How can a good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?
Many people doubt the existence of God because of the existence of evil. But evil doesn’t disprove God—evil disproves atheism!
How so?
Evil can’t exist on its own, it only exists as a parasite in good. Evil is like rust in a car; if you take all the rust out of a car you have a better car; if you take all of the car out of the rust you have nothing. Evil is like cancer—it can’t exist alone, only in a good body. Therefore, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God’s objectively Good nature exists. If evil is real—and we all know it is—then God exists.
We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can’t be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can’t be evil without good; and there can’t be objective good without God. So evil may show there’s a devil out there, but it can’t disprove God. Evil actually boomerangs back to show that God exists.
While evil can’t disprove God, one can legitimately ask the question why does God allow evil to continue? That’s one of the topics I cover in the book, and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too). The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions. Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.
In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course. So keep checking back here for more.
1 Peter 3:15 says that we are to give a ready defense for anyone who asks for the hope that is within. 2 Corinthians 10:5 says that we are to “demolish arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God.” Now with words like “defense” and “demolish,” it is not surprising that the field of apologetics has been dominated by men in recent years.
Apologetics is important for all Christians, including women, but that’s actually not what we’re here to talk about today. Whenever you hear people talk about “women in apologetics,” they are usually focusing on why we need to reach women with apologetics. And it’s true, we do! The mandate to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, MINDS and strengths is a universal command. So yes, I get it. Apologetics for women is vital. However, there is a lesser talked about issue, and that is the one we will discuss today: why apologetics needs women!
For the record, whenever we include gender in a conversation, there are people who are ready to stand up and declare their non-conformity to gender norms. When I talk about the different qualities between men and women, I am of course speaking in generalities. I acknowledge that there are men and women who defy their gender stereotype. I’m actually one of those women. Let’s all embark on this conversation acknowledging that generalities are not absolutes. We are looking at trends, and every trend has an outlier. That’s my official disclaimer before we dive into why apologetics needs women.
Men pioneer, but women civilize.
It has long been recognized that women have a… shall we say, civilizing influence on men. Jokes are made at bachelor parties about the “end of wild times,” and the bachelor-pad transforms from a purely functional assortment of free and hand-me-down furniture to a home, full of lovely smells, pictures on the wall, and too many pillows for a man to understand.
Men have traditionally been the trail-blazers. They are the pioneers, and the ones who take pleasure in conquering uncharted territory. Apologetics is no exception. But what happens when a field remains predominantly male for too long? You get something that looks similar to the Wild West. . . or Lord of the Flies. Take your pick.
I have noticed many online conversations between skeptic and believer that have been less than civil. While truth itself must be fortified without compromise, the manner in which we express these truths requires sensitivity to the individual with whom we are speaking. For some of our amazing, warrior, pioneering men, this quickly becomes a bull in a china shop scenario. Difficult truths must be applied gently, with compassion, and with mercy—all qualities for which women are better known.
Women often have a higher EQ
Speaking of gentleness and compassion. . . There is a reason why females dominate the caretaking industry. Our ability to recognize facial expressions and social cues is much higher than men’s.[1],[2] A phenomena that I have seen emerge within the last 10 years (and especially the last 5 years) is the number of people who are in a perpetual state of fight-or-flight. We may balk at the idea of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” but put the pieces together friends. There has been a fundamental change in our society’s ability to handle conflict and we can’t ignore it or wish it away. We are not out to win arguments; we are out to win people. When a person enters fight-or-flight, you have already lost ground.
You cannot reason with a person in fight-or-flight. This physiological response is accompanied by an activation of the amygdala (the emotional center) and literally competes (and often turns off) the pre-frontal cortex, the part of our brain that thinks logically.[3] A woman’s ability to sense distress and diffuse it during an apologetics conversation is a powerful weapon in a world going mad. Do not underestimate it.
Women can help make apologetics more practical
A common complaint I’ve heard from churches is that apologetics isn’t practical. When they say “practical,” what they usually mean is “I don’t see how this will promote new converts to Christianity or put more people in the pews.” Personally, I think the practicality issue could be addressed by adding more female voices to the mix. Women may not necessarily have something new or different to say about apologetics. However, they often approach it differently.
There is truth in the phrase “Men are waffles, women are spaghetti.” Waffles are made of a bunch of little compartments that don’t touch. With spaghetti, you cannot pull one noodle, without affecting allllllll the other noodles around it. Men have an amazing ability to compartmentalize, which is helpful in many ways. However, when it comes to presenting apologetics in a practical manner and showing how it affects everyday life, I think that women’s inability to compartmentalize actually becomes their strength.
I have rarely heard a woman speak on apologetics topics without including how the topic has affected her personal relationship with God, or how she uses it to relate to others around her. Most people don’t instinctively know how to incorporate apologetics into their everyday lives. They go to conferences, and are filled with knowledge, and go home and have no idea how to implement what they have learned. I’m not saying that women alone hold the key to application. However, I will make the case that it often comes more naturally for us. Thus, we could play a vital role in making apologetics more accessible to the common lay-person, and more attractive to the average pastor.
Apologetics already has a bad reputation, and a feminine face could help
I cannot count the number of times my husband and I have told someone that we did apologetics, and the person reacted with warnings of, “You can’t argue people into the kingdom of heaven!” Friends, if I could reach out through your screen and shake you right now, I would. Listen up. This is important. If this many people think that apologetics is only about arguing, then we have not been doing it correctly.
