Tag Archive for: Frank Turek

El Dragón del Garaje vs Dios

El Dragón del Garaje vs Dios

In the recent debate between Frank Turek and Michael Shermer, the latter tried to invalidate Frank’s God hypothesis as an explanation for some facts about reality by using the famous “dragon in the garage” analogy, first used by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World .

This is the original analogy:

“There is a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.” Suppose I were to make a statement like that to you. Perhaps you would like to test it out, see for yourself. There have been countless stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

—Show me —you say.

I take you to my garage. You look in and see a ladder, empty paint cans, and an old tricycle, but the dragon is gone.

—Where is the dragon? —he asks me.

“Oh, it’s here,” I reply, waving my hand vaguely. “I forgot to mention that it’s an invisible dragon.”

He suggests that I cover the garage floor with flour so that the dragon’s footprints remain.

“Good idea,” I reply, “but this dragon is floating in the air.”

He then proposes using an infrared sensor to detect invisible fire.

—Good idea, but invisible fire doesn’t give off heat either.

Suggests spray painting the dragon to make it visible.

—Good idea, except it’s a disembodied dragon and the paint wouldn’t stick to it.

And so on. I counter any physical proof you propose to me with a special explanation of why it won’t work. Now, what is the difference between an invisible, disembodied, floating dragon that breathes fire that doesn’t burn and a nonexistent dragon? If there is no way to disprove my claim, if there is no conceivable valid experiment against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all equivalent to proving it true. Claims that cannot be proven, assertions that are immune to refutation, are truly worthless, no matter how much value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder. What I have asked you to do is to end up accepting, in the absence of proof, what I say.

Shermer’s version has a few variations to ridicule Frank’s position of the existence of God as an explanation for the origin of the universe, objective moral values ​​and duties, and the fine-tuning of the universe. Shermer’s main aim is to show that the existence of God is impossible to disprove in the same way that you cannot disprove the existence of the dragon in the garage. But is this a good argument? Not really. Let me explain why.

The first thing Shermer would have us believe by using Sagan’s analogy is that the attributes of God that theists attribute to him are mere gratuitous assertions without any evidence. Here Shermer has in mind revealed theology, those attributes that we know God possesses through his revealed word to us, the Bible. But in the debate with Frank—and in non-presuppositional apologetics in general—one does not assert God’s attributes as in the case of the garage dragon. And although it is not necessary, let me compare the garage dragon and God with respect to their respective attributes.

Garage Dragon

Invisibility. This attribute is granted without any evidence.

Levitation. It is also not inferred based on any evidence.

Cold Fire. Like the previous ones, there is no argument to attribute this property to the dragon, moreover, the property is self-contradictory.

Immateriality. Zero arguments, and like cold fire, this is a contradictory property with a dragon. In order for a dragon to be a dragon, it must have a body with certain essential characteristics of a dragon, it cannot be incorporeal.

God

Creator, metaphysically necessary, self-existent. These attributes are inferred by means of the argument from contingent beings and by the ontological argument.

Transcendent cause, personal, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spatially boundless, immaterial, personal, supremely powerful. These attributes are required by the nature of a cause transcending the universe and are inferred by the kalam cosmological argument.

Designer and highly intelligent. These attributes are inferred by the fine-tuning argument of the universe.

Perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose commands constitute our moral duties. And this last attribute is concluded by means of the moral argument.

As we can see, the garage dragon is completely deficient compared to God.

Shermer also calls the God hypothesis a special pleading fallacy, but we have seen from this comparison that this is not the case. No serious apologist in a debate sets out to counter objections to arguments for existence by claiming that the atheist does not have the capacity to understand the properties of God as the best explanation for some facts of reality.

