically impossible.

So premise 1 certainly seems to be true. What about premise 2? Is premise 2 true?

Premise 2: If The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence, That Explanation Is God.

At first, this premise may seem like a huge logical leap. But it actually makes sense when you think about it. In order to have caused the universe to come into being, the cause of the universe must be beyond the universe, beyond space and time. And therefore cannot be a material, spatial, or temporal type of thing. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be a spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, personal Creator. Why is that?

The cause must be

Spaceless — because it brought space into existence. If the cause is responsible for space’s existence, it cannot be inside of space. It cannot exist inside of something that doesn’t exist yet. Just as the builder of your house could not have existed inside your house, so the cause could not have existed inside of space.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Since the cause is beyond nature (given that its the explanation why nature exists), it follows that the cause is supernatural. After all, that’s what phenomenon transcendent to nature is. Supernatural, that which transcends the natural.

Powerful – Whatever is able to create and/or sustain the entire physical cosmos must have enormous power.

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is a necesarilly existent being, it must therefore be uncaused. Necesarry existence presupposes eternal existence.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning.

This sounds an awful lot like God to me. Now, we don’t have to call this cause “God” if that makes the atheist feel uncomfortable. We could just call it “The non-spatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, necesarilly existent Mind behind the universe”. But to avoid getting out of breath, I prefer to label this explanation “God”.

Moreover, even if the universe were beginningless, it would still be the case that it needs a cause that has the aforementioned properties. Leibniz’ argument doesn’t depend on proving that the universe had a beginning. As long as the universe is not a necessarily existent thing, then it needs a non-spatial, non-material, powerful, uncreated Mind to be the explanation for why it exists. For The Contingency Argument to succeed, all that needs to be true is that the universe is contingent.

3: The Universe Exists.

The truth of this premise is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with even a small shred of sanity. No defense of this premise needs to be given.

Of course, if someone wanted to resort to some crazy idea like solipsism (the view that you are the only thing that exists, and the entire universe and everything you experience are projections of your own mind), that doesn’t get you out of this premise. In this case, one could just say that YOU are the universe.

4: Therefore, The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence.

This follows logically from premises 1 and 3.

5: Therefore, The Explanation Of The Existence Of The Universe Is God.

This follows logically from premises 2 and 4.

*Objection: “Well, Maybe The Universe Doesn’t Need To Have An External Explanation For Its Existence. Maybe The Universe Exists By A Necessity Of Its Own Nature.”

This is one way an atheist could escape the conclusion of this argument. Perhaps premise 2 of this argument is false. The atheist could say “Well, granted. God or a being remarkably similar to God must be the explanation of the universe’s existence provided the assumption that the universe requires an external cause. But maybe that assumption is wrong. Maybe the explanation for the universe’s existence is that exists by a nature of its own existence.”

In order to save premise 2 and ergo the argument’s conclusion, we’ll need to show that the universe does require an external cause for its existence. There are some pretty clear reasons why we wouldn’t want to embrace this alternative. As we think about this big ole world we live in, none of the things that it consists of seem to exist necessarily. It seems like all of these things didn’t have to exist. It seems like they could have failed to exist.

But, you might say, perhaps the matter that these things are made of exists necessarily? Perhaps that although the galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc. and everything in the universe doesn’t exist necesarilly, the material stuff these things are made of exists necesarilly.

This proposal just simply doesn’t work. Allow me to explain why. You see, according to physicists, matter consists of teensy weensy particles called “quarks.” Everything in our world are just different arrangements of these quarks. But it seems to me that one could ask why a different collection of quarks could not have existed in the stead of this one? Are we expected to believe that every single quark in existence cannot possibly fail to exist? Does the skeptic want us to buy into the notion that all of the quarks in the universe have to exist?

“Okay, well maybe quarks aren’t necessarily existent. But maybe the particles of which the quarks are composed exist necessarily.” This suggestion won’t work because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

It seems obvious to me that the existence of a different collection of quarks comprising everything of the cosmos was possible, but in that case, it follows that a different universe could have existed, and if a different universe could have existed, then it follows that our universe isn’t necessarily existent.

To see the point, think of your house. Could your house have been made of candy? Now, I’m not asking if you could have had a different house (one made of candy) in the stead of the one you actually live in. I’m asking if the very house you’re currently living in ifthat house could have been composed of candy. Obviously not. If it did, then it would not be the same house. It would be a different house.