I understand why men have retreated to apologetics. In many ways, the church has become very feminine, forcing men to hold hands and sing under candlelight.[4] I can fully understand why they would be drawn to apologetics. Rebekah and I joke about how some guys see it as a Christian Fight Club of sorts. #KiddingNotKidding
I get it. Men need a place in the church where they can be men. And contrary to what some guys might think, my push for women in apologetics is not about finding the last bastion of men, and invading it, too. However, we cannot ignore the missing gender dynamic that is at play. There is another phenomenon that I have observed, both in the workplace, and as a teacher. When it comes to leadership, men and women can do and say the exact same thing; the man will be seen as a strong leader, and the woman will be viewed as a [word I don’t say in polite company.] However, this exact same phenomenon is true on the flip side; there are a lot of harsh truths that people will more readily hear from a woman than they will a man. Why is that? Is it because we are less intimidating? Is it because we intuitively know how to soften the blow? Is it because I’m 5’2” and it’s hard for someone to really take me seriously? Who knows. All I know is that if a man and a woman both say something harsh with love, the love is often more readily perceived coming from a woman than it is from a man.
Our society is a mess right now and there are a lot of harsh truths that need to be said. A feminine spin on a harsh truth can sometimes break down walls that might otherwise have been impenetrable if approached in a masculine manner.
Women are more relational in their ministry
Apologist MaryJo Sharp has pointed out an interesting observation from talking with people at apologetics conferences. Men and women often have different reasons for getting into apologetics. While men are usually trying to answer their own questions, women are often trying to answer the questions of someone they love – a child, spouse, or friend. When it comes to the ministry aspect of apologetics, women seem to be more missional, but they do it in a relational way.
Positive versions of femininity must be displayed if for no other reason than negative versions of femininity must be refuted.
Calling our society “gender confused” right now is a massive understatement. Men don’t know how to be men, and thus women don’t know how to be women. It has a cyclical effect. Some women read the verse about having a “gentle, quiet spirit” and think that it means that they have to be a doormat, never speaking up, or never voicing their disagreements. If that’s how God viewed authority, then He would not want our prayers. He would tell us to just shut up and do what we’re told. But that is not how Scripture portrays God. Yes, we submit to His will, but we don’t remove ourselves from the conversation.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the proponents of modern feminism who think that they can elevate the status of women by attacking the value of men. (Like a fish needs a bicycle, right? Ugh.) They react against the doormat stereotype of women, and fight back by emasculating every man in their lives in the name of gender equality. To use the cruder slang, we’ve got the ball-buster women. Let me be clear: “strength” gained by tearing someone else down is not strength. True femininity is neither extreme; it is a fierce strength wrapped in gentleness. As I mentioned in my blog on Wonder Woman, I believe that when women know how to be women, the men become better versions of men. Everybody wins. It is not a zero-sum game. As we women step into apologetics, we have the opportunity to model what truth wrapped in love looks like to a world that has forgotten what Biblical femininity should look like.
In conclusion, yes women need apologetics. Moms, studies show that you get more questions every day than doctors, nurses, or the British Prime Minister during an interview![5] So who do you think is getting the spiritual questions? You are! Apologetics is not a hobby; it is a need. However, this need is not a one-way street. Apologetics needs women just as badly!
My husband likes to talk about an episode of the 90’s TV show about Guiness Book World Records. In this particular episode, they highlighted the strongest teacup ever designed. This teacup was not just strong; it was ornate, beautiful, and extremely delicate. The host showed how with a flick of his finger, the tea-cup would chip. It was that delicate. However, to demonstrate the cup’s strength, they placed four of the teacups on the floor, put a wood palette on top, and then lowered a dump trunk onto it. The teacups remained intact. Ladies, our delicacy does not negate our strength. Our delicacy brings a beauty to our strength that brute masculinity will never have. Embrace who the Lord has created you to be. He did it on purpose. It is in the combination of our beauty and strength of spirit, that we can take the truth of Christ, and the aroma of his love, to transform a dying and decaying culture.
Notes
[1] Babchuk, W. A., Hames, R. B., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Sex differences in the recognition of infant facial expressions of emotion: The primary caretaker hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 89–101.
[2] Hampson, E., van Anders, S. M., & Mullin, L. I. (2006). A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 401-416.
[3] Hamilton, Diane Musho. “Calming Your Brain During Conflict.” Harvard Business Review. February 16, 2016. Accessed January 01, 2018. https://hbr.org/2015/12/calming-your-brain-during-conflict.
[4] Read the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. It is a real eye-opener, and he has nailed his assessment (in my opinion.)
[5] Agencies, Telegraph Staff and. “Mothers asked nearly 300 questions a day, study finds.” The Telegraph. March 28, 2013. Accessed January 01, 2018. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9959026/Mothers-asked-nearly-300-questions-a-day-study-finds.html.
2018 Women in Apologetics Conference:
Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics, and Vice-President of Women in Apologetics. Mama Bear Apologetics is a ministry aimed at providing busy moms with easy to access blogs and podcasts to help them raise children who understand why they believe in Christianity. Want to know how to get more involved in Apologetics? Mama Bear Apologetics is partnering with Women in Apologetics at their inaugural conference on January 19-20, 2018 at Biola University. To learn more about the conference, check out the video below, and visit the conference page at WomenInApologetics.com for more details!
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Women-in-Apologetics-Blog.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2018-01-05 19:15:042024-11-14 11:02:22Yes, Women Need Apologetics, But More Importantly, Apologetics Needs Women
My last post dealt with the belief, common among skeptics, that Christianity is simply a form of superstition. Modern “science-minded” people reject superstitions, and so religious belief holds no interest for them. Historic Christian doctrine is in fact much different, however; while some who claim to be Christian may indeed be superstitious, the faith itself is built not upon fanciful thinking but upon a bedrock of truth.