Another important point is that Shermer also uses the garage dragon as a parody of God as an explanation for the following facts about reality: the absolute origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and the foundation for objective moral values ​​and duties. But his parody fails miserably for two reasons: the first is, as we have already seen, that some of the attributes that the garage dragon possesses are self-contradictory, which is more than enough reason to determine that such a dragon is impossible to exist. Then, for the sake of argument, I am going to be very kind in modifying the dragon by removing all of its contradictory properties and adding the property of omnipotence. Can the dragon be the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe when it has enough power to bring the universe into existence? No way! An essential property of the dragon is that it has to be material, corporeal, without that property it would cease to be a dragon. But if our version of the omnipotent dragon is corporeal, if it is a physical being, then it cannot be the cause of the origin of the universe, because one of the characteristics that a transcendent cause must have is to be immaterial; it cannot be material because matter comes into existence with the origin of the universe. The same goes for being the foundation of objective moral values ​​and duties; our dragon cannot be eternal; it had to come into existence together with the universe, therefore, it is contingent, and no contingent being can be the foundation for objective morality.

Conclusion

We have seen that the garage dragon analogy as presented by Michael Shermer as an argument against the God hypothesis is flawed for four reasons:

  1. Due to the contradictory attributes that the garage dragon possesses, we can affirm that its existence is impossible.
  2. God’s attributes are inferred by deductive arguments, which is not the case with the dragon in the garage.
  3. Defending the attributes of the garage dragon is indeed committing the fallacy of special pleading, but not in the case of God.
  4. The garage dragon as a parody of God to be the transcendent cause of the universe and the foundation for objective morality fails miserably because it is a contingent being (and that grants it a possible existence if we remove its contradictory properties).

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance, studies philosophy, and is a worship minister at the Christian Baptist church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

/by

A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Do you feel like you are fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of your kids?

Something has changed. We all sense it. The cultural pressure is increasing, especially on our kids. But even in a world of ever-present screens, gender-identity questions, and addictions, kids can have clarity and confidence. We must help them and there’s nobody better in this important subject than Brett Kunkle founder of MAVEN. In this interview Frank and Brett talk about his latest book A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World. Where he explores questions such as:

– What unseen undercurrents are shaping twenty-first-century youth culture?

– Why do so many kids struggle with identity?

– How do we talk to kids about LGBT issues?

– How can we steer kids away from substance abuse and other addictions?

– How can we ground students in the biblical story and empower them to change the world?

and more! Don’t miss it!

 

 

/by
what is christian apologetics

¿Qué es apologética cristiana?

Why would anyone want or should become a Christian? Why should anyone put their faith in Jesus – a man who lived over two thousand years ago? Certainly, there have been various answers to these questions throughout the history of Christianity. Christian apologetics is both the science and the art of answering these kinds of questions, using reason and evidence.

The word apologetics first appears in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:15 where the apostle Peter is writing to the early Christians in Asia Minor (a Roman province) who were suffering persecution for their faith in Jesus. He writes, ‘But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give a reason (logos) for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect’ (NASB).

Within this verse we can see a synthesis of Christian apologetics . This can be summarized in two parts: a) reasons and objective evidence about the truth of Christianity (this corresponds to reality), and b) the communication of this truth to the world.

Objective evidence that Christianity is true

The first Christian believers were Jews and so, ironically, the first Christian apologists were also Jews. As a means of sharing their new faith in Christ with family and friends, who were also Jews, they appealed to the Old Testament and to the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the main reasons for their belief in Christ.

Today (in the 21st century), Christian apologists must contend with ideologies and philosophies such as naturalism, atheism, pantheism, and post-modernism. At CrossExamined.org we employ a classical apologetic approach to defending Christianity, which is summarized here.

Classical Apologetic Approach: (a simplified outline)

  • There is truth (objective reality can be known)
  • God exists (classic arguments about the existence of God)
    • The cosmological argument
    • The teleological argument
    • The moral argument
  • Miracles are possible (the universe is not a closed system)
  • The New Testament is historically reliable (evidence from manuscripts and archaeology)
  • Jesus rose from the dead (therefore Jesus is God)

Once these truths have been established, they must be communicated in a way that can be understood by the audience.

img-13

The communication that Christianity is true (and therefore, should be believed)

The apostle Paul was also Jewish and he called his fellow Jews to believe in Christ, as well as the Gentiles (Romans and Greeks). When he visited Athens he debated with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on Mars Hill, the philosophical center of Ancient Greece (Acts 17:16-34). While there, Paul quoted Greek philosophers such as Epimenides. In doing so, Paul was contextualizing the gospel in such a way that it could be understood by those listening. This is the second fundamental part of Christian apologetics – effective communication to a given audience.