Similarly, a cosmos comrpised of different quarks would be a different cosmos. Even if the said quarks were arranged in such a way as to resemble our universe identically, it still wouldn’t be the same universe because the quarks comrprising it would be different quarks. It follows from this that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

Moreover, we have powerful scientific evidence that not only could the universe have failed to exist, but there was a time when it actually did not in fact exist. The Big Bang Theory has a lot of scientific evidence in its favor. A Big Bang beginning is a logical entailment of the expansion of the universe which is itself an entailment of the empirically verified “red shift” of distant galaxies, and moreover, The Big Bang is the only explanation for the abundance of light elements in the universe. Moreover, the universe is running out of usable energy over time, and if the universe had existed from eternity past, it would have run out of usable energy by now. Yet the universe has not run out of usable energy by now. This means that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning. Since the universe had an absolute beginning, it cannot exist by a necessity of its own nature. Why? Because necessary existence entails beginningless existence. It something cannot possibly not exist, then it could not have had a beginning to its existence. Since if it had a beginning to its existence, that would mean there was a time that it did not exist.

Conclusion

Given the truth of the 3 premises, the conclusion follows: God is the explanation for why the universe exists.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2te1kFa

July 4, 2017/by Guest

The Omnibenevolence of God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

God is Omnibenevolent! Simply put, God is perfectly good and all-loving. Not only does the Bible make this clear (Psalm 100:5; Psalm 145:17; John 3:16), but logicians have also deductively concluded this apart from the Bible through the Moral Argument and the Ontological Argument.

Now, if God were simply omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), but not perfectly good and all-loving, then we would have reason to be frightened. In fact, this is how Muslims view Allah. According to Islam, God is not all-loving, and whatever Allah does is simply called “good,” even if it is really hateful. As a result, Muslims have no assurance of salvation (unless they die in Jihad).

The Original Sin?

Some Christians fall into a similar trap and incorrectly think of God this way. Indeed, the church has been infected with a low view of God for ages. A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, says, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” In the preface of this same book Tozer writes:

The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. . . The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us.

This low view of God has infected the minds of most Christians today, but I believe its roots can be found in the very beginning. The original sin was not eating of a forbidden fruit, but rather, doubting the omnibenevolence of God. This was the trap Satan lured Eve into in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3):

“Did God really say…?”

Satan convinces Eve to consider the idea that God is not really interested in her ultimate flourishing. The fact of the matter, however, is that God does desire the ultimate flourishing for each and every human being. This is supported by scripture such as John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 Tim 4:10, and 2 Peter 3:9. It is also supported in the first book of the Bible. Consider this counterfactual:

IF Adam and Eve would have kept God’s commands (and all of their offspring followed suit), then every single human WOULD experience ultimate flourishing and not experience any suffering.

Thus, God created a world in which it was logically possible for all people to flourish. However, Eve doubted that God was omnibenevolent and desired the best for her. This doubt led to the fall of man and terrible suffering has followed in its wake.

Many people continue to doubt the perfect goodness and love of God. Some Calvinistic theologians (like Arthur Pink) actually teach that God does not love all people or desire the best for all people! This is a horrible mistake — a sin — that leads to weak faith.

Additionally, some Christians hold to a view called “Divine Determinism” and think that God controls all thoughts and beliefs. If this is the case, then God forces most people to believe lies. If God forces some to believe truth and others to believe lies, then how can you be certain that God is not forcing you to believe false things too (including your view of divine determinism)? This low view of God ultimately leads to many in the church doubting their salvation just as Muslims do (both views of God are wrong).

Indeed, this low view of God influenced the Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent. A.D. 1563. They incorrectly affirm that one should doubt their salvation in Chapter XII:

No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either can not sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it can not be known whom God hath chosen unto himself.

When one doubts or rejects the fact that God is omnibenevolent then major problems arise. The primary problem is that their presupposition of God — a low view of God — was incorrect in the first place. They follow in the footsteps of Adam and Eve.

A Maximally Great God

Consider the perfect goodness of God: Because God is perfectly good He is perfectly holy. When humans freely choose to do good things, then we approximate to the perfect standard of God, and we do holy things! Worshipping God is holy. Loving your neighbor is holy. Loving your enemy is holy!