This distinction, and the importance of pursuing truth can be seen in the following analogy: imagine a person who is suffering from a medical disorder. One day he is fine and the next the disease begins the process of eventually killing him. Initially, he does not know he is afflicted.He “feels” fine. He continues to go about his business, concerned with the problems of everyday life and not suspecting that anything may be different, let alone dreadfully wrong. Eventually, symptoms begin to appear, but they are not particularly troubling to him. After friends insist that he have them checked out, he agrees to see a doctor.This is a big step for him, for he does not “believe” in doctors.He thinks that doctors are often wrong and that they rely too much on pills and not enough on just “living right.” He knows that others really believe in doctors, but he is “sincere” in his belief that doctors do more harm than good, especially when one doesn’t “feel” that anything is wrong. After running a battery of tests, however, the doctor identifies the illness and tells the patient what is wrong.
In addition to understanding the affliction, the doctor also has the means to provide the solution. The patient resists, however, insisting that he feels fine and that he doesn’t need any help. He views the surgery and medicines the doctor offers as “butchery” and “potions.” He sincerely believes that the doctor is practicing voodoo.Ultimately, the patient dies, blissfully unaware of his true condition, content in his belief that he was fine and proud of his refusal to resort to talismanic remedies to fix something he did not believe was wrong.
As this analogy demonstrates, how the patient feels about his situation is not particularly relevant. Nor is the sincerity of his belief. He may feel fine, physically and emotionally, but the issue would be his actual condition, i.e. the truth about his disease. Christianity needs to be assessed on these terms. Either the Biblical claims are true – we are in a world of trouble and only Jesus can save us – or they’re not. If they are true, how we feel about them is of little consequence. And ignoring and rejecting them will, in the end, not succeed.
Now some may object that doctors practice science, and so the analogy is misplaced. The patient was wrong not to rely on science. But science is simply one way of testing and developing knowledge.It is not the only way. Science cannot tell us whether we possess souls and whether these souls are in need of salvation.And science cannot tell us whether improbable past events actually occurred.The only way we can make that assessment is by considering the evidence upon which Christianity is based and becoming familiar with the philosophy that supports its claims.
But we must do so with an open and inquiring mind… for the consequences of ignoring our spiritual illness can be as devastating as the disease was for the unsuspecting patient.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Christianity-Is-Based-in-Truth-Not-Superstition.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2018-01-02 20:20:332024-11-14 11:02:53Christianity Is Based in Truth, Not Superstition
Atheists are fond of asserting that religion and science are at war, and that science supports atheism. Upon closer review, however, “science” doesn’t support atheism or anything else. Why not? Because science doesn’t say anything—scientists do!
Science is a method that people use to discover cause and effect relationships. Science doesn’t gather and interpret data, scientists do. Unfortunately, some scientists allow their atheistic worldview to dictate how they interpret the evidence. Since they’ve ruled out intelligence in advance, there’s no way they will ever interpret the data to conclude an Intelligence such as God was involved. They don’t seem to realize that science needs someone like God.
How so?
In order for us to do science, natural laws must be orderly and consistent. We couldn’t do science if natural laws weren’t held constant or nature behaved in a completely random manner. But where do natural laws come from and why are they so consistent? And why do all physical things change, but not the natural laws that govern them?
In all our experience, laws always come from lawgivers. That’s why the best explanation for the orderly and consistent natural laws that make science possible is a rational Law Giver who created and sustains the universe—the same spaceless, timeless, and immaterial Being that created and fine-tuned the universe at the Big Bang. So even if atheists succeed in demonstrating that natural laws can and do explain cause and effect inside the universe, they still have to rely on God for the existence and persistence of those laws.
Atheistic materialism can’t account for those laws or the orderliness of nature. But a rational Creator and Sustainer powerfully explains the unchanging laws that make science possible. Thus, the war is not between science and religion, but between science and atheism.
Want the details including answers to objections? They are in the book and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too). The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions. Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this
In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course. So keep checking back here for more.
This past Sunday, I received a wonderful question from a young man in our church. Matthew Cleary was in Sunday school and asked his teacher, who in turn asked me, “What time of night was Jesus born? Was it at midnight?” To be honest, I had never really thought about the question. While it is impossible to provide a detailed time of Christ’s birth with great certainty, certain clues provide us hints at the time and date of Jesus’s birth. The time of Jesus’s birth is intricately tied to the date of his birth. While Scripture does not grant us a large amount of information of the day and time, it does offer a few clues.
Clue 1: Details of Jesus’s Birth Point to an Autumn Birthday
In Luke’s account of Jesus’s birth, the Evangelist notes that when Jesus was born, “shepherds were staying out in the fields and keeping watch at night over their flock” (Lk. 2:8).[1] The sheep that were used for temple sacrifices in Jerusalem were often kept in Bethlehem.[2] December 25th does not mesh with this aspect of the birth story. First, the sheep would have been taken to Jerusalem by December. In addition, December 25th would have been too cold for the shepherds and the sheep to have been staying in the fields at this time. However, the sheep and shepherds would have been in the fields in autumn, especially around the time of the Feast of Trumpets.
Clue 2: Details of the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi’s Appearance
This may disappoint many who read these words, but the Magi (wise men) were not at the stable when Jesus was born. In fact, it is possible that Jesus would have been one or two years old by the time they made it to Bethlehem. Matthew describes the Magi following a star which led them to the Christ child. The star could have been one individual star, or it may have been an astronomical configuration. Nevertheless, the Magi were filled with joy (Mt. 2:10) and entered “the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and falling to their knees, they worshiped him” (Mt. 2:11). The Star of Bethlehem guided the Magi to the Christ child after the child was born. The timing of the star is subsequent to the time of Jesus’s birth. The star could have presented a December visitation of the Magi, but since this was later than the birth of Christ, then the birth would have preceded this event.
Clue 3: Details from the Astrological Data in Revelation 12
Another passage of Scripture is linked with Jesus’s birth, one that may surprise you. Revelation 12:1-5 depicts a vision John received on the Isle of Patmos, which may provide additional clues to the time of Jesus’s birth. The text reads:
“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in labor and agony as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: There was a great fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven crowns. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in heaven and hurled them to the earth. And the dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that when she did give birth it might devour her child. She gave birth to a Son, a male who is going to rule all nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev. 12:1-5).
Joseph Dumond argues that Revelation 12 describes a constellation that took place at a certain time in history. Dumond claims that the constellation Virgo (e.g., “virgin”) appeared for a few hours in Bethlehem near Leo—representing the “lion of Judah”—with the sun clothing the woman, with the 12 visible stars surrounding her head. [3]This arrangement would only be visible from 6:15 pm (sunset) to 7:45 pm (moonset).[4] According to the Stellarium Astronomy software database (available at http://stellarium.org/), this astrological alignment was visible from Bethlehem on the evening of Wednesday, September 11, 3 BC.
Conclusion
The growing body of evidence seems to suggest that Jesus was born sometime between 6:15 pm to 7:45 pm on September 11, 3 BC. While September 11th holds bad memories for individuals in the United States, it would have been a day of celebration in ancient Israel. For it would have been the beginning of the Feast of Trumpets, a feast associated with the Messiah and his return. The Feast of Trumpets called for national repentance and also marked the start of a new agricultural year.[5] The blast from a shofar would announce the beginning of the feast. Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) would follow the Feast of Trumpets. Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year for the Israelite. It is the day when the high priest enters the holy of holies and offers sacrifices for the nation’s sins. Sukkot is also one of Israel’s primary holidays. It recalls Israel’s wilderness wanderings and God’s saving action that brought them out of bondage and into salvation. Sukkot follows Yom Kippur and celebrates God’s deliverance of his people. Thus, Rosh Hashanah (Trumpets) calls for repentance (which would be the time when Jesus was born if this theory holds); Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) seeks redemption, and Sukkot (Tabernacles) celebrates the fulfillment of God’s redemption. Wouldn’t it be just like God to provide a HUGE sign that he was about to save the world from its sins by having his Son to be born at the beginning of these festivities?
. . . but wait . . . what about December 25th?
If this theory is true in that Jesus was born on September 11th, does December 25th hold any importance? Yes, it does. It is quite possible that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary on December 25th. Thus, the date may serve as the time when Mary was impregnated with Jesus by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit by miraculous means. December 25th may also be the date when the Magi visited the Christ Child after following the star. Astronomical data points to this time which is beyond the scope of this article. So, while Jesus may not have been born on December 25th, the date still holds tremendous value and should ultimately remind us of the greatest gift that God has ever given any of us—that is, his Son Jesus.
Notes
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[2]CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1605, footnote 2:8.
[3] Joseph Dumond, cited in Joseph Farah, “Was Jesus Born Sept. 11, 3 B.C.?,” WND.com (8/23/2013), retrieved December 19, 2017, http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/was-jesus-born-sept-11-3-b-c/.
[5] John T. Swann, “Feasts and Festivals of Israel,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
About the Author
Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/When-was-Jesus-born.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-20 14:47:022024-11-14 11:06:22When and What Time Was Jesus Born?
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. But the ranks of non-believers include many scientifically minded and highly intelligent people, not the sort we would normally consider as foolish. So, what makes such a person a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?
Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves, and thereby make fools of ourselves. And other times we are misled. But either way most would agree that someone who holds contradictory views has deceived himself. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet. Or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no ingredients.
But sometimes contradictions aren’t as obvious. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.
The first requires consideration of just what the mind does. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes preprogrammed with an “operating system” of sorts. This allows us to acquire language, to reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things, and to make use of imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to “got it” moments when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems intuitively; of course, there is no other way, since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.
One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify it must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ashtray “food”, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists.
So, with this observation in view, consider for a moment not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etc. – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. One of the two has the attribute of necessary existence, while the other may or may not exist. Clearly, the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else simply cannot fit the conception of God.
So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not correspond to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, moreover, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature without the need that the creature itself actually exist because the conceptualization does not require necessary existence.
This concept of “necessary” existence is not easily grasped at first. Many skeptics will contend that “existence” is not an attribute at all. Imaginary things don’t actually exist, they will say, so they consist of nothing. This line of argument can quickly devolve into an argument over definitions, with the skeptic insisting that it is nonsensical to consider a thing which does not exist. This assumption allows them to defeat Anselm’s argument – they write “necessary existence” out of the set of characteristics of God – but a moment’s reflection should reveal that this comes at too high a price. I can conceive in my mind of many past historical figures whose attributes I can describe in detail but who do not presently exist, for they have passed away. More importantly, every scientific discovery or invention must first begin in the mind of a person who sees the attributes of the thing before it actually takes form. The automobile, for instance, did not create itself; it first appeared in the mind of an inventor who could see what it would consist of if it did exist and then set about adding “existence” to its attributes.
Letting our minds approach the concept of what “God” must be, the only way to conceptualize Him, is as a necessarily existent being. If we are not seeing Him that way – if we are insisting that there may be a God, but then again maybe not, then we are not yet thinking about God, but about something else, something less than God.
This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to our very minds.
If Anselm is right, then the fool who denies God is saying something like “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.
The Bible says that God has written his law on our heart. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/How-the-Ontological-Argument-Proves-the-Existence-of-God.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-19 20:19:572024-11-14 11:07:30How the Ontological Argument Proves the Existence of God
Christmas is one of my favorite holidays and has been for as long as I’ve walked this Earth. As a kid, it was because I got a boatload of toys on Christmas morning that I got to play with as Mom and Dad prepared Christmas dinner for us and the rest of my family. As someone who is now a born-again Christian, my primary reason has shifted from getting gifts to praising God for taking on human flesh to begin His mission of redeeming fallen humanity. We all know the story: of how Gabriel appeared to Mary, told her she would become miraculously pregnant with Jesus, how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem where Jesus would then be born, etc. However, those of us who witness to non-believers will encounter some objections about the reliability of the Christmas narrative.
It is the point of this blog post to wrestle with these challenges to the gospels’ reliability.
1: The Census Luke 2:1-3 says “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.” The Bible is clear that Jesus was born when Herod The Great was in power and when Quirinius was governor, but (A) Flavius Josephus says Herod died in A.D 4 and (B) secular history attests that Quirinius didn’t become governor until A.D 6? Did The Bible get it wrong?
First of all, I think we should give Luke the benefit of the doubt. In The Book Of Acts In The Setting Of Hellenistic History, the classic scholar Dr. Collin J. Hemer shows that archeology proves that the book of Acts got it right in 84 incidental details. The first chapter of Luke and the first chapter of Acts both give us clues that these books are written by the same author (Luke), such as the fact that they’re both addressed to a man named Theophilus and in Acts, the writer alludes “to my former work” (Acts 1:1). This is one piece of internal evidence that Luke and Acts had the same author. Now, if Acts gets it right in 84 different places, then is it really reasonable to suspect that this same writer would be so sloppy in his previous work? In fact, the famed scholar and archeologist Sir William Ramsay once said: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”[1]Click here to read about some of the things Luke got right in both of his books. Secondly, there are proposed solutions which could resolve the issue. One proposed solution has been that there were two different men named Quirinius governing on two different occasions. That possibility isn’t entirely out of the question. After all, we’ve had more than one president whose first name is George. The two-Quirinius explanation would be analogous to George Bush’ presidency in the 90s and George W. Bush’ presidency in the 2000s.
Another proposal is that the Qurinius reigned on two different occasions. As Daryl E Witmer of ChristianAnswers.net explains: “There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated ‘governor’ really just means ‘to be leading’ or ‘in charge of’) over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been ‘military governor.’ “[2]
Either of these proposals would solve the timing of Quirinius’ governorship. Either there were two governors by this name, or, as seems most likely, Quirinius was the governor on two separate occasions. This latter view is the one that archeologist William Ramsay endorsed.[3]
But what about the census itself? Was this really a practice that the Roman government did?
Here’s a quote from an official governmental order dated AD 104. Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]:
“Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”[4]
As you can see, that practice is confirmed by this document. And another papyrus from AD 48 implies that the entire family was involved in the census. Moreover, there have been scholars who argued that Romans were known to occasionally allow a census to be taken according to local customs in order to avoid ticking off the population.
According to ancient Semitic culture, what this means is that Mary and Joseph would have had to trek to the home of their ancestors.
2: The Christmas Star In Matthew 2:2, the magi appear before King Herod and ask him where the baby Jesus is. They said“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” The Magi knew how to get to the town Jesus was born because a huge shining star in the sky acted like a celestial GPS system. This incident of the star that guided the magi has baffled historians and astronomers for years. What kind of event could this be? What astronomical phenomenon could have occurred in the universe to have caused a star to shine noticeably bright for the duration of the magis’ journey?
Some Christians have responded to this challenge by asking why it even has to be a literal star at all? Why can’t it just be a supernatural light caused by God? Or why couldn’t it be supernatural light given off by an angel? The problem is that the text specifically calls it a star, or at least some kind of celestial body in this universe. The Greek Word translated as “star” is aster, and according to Hugh Ross, this Greek word can indicate a number of different astronomical bodies, including a star, planet, comet, asteroid, or meteor. If we’re to read the plain meaning of scripture, we should probably conclude that this is a star, planet, meteor, or some other astronomical body rather than an angel or a miracle light. This would be to stick to the hermeneutical principle that The Bible should be interpreted literally unless good reasons can be given to take a term metaphorically.
The astrophysicist Hugh Ross once argued that the star was a recurring nova. He wrote “The brighter novae are rare enough that they could catch the attention of the Magi (who, it seems, were waiting for a sign), yet also dim enough to escape the notice of other observers. And, unlike supernovae, a few novae actually can erupt several times.”[5]
However, he himself said there was “a snag” in this explanation. He said that all the recurring novae that astronomers had observed had a recurrence rate of 10 years or even a century! Nevertheless, Dr. Ross said that believed it was possible for a nova to recur in less than two years. In 2014, new scientific evidence came to light to vindicate Ross. Ross wrote about these findings, saying “Astronomers observed nova M31N 2008-12a recurring within a period of only one year. Following this discovery, a team of four astronomers demonstrated that a certain kind of white dwarf star could exhibit recurring nova eruptions with a period as short as two months. Such a white dwarf star’s rotation rate would need to be close to zero and its mass would need to be 1.38 times the Sun’s mass. It also would need to be accreting mass from a companion star at a rate of 0.00000036 solar masses per year. The team also showed that a one-year nova eruption period requires a white dwarf with a mass = 1.30 solar masses and an accretion rate = 0.00000015 solar masses per year.”[6]
Dr. Ross says that this is a rare occurrence in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that nevertheless, these kinds of white dwarfs exist in a sufficient enough number to make the account of the star of Bethlehem credible.
3: Herod’s Slaughter Of Innocent Babies
Matthew 2 records that King Herod sought to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem who were 2 years old or younger because he believed the prophecies in The Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah (the giant star talked about in the previous subheader being a sign that he had arrived). Historians and scholars of ancient history have doubted whether this incident ever really occurred. Why? Because the only place it’s recorded is in the gospel of Matthew. Surely a person of such prominence as King Herod committing an act as heinous as murdering all of Bethelem’s infants would have been talked about by more people than Matthew, right?. You would expect Josephus or Tacitus to have at least made a passing reference to this event, right?
What are we to do about this objection? Did King Herod’s genocide not occur? Did Matthew make the whole thing up? Lee Strobel brought this objection up in his interview with Archeologist John McCray in his book The Case For Christ. In that interview, McCray responds with the following:
“‘You have to put yourself back in the first century and keep a few things in mind. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few. ‘Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king: he killed members of his own family; he executed lots of people who he thought might challenge him. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world. And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.”[7]
So, in other words, Bethelem was extremely tiny so the slaughter wouldn’t have been a major holocaust. Secondly, Herod was known for heinous acts (see the writings of Josephus), and thirdly, it would have taken a long time for this to have circulated. Given the second point, it wouldn’t have probably been of much interest to people outside of Bethelem.
I would add to McRay’s points by pointing out that much of ancient writings have been lost in the sands of time, decayed away. Sometimes portions of these writings survive as citations in other works, such as Thallus’ mention of the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion quoted in a work by Julius Africanus which was itself quoted by a historian named George Syncellus[8]. Both Thallus’ and Africanus’ works are lost, but both partially survive in Syncellus’ work. That’s one way we know that they didn’t survive; because historians see these authors quoted yet the quoted works are nowhere to be found. So, it may be the case that some other historians did make mention of it, but their works either haven’t been found yet or none of the manuscripts survived to the present day. We just don’t know.
Conclusion Archeology and astronomy have helped to shed light on these Christmas Conundrums. We have reason to believe that Matthew and Luke accurately recorded the story of Jesus’ birth.
Notes
[1] Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
[3] John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 155, emphasis added.
[4] William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Forgotten Books, 2012, reprint of 1909 edition), 277.
[7] Strobel, Lee; Strobel, Lee. Case for Christ Movie Edition: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time (Case for … Series) (Kindle Locations 2256-2263). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[8] George Syncellus, quoting Julius Africanus, “History Of The World, Book 3”.
Just when you thought the state of higher education couldn’t get any lower, the Young America’s Foundation surveyed fifty major colleges to see what courses they are offering as legitimate “higher education” in the 2017-18 academic year. As is evident from a reading of the complete survey, the new religion in America— “the religion of sex”— has taken over part of the academy and made it its temple. Here’s just a small sampling of the crazy courses now being offered:
Up at Northwestern University there’s a course that typifies many being offered at campuses all over the country. It’s called Beyond the Binary: Transgender and Race.Apparently,after thousands of years of human civilization and scientific advancement, college professors have abandoned biology and just discovered that gender and race have no scientific basis. They’re teaching all this can be changed on a whim. And this is from the crowd who just ten minutes ago were asserting that sexual feelings are fixed just as race is, because “we’re born this way.”
True to the current fad,Medieval Sexuality,also offered at Northwestern, investigates the “fluidity of sex and gender roles in an age before ‘sexual orientation’; impact of and resistance to Christian theology’s negative assessment of sexuality; the cult of chastity.” Well, who could disagree with that? I mean, if only people would be less chaste in our society, then things would really get better. Right?
Indiana University is offering Topics In Gender Studies (We’re All A Little Crazy: Gender, Madness, & Popular Culture). (I wish I could tell you what this college course is about. Well, no, I don’t. The description is too profane to print.)
Not to be outclassed by Indiana, the University of Michigan is finally offering Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music. Parents have been demanding it for years! They’re also offering Drag in America(which is now a laudable way to dress up a degree).
Amherst College has constructed The Cross-Cultural Construction of Gender. Apparently this comes without correction from the biology department.
Wellesley College offers the ever-necessary Rainbow Cowboys (and Girls): Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality in Westerns. A course like that might even earn a blush from Wellesley alum Hillary Clinton as she rides out of town.
Over at Swarthmore College you can participate in Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology. “Key themes include: gender; embodiment; masculinity; liberation; sexuality; feminist and queer theory.” If that’s not “queer” enough for you, don’t miss Queering the Bible. Its stated goal? “By reading the Bible with the methods of queer and trans* theoretical approaches, this class destabilizes long held assumptions about what the bible – and religion – says about gender and sexuality.”
The University of Maryland offers Homophobia in the U.S. Society in the New Millennium. The stated goal is not to educate, but to activate students to take up a political crusade. Its purpose is to “focus on students’ powers and responsibilities within struggles to end discrimination based on sexuality.”
Davidson College offers Oppression & Education(which ironically is not a commentary on higher education). They also list Marriage in the Age of Trump, which has nothing to do with the kind of marriage that has perpetuated and stabilized civilization since, well, it created civilization. Instead the course examines “meanings of marriage for same-sex couples, including marriage as material right, marriage as protest, and marriage as validation.”
At the University of Georgia you’ll be asked to swallow Gendered Politics of Foodand adopt a completely new method of learning by taking Feminist Research Methods.
AtOle Miss, there’s this golden oldie: Sex, Gender and the Bible. Now, there’s an obvious staple of higher learning for you!(Grandma, don’t you remember taking that course while Grandpa was overseas saving civilization from the Nazis?)
Down in Sweet Home Alabama, the University of Alabama has a course called Contemporary In(queer)ies. It’s about as bad as their football team is good. The allegedly more conservative Texas A&M calls a similar course Alternative Genders(whoop, whoop).
At University of Kentucky you can take — and I’m not making this up — Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster. “This course answers the following questions: What is a vampire? Where do they come from? Why do we have an obsession with the walking dead, especially with fanged monsters?” (What employer couldn’t use a graduate with the answers to those puzzling questions?)
DePaul University answers another question puzzling society with Are We Still Fabulous?: Queer Identity in Contemporary Drama. Meanwhile, over at Providence College students with less pigmentation in their skin will learn that they are guilty for any perceived social inequality, when they takeThe Power of Whiteness.
The Ivy League’s Brown University is apparently proud to offerProstitutes, Mothers, + Midwives: Women in Pre-modern Europe and North America. Or a Brown student could takeFeminist Theory for a Heated Planetwhich, according to the description, has something to do with “the eruption of Gaia.”
Columbia University advocates personal and political action with its course on Queer Practice, That’s only to be outdone by another course at Cornell University called Nightlife, which appears to study what might or should happen at gay nightclubs.
Dartmouth is teaching The United States of Queeras well as Radical Sexuality: Of Color, Wildness and Fabulosity. (In other news, leftist sociologists remain baffled by the current wave of sexual harassment charges. What could possibly give sexual deviants justification to radically and wildly ignore traditional sexual boundaries?)
The “Women’s Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department” at Yale University is peddling Globalizing Gender and Sexuality. And the once great Harvard University (founded by John Harvard to train pastors) now offers such biblically edifying courses as Gender, Religion and Scripture and Leaning In, Hooking Up. The course will “critique ideological formations of gender, particularly as bounded by race, class, and sexuality.” Indeed, it offers “new models for sexuality” that, apparently, were beyond the provincial mind of Jesus.
And that’s only a small sample of what’s being taught at just fifty schools; it’s actually worse and more widespread than that.
The Religion of Sex
Do you think these courses sound like elements of a quality education or more like the weekly worship services of the religion of sex? Sure, they have the ruse of education. But they are really promoting a dogmatic secularism with a kind of religious fervor intent on urging students to abandon reality and live in their own sexual fantasy world.
And the culture they help justify demands that the rest of us live in their sexual fantasy world too. Their worshippers will preach “inclusion, tolerance and diversity.” But if you fail to celebrate their fantasy they’ll immediately brand you a heretic and exclude you for being “intolerant” enough to believe that there actually is a reality outside of your mind.
While conservatives believe in changing their behavior to fit reality, today’s new liberals seem hell-bent on changing reality to fit their behavior. That will not end well for them personally or our country.
The professors who teach these courses may have the best of intentions. They may think that what they are doing is right and true (all the while declaring that truth and gender are relative). But you don’t have to support their dogmatic delusions. Parents and alumni: If you love your kids (and civilization) more than your football and basketball tickets, then stop giving these schools your children and your money.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Untitled-design-1.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-19 14:04:102024-11-14 11:09:34Crazy College Courses and the Religion of Sex
Atheists often appeal to evolution in an attempt to explain the primate complexity we observe today without a need for an Intelligent Designer — God! Indeed, many say the reason they affirm atheism is because they believe evolution is true. Since their hypothesis does not include God as a designer, atheists feel justified in affirming that God does not exist and that Christianity is false. With that said, however, if evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist or do anything to disprove the historical resurrection of Jesus (the two essential ingredients of “mere Christianity”). Moreover, what atheists fail to comprehend is that by appealing to evolution in an attempt to “prove” atheism, they ultimately prove too much!
Evolution simply means change over time. Most evolutionists and young earth creationists will agree that some things do genuinely change over time (even if they disagree on how much some things change over time). What is important to note is that Darwinian evolution requires a genuine change over dynamic time — at least if one is hoping to explain primate complexity. With that in mind, I contend that if evolution is true, then atheism is false!
Consider this: I believe that some things do genuinely evolve and change over time. In fact, we currently exist in a world in which things are constantly changing right in front of our eyes! That is to say, we exist in an evolving state of affairs (change happens)!
The problem, however, is this: it is logically impossible for a changing state of affairs to be extrapolated into past infinity! In “English” that means that if we currently exist in a changing state of affairs and things are really happening one event after another, then it is impossible for things to happen chronologically in this manner without a first change. If we exist — right now — in a changing state of affairs, then it is impossible to go on and on forever in the past. Logically, there must have been a beginning or a first change.
If there never was a first change, then the present moment — “right now” — would not exist. To help illustrate why the concept of past infinity is incoherent, consider two thought experiments.
Infinite Jumpers & Steppers
First, is it possible for someone, say a superhero with infinite jumping powers, to jump out of an infinitely tall bottomless-pit? Of course not. There is no launching pad or foundation from which to jump. When it comes to things changing over time (evolution), if the hole at ground level represents the present moment and the idea of past infinity means there is no foundation to jump from (a first change over time), then the present moment of change could never be reached. The jumper could never get out of the hole because there is no starting point for him to progress upward. Because the present moment does exist and things do change over time (evolution) it logically follows that a foundation exists for the first change to occur leading to the evolution (change over time) we notice today.
Second, suppose a man walks up the steps to your front porch and rings the doorbell. You answer the door and ask if you can help him. He states, “I have just walked an infinite number of steps and finally completed them right here on your front porch.” Of course, you do not believe him, yet he insists that he has accomplished this feat. You ask for proof and he invites you to join him on a journey to retrace his infinite number of steps. He tells you that once the two of you reach this infinite point, you will then follow those same footsteps all the way back to your front door. You adamantly reject his offer because you realize that if you were to retrace an infinite amount of steps you will never get back home! In fact, you will never turn around to begin your journey home!
Consider the steps involved . . . you would take one step, then a second step, then a third step. Eventually, you would take a millionth step, and eventually a billionth step, and then a trillionth step. Whatever step you were currently taking you could always take one more and count it — never reaching actual infinity. Whenever you decide to turn around to come back home you will be on a countable step. So, if you do ever make it back home, your steps would not be infinite.
Just as it would be logically impossible for you to retrace all the steps this pedestrian claims to have made, it is just as impossible for this pedestrian to traverse an actual infinite amount of steps ending on your front porch. A rational person will know that one who makes such a claim is either delusional or deceptive. The “stepper” must have taken a first step.
Change over time (evolution) has the same problem. If a first change occurred, then it logically follows that a first change resulted from an unchanging, eternal, and beginningless state of affairs. Think of this as a frozen/static state where nothing happens and nothing has ever happened logically prior to the first change (I know this is hard to imagine). This might not seem like a “big deal” but the implications are enormous! This is the case because if things are not changing in a frozen/static state, then nothing would ever happen. This is because if things are not evolving, emerging, decaying, growing, or becoming unstable (which are words implying change over time), then these things would never be able to cause the first change. Change over time cannot account for things starting to change over time. That is to say, if nothing is happening, then nothing can describe or account for the first change that resulted from a static, frozen, and unchanging state! UNLESS…
… a volitional agent existed in this static state who had the power to act.
Other than a volitional agent, what else could cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs? At the least, a volitional agent with the power to act could exist in a static state and then cause something to happen. That is to say, if nothing is happening, but a volitional agent with free will exists in this static state, then this volitional agent can freely choose to act and cause the first change. This is what Aristotle meant by the “Unmoved Mover.”
Volitional agents are personal types of “things” or rather, “beings.” If a being is personal in nature, then this being is the kind of “thing” in which you can have a personal relationship — that is, at least if you are a person! Thus, if you are a person, then it is at least possible that you can have a personal relationship with this unmoved mover!
An Argument from Change Over Time
We can summarize this entire argument in a step-by-step syllogism:
1- Things change over time (evolution).
2- A changing state of affairs cannot be past infinite.
3- Therefore, a first change resulted from an unchanging state of affairs.
4- Only a volitional agent can cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs.
5- Volitional agents are personal.
6- Therefore, this personal agent existed in an unchanging state of affairs.
7- Anything existing in an unchanging state of affairs never began to exist and is eternal with no beginning.
8- Therefore, the cause of the first change (and ultimately the change of affairs in which we find ourselves) is a personal agent who is eternal with no beginning and was in a changeless state of affairs logically prior to causing the first change.
This final deductive conclusion should be eye-opening! Why should this get one’s attention? Because this personal agent who caused things to start evolving and changing over time is God! The Bible does not just note the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Unmoved Mover — God — it explains exactly how you and I can know God personally through Jesus Christ!
Bottom line: If you believe that things actually do evolve and change over time, then you should reject atheism!
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Did-God-Use-Evolution-Is-the-Earth-Old-.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-17 13:00:502024-11-14 11:10:22If Evolution is True, Atheism is False
Superstition is as old as man. An incomplete picture of why things work the way they do fuels the imagination to conjure up hidden forces at work behind the scenes. Pull back the curtain and perhaps one will find an “all-powerful” being at work pulling the strings. Accessing – and eventually perhaps cajoling or influencing that being – can easily become the basis for a religious belief system.
Does Christianity fall into this same category? Some unbelievers, observing the behavior of professional athletes, might believe that superstition is at play. Praying and acknowledging one’s deity, they assume, is a way of seeking to influence the outcome of the contest. For some, it seems like a cheap – and silly – trick.
But this is not what Christian players are doing when they acknowledge God, nor is it what a mature devotion to Christianity would include.
Some non-believers who consider this behavior will ask themselves a very basic question: will becoming a Christian “improve” my life? Is it a ticket to greater wealth and prosperity, better relationships, a future filled with every type of goodness and blessing? For many, this seems too good to be true, but they pursue it hoping for the best; for others, it appears to be a shell game or cheap con, and they reject it without ever considering what it really entails.
The nutshell answer is: probably yes. In most cases for most people, developing a relationship with God in which you accept His gift and then living a life that reflects His will, as best you can achieve it, will improve your life in some important and significant ways. But having a “better” life is a by-product of belief and not the main point of devoting one’s life to Jesus.
If prosperity or other rewards become the main point, Christianity begins to be marketed as a product, a method of achieving some desirable end. A person identifies a need in his or her life and Christianity fills that need, the way any product might do. But this is not the message of Christianity. The Bible is not a “how to” manual on achieving financial or worldly success. It does not promise riches in the here and now, nor an end to all hardship… nor a victory in every football contest. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the early fathers of the church, and their followers could have attested. (Except of course for the football part.)
In short, Christianity tells the story of man’s broken relationship with his Creator. It claims to speak the truth about the nature of God and of this broken relationship and what is needed to fix it. The Old Testament provides the backdrop as God prepares a people to serve as the vehicle for redemption. Jesus comes – not to make my life profitable or more fulfilling in some modern sense or to help me nail down a spot in the Super Bowl- but to fulfill the ancient prophecies, to give His life as ransom for us, and to thereby restoring our relationship with the Father.
Christianity should be assessed on its merits – are its claims true? – not on what it can achieve for you. The Apostle Paul said as much when he said that we are to be pitied as fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Everything rests on that truth claim. Once we see that Christ did rise, and we place our trust in Him, He will do a work in us and will eventually welcome us into His Kingdom. But Paul himself remained physically afflicted, and there is no reason to believe that by following Christ, our problems will disappear.
We will, however, look at them differently, and by living Biblical values, we will probably have a better life than we might otherwise have had – and certainly a more fulfilling one.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Untitled-design.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-17 12:33:342024-11-14 11:10:45Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?