In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (NASB), Paul writes:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those under the law, as under the law (though I myself am not under the law), that I might win those under the law; to those not under the law, as not under the law (though I am not without the law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might win those not under the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in it.

The gospel must be clearly communicated and understood in order to be believed. Each new generation of Christians must communicate and defend the gospel message in the social and cultural environment in which they find themselves. Culture will change over time, but the central message of the gospel never changes.

Christian apologetics seeks to connect with nonbelievers by presenting them with the reasons and evidence why Christianity is true, rational, and worthy of belief. Late twentieth-century Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer viewed apologetics as “pre-evangelism” – a way of preparing the mind and heart to receive the message of Christianity (the gospel). The connection between apologetics and evangelism can be summed up in the words of Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath:

“…Christian apologetics represents a serious and sustained engagement with the ‘ultimate questions’ asked by a culture, people group, or individual, with the goal of demonstrating how the Christian faith is capable of providing meaningful answers to these questions. Where does God stand in regard to suffering in the world? Is faith in God reasonable? Apologetics paves the way for evangelism, just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus of Nazareth…evangelism extends a personal invitation: ‘You are invited to the feast! Please come!’ Apologetics lays the necessary groundwork for the invitation, and evangelism extends it. Both are essential to the mission of the Church.” ( Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith , pages 22–23)

If you would like to learn more about Christian apologetics for yourself or a small group, check out our resources at www.ImpactApologetics.com

A good place to start is the book ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’, and one of the first Christian apologetics curricula (great for churches, Christian schools, and small study groups). ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’.

We also have a free app for your smartphone. The app contains great resources on Christian apologetics (podcasts, blogs, and a quick question section). The CrossExamined.org app can be downloaded here .

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by

Are Christians too judgmental? & Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

At CrossExamined our goal is to try and answer your questions the best we can and this is exactly what Frank does in this podcast. He answers questions from YOU (our audience). In this episode he focuses on two very important questions:

• Are Christians too judgmental?
• Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?

Don’t miss it and don’t forget to send your questions to Frank via Email!

 

 

/by

Sharing the Good News with Mormons

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Someone you know is a Mormon—a family member, a coworker, a friend, or a neighbor—and you long to present the truth about Jesus and what God’s Word teaches. But where do you start? How can you convey what’s on your heart in a way that will be well received? Well, there’s a new book by Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell full of practical wisdom to equip you to reach Mormons. It contains a variety of essays from respected scholars, apologists, and pastors—including Sandra Tanner, Robert Bowman, David Geisler, Bill McKeever, Mark Mittelberg, J. Warner Wallace, Lynn Wilder, and others—lays out a variety of creative methods for sharing the gospel effectively.

Frank interview Eric Johnson about this new book. During this interview, you will learn some great tips on how to share the truth with Mormons.

Book: https://amzn.to/2voUBbs

/by

Questions about Evil, Spiritual Gifts, Divorce, Sola Scriptura, and more

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If you want Frank to answer some of your questions over the air, make sure to listen to this great podcast and find out how to email him your questions. During this entire podcast, Frank answers questions from YOU (our audience) regarding Evil, Spiritual Gifts, Divorce, Sola Scriptura, and more. Don’t miss it and don’t forget to send your questions to Frank!

/by
borders

Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them

,

If you say you’re for open borders, you’re not.  Not completely.

Do you have locks on your doors?  How about on your car?  Got a fence so your kids can play safely?  Do you have passwords on your computers?  How about your bank accounts? Do you protect your credit card numbers?  Your social security number?  How about your medical records?  Do you think curbs, guardrails, and traffic lines are a good idea, or should people be able to drive any where and any way they want?  How about security borders at the airport—necessary or optional?

The truth is everyone believes in secure borders.  In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.  The only question is “Where am I going to draw the borders for my own security?”

You may not want to secure the border of the United States, but you certainly want to secure the border of your home.  The problem is the security of your home is affected by the security on your street, which is affected by the security in your town, which is affected by the security in your state and your country.

And I’m not just talking about your physical security, but also your economic security.

People want to come here for the freedoms and prosperity we have in America. This has become the land of opportunity and the most prosperous nation on earth, which would have been impossible without secure borders. Open borders would destroy the very reasons people want to come here in the first place.

Why?  Because prosperity can only be achieved when people feel secure enough economically and personally to take risks to innovate, invest, and extend themselves into the market.  That security requires safe streets, reliable and adequate infrastructure, environmental protection, and a welfare base kept to a sustainable limit.  Such security also requires the rule of law which helps create a predictable and level playing field.  Without the rule of law, you don’t get the security and prosperity of America—you get the corruption and poverty of, say, Venezuela (where annual inflation is now 43,378%!).

People flee countries that don’t have this unique combination of security and freedom.  That’s why communist countries build walls to keep people in.  We need walls to keep people out!

While it would be great to give everyone the same opportunities we have in America, it’s impossible to do by bringing everyone here. If we opened our borders, millions of people would flood this country and overwhelm the very things necessary to keep it prosperous, including our strained safety net.  And even extremely high immigration levels would do virtually nothing to ease world poverty as this video graphically demonstrates.

Then there’s the fact that some illegal immigrants would harm Americans.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying all illegal immigrants would be terrorists or criminals (although some surely would be).  What I’m saying is that controlled immigration and secured borders are as necessary to a country as they are to your home.  You don’t let just anyone and everyone into your home. If you did, your home would be destroyed, possibly by a criminal element, but most definitely by the fact that your home couldn’t physically handle a large influx of people. In a similar way, open borders would kill the golden goose called America—it would destroy the very environment which entices people to come here in the first place.

So while an open borders policy may sound compassionate, it actually leads to disastrous results.  That is because—like so many other utopian leftist ideas—it ignores reality and misdiagnoses human nature.

Finally, contrary to the media narrative, Scripture doesn’t mandate open borders or prohibit walls.  As Dr. Wayne Grudem unpacks here, the Bible actually affirms that borders are legitimate and walls are good things. God Himself scattered people by language (Gen. 11), and the promised land of Israel had definite borders as did its surrounding nations.  In fact, Moses respected the border of Edom by asking permission of the King of Edom to pass through that country (Moses was denied as you’ll read in Num. 20:17-21).  Jesus acknowledged that nations need to be reached (Matt. 28:17-20), and Paul declared that God intends nations to have legitimate rulers (Rom. 13:1).  Paul even used his status as a Roman citizen to protect himself from harm (Acts 22:25-26).  And the scriptural commands not to steal presuppose borders and the right to private property.

(Remarkably, there will even be a border in the afterlife between Heaven and Hell because God can’t force free creatures to love Him or one another.  Forced love is impossible.  Love requires freedom and freedom requires the security that your choices will be respected, even if it means that you want an eternal border between you and God.)

We are blessed to live in America.  But we need to recognize that it’s impossible to have everyone live here.  The best way to protect America and help people outside of our country is to control immigration at a sustainable level while exporting our ideas of economic and political liberty to other nations.

We can’t bring everyone to America, but we should try to bring America to everyone.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by

The Big Questions in Life: Part IV

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank closes our current “Big Questions in Life” series answering some really tough questions. In this last installment of our 4 part series, Frank discusses the following questions: What is the source of objective moral obligations? Where does evil come from? Why do we have free will? What is the purpose or meaning of life? How should we live? Why do we feel guilt? How do we atone for our bad moral behavior? Why is there a New Testament? How did Christianity arise out of Judaism in first century Jerusalem if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? & What happens when you die Don’t miss the episode that brings this series to a close!

 

/by

The Big Questions in Life: Part III

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

After a quick break (previous episode) from our current “Big Questions in Life” series, Frank is back with another great installment. In this podcast, he discusses the following questions: Why can our minds discover truths about the external world? What is the source of the laws of logic and mathematics? Why is there such a thing as probability? Why are we conscious? and more!

/by

The Big Questions in Life: Part II

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank reflects on the life of Charles Krauthammer who just recently passed away then retakes the topic of his last podcast that focused on the question “What worldview best explains the biggest questions in life?” He deals with some of the most important questions we need to answer. Questions such as: Why is the universe fine-tuned? Why is there reliable cause and effect? Why is there such a thing as evidence? How did life begin? and many more. Listen to find out the answer to these questions.

Dig Deeper: bit.ly/SFG_Main 

 

/by