We are not perfectly holy, but we should make every effort to approximate to the One who is! The Bible says this:

“And the Lord said, you shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus19:1-2).

God is the standard of goodness and therefore, we can always trust the commands he has given to be perfectly good. Moreover, since God is perfectly intelligent, then His commands are always the most intelligent thing to do. Therefore, it is just plain stupid and wrong not to obey the commands of God!

How do we know God’s commands? Through Jesus’ declarations validated by His resurrection! Consider Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39:

1- Love God first!
2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!

Christians ought to be the most loving people on the face of the planet!

Next, consider God’s perfect love and what it means to be all-loving which is part of omnibenevolence. The Bible makes it clear: “God is love” (1 John 4:16).

So, if God is love, then God’s very nature is loving. As William Lane Craig wrote in his children’s book, God is ALL-Loving:

“He is loving as He is holy. And God’s love is a very special kind of love; He doesn’t love you because you’re good. His love is unconditional!”

This is a perfect Daddy, right? I am not a perfect dad by any means and do not require my son, Ethan, to be perfect either. I know he will make mistakes, he will sin, he will disappoint me, and he will be anything other than perfect. But even though I know these things about Ethan, it does not mean that I do not love him with all of my heart. I am still willing to die for my imperfect son! If that is how imperfect dads are, imagine a perfectly good, intelligent, and loving Heavenly Father! God does not love you based on your actions – He just loves you and desires you to love Him in return. But He will not force you into a relationship with Him; you must make the choice to enter that love relationship or not.

That is what a saving relationship is: when a human freely chooses to love God in return, then a true love marriage occurs – a saving relationship with God. Because God first loved us, when we respond to His love and freely choose to love God back, we are saved! This is demonstrated by Jesus when he tells the Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus is telling this fictional story of a dad – a great dad – who is loving his son the way God loves all humans (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus is telling this story of a great and loving father so that those listening to this story will begin to understand the way God loves all humans.

You see, the father’s love was always available to his son. The father’s love never went anywhere. The dad never stopped loving his son with all of his heart. However, the son made some choices – free choices – which separated him from the love of his father. It was not until the son made the choice – the free choice – to come back to his father’s love and to love his father in return, that their relationship was restored.

If the son would have never made the free choice to return to his father, then their relationship would have never been restored.

This is representative of God’s love for YOU. God loves you unconditionally, just as the father in the parable, and His love is always there for you. With that said, however, you and I are responsible for our own decisions, and we can make horrible choices that separate us from God’s perfect love.

Eternal Divorce

Some people freely choose to separate from God for eternity (this is called hell)! Since it is logically impossible for God to force a person to freely choose to love Him (that is on the same incoherent level as married bachelors or triangles with four corners), then some will freely choose to divorce themselves from God forever — but it does not have to be this way!

Jesus did all the work for you, but now the ball is in your court. You have a real choice to make and are now responsible for your eternity!

Do you want perfect love with your Creator? It is available through the atoning power of Jesus Christ. You have a perfect Father – a Daddy – who loves you with his entire essence! You are worth more than the entire universe to Him! He desires an eternal true love relationship with everyone — including YOU.

Conclusion

You might feel like the prodigal son. You might be in a place right now that you know you are not supposed to be. The prodigal son had to make a choice – a free choice – and swallow his pride and come back to his father. If you are in a place that is far from God right now, then I encourage you to make the same choice – swallow your pride and come back to your Daddy. He is a perfect Father and His love is waiting for you!

Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),

Tim Stratton

Notes

A special thank you to Shannon Eugene Byrd for finding the Council of Trent quote!

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2n2J1l1

April 2, 2017/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Argument

Is All Reasoning Circular Reasoning?

Raising the Stakes

Clarifying the Issue

Strengthening the Argument

Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism

Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage

Summary and Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Don’t Lose the Person When Winning an Argument

Recommended resources related to the topic:

An Argument From Cancer

Surrendering to Death

Faith In

Why the Resurrection is the Best Argument for Christianity

When Debating Atheists: Those Who Lack A Belief Lack An Argument

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

The “Hardware” of Life Argument

Does an Objective Moral Compass Point to God?

The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence

The Omnibenevolence of God

The Original Sin?

A Maximally Great God

Eternal Divorce

Conclusion

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED