Thursday, December 31, 2015

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Perspectives from a former Muslim

In this article, Nabeel Qureshi of NZIM addresses this question in response to recent events at Wheaton College earlier this month.



Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Video: Correct, Not Politically Correct- How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone by Frank Turek


Some of the questions Dr. Frank Turek deals with in this talk are:
  • Did Jesus Say Anything about Homosexuality?
  • What is the Same-Sex Marriage Debate Really About?
  • What is the Same-Sex Marriage NOT About?
  • Why Does the Law Matter?
  • Who Could Same-Sex Marriage Possibility Hurt?

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Tough Topic Tuesday: The Problem of Evil, Pt. 6

In the post we continue to consider the evidential problem of evil.  For review, it is as follows:


Evidential Version: "It's Improbable that God could have Good Reasons for Permitting Suffering."

The evidential version differs from the logical version because the evidential version makes a more modest claim.  The evidential version says that it is improbable that God exists when one considers all the apparent unnecessary suffering that occurs in the world.

It was argued here that we’re not in a position to say that it’s improbable that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.

This week it will be shown that relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is more probable than not.  Recall that the evidential version of the problem of evil is probabilistic.  It argues that God's existence is improbable when one considers all the supposed unnecessary suffering that occurs in the world.  However, when the full scope of the evidence is considered, we have stronger reasons to believe God exists.  Consider just some of the arguments for God's existence:

1. The Kalam Argument
2. Argument from Contingency
3. The Fine-Tuning Argument
4. Information Argument from DNA
5. The Moral Argument
6. The Ontological Argument
7. The Argument from Reason
8. The Argument from Consciousness
9. The Argument from Jesus's Resurrection
10. The Argument from Religious Experience

For more arguments, see here.

The theist can admit that God's existence is improbable relative to the suffering in the world alone; however, that suffering is outweighed by the successful arguments for God's existence.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Monday, December 28, 2015

Authentic Sayings of Jesus: John the Baptist's Final Message to Jesus

The subject account, found in Matthew and Luke, can be added to the list of authentic sayings of Jesus. This account records that John the Baptist while in prison sends some of his disciples to Jesus with the question: "Are You the One who is to come or should we expect someone else?" (Matthew 11:3 and Luke 7:19).1 The saying "the One who is to come" in this passage mirrors John's statement of one "coming after me" in Mark 1:7 and John 1:27 and thus the Matthew and Luke passages are independently attested by Mark and John - and Mark is a very early source.

This passage is also shown to be authentic by the embarrassment that John seems to be doubting that Jesus is the Messiah.  Embarrassment is another one of the six conditions that provide greater probability that a saying or event is historical.

Jesus provides John with the following answer:

Go and report to John what you hear and see:  the blind see, the lame walk, those with skin diseases are healed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news. And if anyone is not offended because of Me, he is blessed (Matthew 11:4-6; cf. Luke 7:22-23).

Hear Jesus is referencing signs from prophecies in Isaiah 26:19, 35:5-6, and 61:1; the latter of which clearly mentions being the Messiah. William Lane Craig points to a passage from Dead Sea scroll 4Q521 for support that these signs were considered signs of the coming of the Messiah during Jesus' day.  The passage reads as follows:

[For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to his Messiah [and all t]hat is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the hold ones...He will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of the eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down.]...and the Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as he said.  For he will heal the injured, he shall make alive the dead, he shall proclaim good news to the afflicted.2

This Dead Sea Scroll passage adds historical congruence (fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which the saying or event is said to have occurred3) and coherence (the saying or event is consistent with already established facts about Jesus4) on top of independent attestation and embarrassment to support the conclusion that Jesus saw himself as the Messiah.5

We will continue to identify the authentic personal claims of Jesus next week.

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnotes:
1. All Scripture references come from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
2. Craig, William Lane Craig.  Reasonable Faith:  Christian Truth and Apologetics; Third Edition.  Pages 303-304.
3 and 4. Ibid. Page 298.
5. Ibid. Page 304.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Paul Davies on the Physical World

"People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."1

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas is True by J. Warner Wallace

In this Free Bible Insert J. Warner Wallace shares 5 reasons why you can trust the story of Christmas is true.  They are as follows:

1. The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn't Disqualify It

2. The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History

3. The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew are Not Late Additions

4. The Virgin Conception Was Not an Invention of Early Christians

5. The Virgin Conception Wasn't Borrowed from Anther Source

He briefly unpacks each reason here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Should Parents Let Their Children Believe in Santa Claus?

I have written before on this question here and I think it's an important one. William Lane Craig gives possibly the best answer to this question that I have read to date.

You can checkout his response here.

What about you?  How do you deal with the Santa issue at Christmas time with your own children?  Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Video: Are Miracles Even Possible?


We will continue our series on the problem of evil next Tuesday.  

Christmas will soon be upon us and during this time followers of Christ remember and celebrate the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.  Clearly, the  claim that Jesus was born of a virgin is miraculous.  So if miracles are impossible, then Jesus could not have been born of a virgin.

In this featured video by Inspiring Philosophy, David Hume's arguments against miracles are considered and refuted.

Enjoy!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad


Monday, December 21, 2015

Authentic Sayings of Jesus: Peter's Confession

Peter’s Confession

Last week’s post stressed, through citing William Lane Craig, that the person of Christ must be at the center of a Christian’s apologetic. Thus of utmost importance to this defense are the authentic personal claims of Christ.  The subject saying is found in Mark 8:27-30:

Jesus went out with His disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the Road he asked His disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They answered Him, “John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, one of the prophets.”  But you,” He asked them again, “who  do you say that I am?” Peter answered Him, “You are the Messiah! [the anointed or holy one]” And he strictly warned them to tell no one about Him.  (Bracketed text added).

The probability that this saying is authentic is greater given the independent attestation of John 6:69 where Peter responds to Jesus, “We have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!”1 Independent attestation is one of six sufficient conditions that provide greater probability that a saying or event is historical.

Check back next week as we continue to identify the personal claims of Jesus Christ.

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnotes:

1.  Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith:  Christian Truth and Apologetics; Third Edition. Page 303.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Did Jesus Even Exist?

It is common this time of year for numerous articles to come out in various publications making all kinds of outlandish claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps none of these claims are more ridiculous than Jesus never existed. We have dealt with that question in the past here.

In this featured blog post, New Testament scholar Michael Kruger responds to 5 common arguments used by so-called "Jesus Mythers."

You can checkout the post here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Video: Leibniz’ Contingency Argument


This excellent video is the latest in a series put out by Reasonable Faith, the ministry of Dr. William Lane Craig.

You can checkout the other videos here.

Enjoy!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Counterpoints: Dr. Jerry Coyne and Dr. William Lane Craig

 


DR. COYNE: 

I have it all summed up in this aphorism I like to use which is that in science faith is a vice, and in religion it is a virtue. (1)


DR. CRAIG: 

The very differentiation between vices and virtues is a philosophical, not a scientific, distinction, and science is fraught with assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically. So faith is operative in science in many different ways in terms of belief in the validity of inductive reasoning, in belief in the laws of logic, in belief in mathematics, in the ethical values that guide scientific research and reporting, in the belief that we are able to have knowledge of an external world rather than merely an illusion. It is outrageously naive to think that science operates without faith. (2)


1.  For the complete Dr. Coyne Interview with Sam Harris, please go here      

2.  For the complete Reasonable Faith podcast, please go here



Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Tough Topic Tuesday: The Problem of Evil, pt. 5

Last week we introduce the evidential problem of evil as follows:

Evidential Version: "It's Improbable that God could have Good Reasons for Permitting Suffering."

The evidential version differs from the logical version because the evidential version makes a more modest claim.  The evidential version says that it is improbable that God exists when one considers all the apparent unnecessary suffering that occurs in the world.

However, it can be argued that we’re not in a position to say that it’s improbable that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. 

Once again, William Lane Craig explains:

"As finite persons, we’re limited in space and time, in intelligence and insight.  God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially orders history to His ends through people’s free decisions and actions. In order achieve his purposes God may have to allow a great deal of suffering along the way.  Suffering that appears pointless within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted by God within His wider framework."1

To sustain this point, Dr. Craig draws upon so-called chaos theory:

"In...chaos theory scientists have discovered that certain large-scale systems, for example, the weather or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the smallest disturbances.  A butterfly fluttering on a twig in West Africa may set in motion forces that will eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean.  Yet it's impossible for anyone observing that butterfly fluttering on that branch to predict such an outcome.  We have no way of knowing how the alteration of some seemingly insignificant event can radically alter the world."2

Now, this is "not to appeal to mystery but rather to point to our inherent limitations, which make it impossible for us to say, when confronted with some example of suffering, that God probably has no good reason for permitting it to occur."3

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 158.
2. Ibid., 158.
3. Ibid., 160.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Authentic Sayings of Jesus: The Centrality of the Person of Christ to a Christian Apologetic

The Christian religion stands or falls with the person of Jesus Christ. Judaism could survive without Moses, Buddhism without Buddha, Islam without Mohammed; but Christianity could not survive without Christ.  This is because unlike most other world religions, Christianity is belief in a person, a genuine historical individual-but at the same time a special individual, whom the church regards as not only human, but divine. At the center of any Christian apologetic therefore must stand the person of Christ; and very important for the doctrine of Christ's person are the personal claims of the historical Jesus.1

In coming posts we will therefore identify the sayings of Jesus which are authentic.  And these sayings will provide us with clarity on Jesus' self-understanding.

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnote:
1.  Criag, William Lane. Reasonable Faith:  Christian Truth and Apologetics; Third Edition. Page 287.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Quote: Former Abortionist turned Pro-Life Advocate Dr. Anthony Levatino Describes a Second Trimester Abortion

"The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head.  The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity.  You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow.  You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix.  That was the baby's brains.  You can then extract the skull pieces.  Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you."1

We must not be silent!



Courage and Godspeed,

Chad

Footnote:
1. As quoted by Dave Sterrett in We Choose Life, p. 15; I apologize for the graphic nature of this quote, but the truth must be told.

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Article: In Defense of Apologetics by Tim Keller

Originally found here.

Apologetics is an answer to the “why” question after you’ve already answered the “what” question. The what question, of course, is, “What is the gospel?” But when you call people to believe in the gospel and they ask, “Why should I believe that?”—-then you need apologetics.

I’ve heard plenty of Christians try to answer the why question by going back to the what. “You have to believe because Jesus is the Son of God.” But that’s answering the why with more what. Increasingly we live in a time when you can’t avoid the why question. Just giving the what (for example, a vivid gospel presentation) worked in the days when the cultural institutions created an environment in which Christianity just felt true or at least honorable. But in a post-Christendom society, in the marketplace of ideas, you have to explain why this is true, or people will just dismiss it.

Is Apologetics Biblical?

There are plenty of Christians today who nevertheless say: “Don’t do apologetics, just expound the Word of God—-preach and the power of the Word will strike people.” Others argue that “belonging comes before believing.” They say apologetics is a rational, Enlightenment approach, not a biblical one. People need to be brought into a community where they can see our love and our deeds, experience worship, have their imaginations captured, and faith will become credible to them.

There is a certain merit to these arguments. It would indeed be overly rationalistic to say that we can prove Christianity so that any rational person would have to believe it. In fact, this approach dishonors the sovereignty of God by bowing to our autonomous human reason. Community and worship are important, because people come to conviction through a combination of heart and mind, a sense of need, thinking things out intellectually, and seeing it in community. But I have also seen many skeptics brought into a warm Christian community and still ask, “But why should I believe you and not an atheist or a Muslim?”

We need to be careful of saying, “Just believe,” because what we’re really saying is, “Believe because I say so.” That sounds like a Nietzschean power play. That’s very different from Paul, who reasoned, argued, and proved in the Book of Acts, and from Peter, who called us to give the reason for our hope in 2 Peter 3:15. If our response is, “Our beliefs may seem utterly irrational to you, but if you see how much we love one another then you’ll want to believe too,” then we’ll sound like a cult. So we do need to do apologetics and answer the why question.

No Neutral Ground

However, the trouble with an exclusively rationalistic apologetic (“I’m going to prove to you that God exists, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Bible is true,” etc.) is that it does, in a sense, put God on trial before supposedly neutral, perfectly rational people sitting objectively on the throne of Reason. That doesn’t fit with what the Bible says about the reality of sin and the always prejudiced, distorted thinking produced by unbelief. On the other hand, an exclusively subjectivist apologetic (“Invite Jesus into your life and he’ll solve all your problems, but I can’t give you any good reasons, just trust with your heart”) also fails to bring conviction of real sin or of need.

There will be no joy in the grace of Jesus unless people see they’re lost. Thus a gospel-shaped apologetic must not simply present Christianity, it must also challenge the non-believer’s worldview and show where it, and they, have a real problem.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Tough Topic Tuesday: The Problem of Evil, Pt. 4

For the past three weeks we have considered the logical version of the problem of evil (Pt. I, Pt. II, Pt. III) and found it wanting.  This week we turn our attention to the evidential version of the problem of evil.

Evidential Version: "It's Improbable that God could have Good Reasons for Permitting Suffering."

The evidential version differs from the logical version because the evidential version makes a more modest claim.  The evidential version says that it is improbable that God exists when one considers all the apparent unnecessary suffering that occurs in the world.  William Lane Craig explains:

"The atheistic claim here is that suffering in the world renders it improbable that God exists.  In particular, it seems highly improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.  So much of that suffering appears to be utterly pointless and unnecessary.  Surely God could have reduced the suffering in the world without reducing the world's overall goodness.  So the suffering in the world provides evidence that there is no God."1

In the coming posts we will offering 4 responses to the evidential problem of evil.  

How would you respond to this challenge?  Please feel free to share in the comments!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 157.

Sunday, December 06, 2015

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Video: Cosmology- A Religion For Atheists? by William Lane Craig


Text taken from here:

"In the film The Theory Of Everything, Stephen Hawking (portrayed by Eddie Redmayne) claims that cosmology is 'a religion for intelligent atheists'. The question haunts the film as it haunts Hawking's books.

Dr William Lane Craig examines this claim - critiquing both dialogue from the film, and Prof. Hawking's own publications. Does a beginning to the universe entail a creator? Does Hawking's latest "no boundary" Big Bang model eliminate the need for God? What hope is there, in a Godless universe? And is philosophy 'dead' as Stephen Hawking claims?

Dr William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary western philosophy. He is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Houston Baptist University. He's published over 40 books and over 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals. He is most known online for his lectures and debates with leading atheists and skeptics.

This lecture was delivered at Highfield Church, Southampton, in the UK. Still images from The Theory Of Everything (Universal Studios and Focus Features) have been included under and constitute Fair use for Academic Purposes."

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

HT: Peter S. Williams via Twitter

Friday, December 04, 2015

84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts

Scholar and historian Colin Hemer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and/or archaeological research.

They are as follows:

1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports [Acts 13:4-5]
2. the proper port [Perga] along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus [13:13]
3. the proper location of Lycaonia [14:6]
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra [14:6]
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra-Lycaonian [14:11]
6. two gods known to be so associated-Zeus and Hermes [14:12]
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use [14:25]
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates [16:1; cf. 15:41]
9. the proper form of the name Troas [16:8]
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace [12:14]
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony [16:12]
12. the right location fro the river [Gangites] near Philippi [12:13]
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing [16:14]
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony [16:22]
15. the proper locations [Amphipolis and Apollonia] where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey [17:1]
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica [17:1]
17. the proper term ["politarchs"] used of the magistrates there [17:6]
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing [17:14-15]
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens [17:16]
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens [17:17]
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora [17:17]
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul [spermologos, 17:18] as well as for the court [Areios pagos, 17:19]
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character [17:21]
24. an altar to an "unknown god" [17:23]
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection [17:32]
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court [17:34]
27. A Corinthian synagogue [18:4]
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth [18:12]
29. the bema [judgement seat], which overlooks Corinth's forum [18:16ff.]
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions [19:9]
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis [19:24]
32. the well attested "great goddess Artemis" [19:27]
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city [19:29]
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus [19:35]
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans [19:35]
36. the correct name to designate the goddess [19:37]
37. the proper term for those holding court [19:38]
38. use of plural anthupatori, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time [19:38]
39. the "regular" assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere [19:39]
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios [20:4]
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos [20:4]
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas [20:7ff.]
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location [20:13]
44. the correct sequence of places [20:14-15]
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural [Patara] [21:1]
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds [21:3]
47. the suitable distance between these cities [21:8]
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety [21:24]
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area [21:28] [Archaeological discoveries and quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One inscription reads: "Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death."]
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort [chiliarch]at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times [21:31]
51. the flight of steps used by the guards [21:31, 35]
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time [22:28]
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship [22:29]
54. Ananias being high priest at this time [23:2]
55. Felix being governor at this time [23:34]
56. the natural shopping point on the way to Caesarea [23:31]
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time [23:34]
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time [24:1-9]
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus [24:27]
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens [25:11]
61. the correct legal formula [25:18]
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time [25:26]
63. the best shipping lanes at the time [27:5]
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia [27:4]
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy [27:5-6]
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the fact of the typical northwest wind [27:7]
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds [27:7]
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea [27:8]
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead [27:7]
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale [27:13]
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale [27:15]
72. the precise place and name of this island [27:16]
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight [27:16]
74. the fourteenth night-a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgement of experienced Mediterranean navigators [27:27]
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic [27:27]
76. the precise term [Bolisantes] for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta [27:28]
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind [27:39]
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape [27:42]
79. the local people and superstitions of the day [28:4-6]
80. the proper title protos tes nesou [28:7]
81. Regium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait [28:13]
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way [28:15]
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soliders [28:16]
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living "at his own expense" [28:30-31] [1]

With these facts in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that the author of Acts [who I believe was Luke] was an eyewitness of the events recorded or at the very least had access to reliable eyewitnesses.

It is also of interest that in the Book of Acts, the author records 35 miracles.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

1. The facts are as listed by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 256-259.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

When Pro-Abortion Choice Rhetoric Hurts

I have been reading through Dave Sterrett's We Choose Life, an outstanding collection of stories from men and women who are dedicated to rescuing babies, mothers, and fathers from abortion.  

In the book, contributer Rebecca Kiessling writes about when, at the age of 18, she learned that she had been conceived out of rape.  

She writes:

"I remember feeling ugly, unwanted, and very much devalued and targeted by our society. I instantly thought of what people say about abortion:

'I’m pro-life—well, except in cases of rape,' or,'I’m pro-choice—especially
in cases of rape!' 

I realized that there were multitudes of people who
didn’t even know me but were standing in judgment of my life, and
who were quick to dismiss it just because of how I was conceived. I
felt like I was now going to have to justify my own existence, that I
would have to prove to the world that I shouldn’t have been aborted
and that I was worthy of living. I wanted to have all of my assets lined
up so that people would see me as a person of value at a time in my
life when I felt like I was being devalued every day."1

When pro-abortion choice advocates argue that abortion is justifiable in cases of rape or incest, they are implicitly devaluing the life of the individual who has been conceived that way.  I wonder if they even consider this?  An 18 year old conceived out of rape is no less intrinsically valuable than an 18 year old conceived out of a loving, consensual relationship.  Would any right thinking person argue that we should have the right to kill the 18 year old conceived out of rape?  Of course not!  In like manner, a pre-born child conceived out of rape is no less intrinsically valuable than a pre-born child conceived out of loving, consensual relationship.

The act of rape and incest are morally deplorable and inexcusable.  However, I implore my pro-abortion choice friends to stop using those conceived in this manner as talking points and treat them as people because as Rebecca Kiessling's story demonstrates, pro-abortion choice rhetoric hurts.

We Choose Life will be available January 1, 2016.  Please look for our review in the coming weeks.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Book Preview: Expository Apologetics- Answering Objections with the Power of the Word by Voddie Bauchman, Jr.

About the Author

Voddie Baucham Jr. (DMin, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is dean of the seminary at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia. Author of a number of books, including Family Driven Faith, The Ever-Loving Truth, and Joseph and the Gospel of Many Colors, Baucham is also a pastor, church planter, and conference speaker.1

About the Book

Apologetics is for everyone.

The Bible is clear that all believers are called to defend their faith. However, if apologetics is the formal process that we have come to expect, this sounds like an impossible task. But what if apologetics could be part of natural, normal conversation—both from the pulpit and in everyday life?

Aimed at preparing you to clearly and confidently defend your faith, Expository Apologetics sets forth an approach to apologetics that is rooted in Scripture and eminently accessible. Filled with real-world examples and practical advice, this book will equip you with the tools you need to think biblically and converse persuasively—offering unbelievers “a reason for the hope that is in you.”2

You can checkout a sample of Bauchman's work here entitled, "Why There's No Such Thing as an Atheist."

You can get your copy of his new book here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. Information found here.
2. Information found here.

Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Tough Topic Tuesday: The Problem of Evil, Pt. 3

This is post number 3 in our series considering the problem of evil.  Currently, we are assessing the success of the logical problem of evil that is as follows:

Logical Version: “It’s Logically Impossible for God and Suffering to Coexist.”

The argument goes something like this:

1. An all-loving, all-powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.

Usual assumptions…

3. If God is all powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.

Argument: God is all-loving and all-powerful.  Therefore, He both can and wants to create a world without suffering.  Therefore, it follows that the world has no suffering.  But that contradicts 2, Suffering exists. Therefore, God must not exist. 1

Last week we addressed assumption #3 here.  This week we take a look at assumption #4- "If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering."

Again, the question we must ask is "Is this necessarily true?"  I content that it is not.  Once again William Lane Craig is instructive:

"For God could have overriding reason for allowing the suffering in the world.  We all know cases in which we permit suffering in order to bring about a greater good (like taking our child to the dentist). The atheist might insist that an all-powerful being would not be so limited.  He could bring about the greater good directly, without allowing any suffering.  But clearly, given freedom, of the will, that may not be possible.  Some goods, for example, moral virtues, can be achieved only through the free cooperation of people.  It may well be the case that a world with suffering is, on balance, better overall than a world with no suffering.  In any case, it is at least possible, and that is sufficient to defeat the atheist's claim that 4 is necessarily true." 2

Consider the example of Jesus Christ.  Here we see God the Father allowing His only begotten Son to suffering and die for the greatest good- forgiveness of sins and the free gift of eternal life for those who freely choose it.

For assumption 3 or 4 to be successful, the atheist must show that free will is impossible and that it's impossible that a world with suffering would be better than a world with no suffering.

Finally, Dr. Craig explains that we can push the argument even further.  He writes:

"We can make it plausible that God and suffering are logically consistent.  All we have to do is come up with a statement that is consistent with God's existence and entails that suffering exists.  Here is such a statement:

5. God could not have created another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world, and God has good reasons for permitting the suffering that exists.

The idea here is that given human freedom, God's options are restricted, and it may be that a world with as much good as the actual world, but with less suffering, wasn't an option.  Nevertheless, God has good reasons for the suffering He allows.  If statement 5 is even possibly true, it shows that it's possible that God and suffering both exist.  And it surely is plausible that 5 is possibly true." 3

For reasons such as these, the logical form of the problem of evil is all but dead.

Next week, we will begin considering the evidential version of the problem of evil.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnotes:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 154-155.
2. Ibid., p. 156.
3. Ibid., p. 157.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Is the Virgin Conception of Jesus Necessary and Reasonable?

As the Christmas season is upon us, J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity began a series of broadcasts in which he will examine the virgin conception of Jesus.  The first installment thinks through the subject questions using the following outline:

Why is the Doctrine of the Virgin Conception Necessary?
  1. The virgin conception is a piece of evidence of Jesus’ as the Messiah.
  2. The virgin conception is an essential explanation of Jesus’ nature.
  3. The virgin conception is an essential truth of God.
Why is the Doctrine of the Virgin Conception Reasonable?
  1. Naturalism is a worldview under examination.
  2. Naturalism therefore should not be a presupposition.
  3. Naturalism accepts at least one extra-natural event.
  4. Naturalism may not, therefore, be an accurate view of the world.
The broadcast can be viewed here. Enjoy and be sure to catch the next installments!

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Video: One Question You Should Always Ask An Unbeliever by Frank Turek


Sometimes when sharing your faith a great question can be more powerful than an argument.  In this brief video Dr. Frank Turek shares what he believes to be the #1 question you should ask those who don't believe.

You can see our review of Dr. Turek's new book Stealing from God here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Friday, November 27, 2015

Pastor Voddie Baucham, Jr. on Science and the Christian Community

"One of the most tragic developments of our day is the abandonment of the hard sciences by the Christian community.  Teaching our children what the Bible says about creation and giving them a biblical worldview should ignite a renewed interest in biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry and physics...Christian Theists must once again take their place at the forefront of scientific inquiry in pursuit of a better understanding of the world and the God who created it."

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad




Footnote:

1. Voddie Baucham, Jr., Family Driven Faith, p. 85.

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Article: The Truth about the Origin of Thanksgiving by J. Warner Wallace

In this featured article J. Warner Wallace examines the historical roots of Thanksgiving.

You can checkout the article here.

We are thankful for your readership and wish each of you a blessed Thanksgiving!

Godspeed,
Chad



Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Video: Does Islam Really Teach Peace? by Nabeel Qureshi


In this video, former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi discusses what Islam teaches and how it differs from Christianity.

Enjoy!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Tough Topic Tuesday: The Problem of Evil, Pt. 2

Last week we introduced the logical problem of evil as follows:

Logical Version: “It’s Logically Impossible for God and Suffering to Coexist.”

The argument goes something like this:

1. An all-loving, all-powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.

Usual assumptions…

3. If God is all powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.

Argument: God is all-loving and all-powerful.  Therefore, He both can and wants to create a world without suffering.  Therefore, it follows that the world has no suffering.  But that contradicts 2, Suffering exists. Therefore, God must not exist. 1

Response:

Let us consider assumption 3.

Assumption 3 says, "If God is all powerful, He can create any world that He wants."  I would contend that this isn't so if people have free will.  Dr. William Lane Craig explains:

"It's logically impossible to make someone do something freely.  That is as logically impossible as making a round square or a married bachelor.  God's being all-powerful does not mean that He can bring about the logically impossible-indeed, there is not such 'thing' as the logically impossible.  It's just an inconsistent combination of words...since it's possible that people have free will, it turns out that 3 is not necessarily true.  For if people have free will, they may refuse to do what God desires.  So there will be any number of possible words that God cannot create because the people in them wouldn't cooperate with God's desires.  In fact, for all we know, it's possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world, there would also be as much suffering.  This conjecture need not be true or even probable, but so long as it's even logically possible, it shows that it is not necessarily true that God can create any world that He wants.  So assumption 3 is just not necessarily true.  On this basis alone, the atheist's argument is logically fallacious."2

Next week we will look at assumption 4, "If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering."

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 154-155.
2. Ibid. p. 155-156; for those who might respond, "Can't God do anything?," see here.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Love Without Knowledge Is Uninformed Infatuation

In the subject article, Kristen Davis of Doubtless Faith Ministries writes of why the heart, soul, and mind must all be engaged in order to have a deep relationship with God.  Below is an excerpt:

Loving God with our minds cannot be separated from loving Him with our hearts, souls and strength. When some part of that is removed it’s not love. It’s either infatuation based on an idea (lack of mind) or infatuation based on information (lacking heart and soul). If we say we love God but don’t care to learn about Him and grow in our depth of knowledge both informational and interpersonal then how can we really say we love God?

Happy reading!

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Quote: J. Warner Wallace on Evil

"Few people witness as much horrific evil as homicide detectives. I’ve certainly seen my share. But what do we really mean when we say something is evil? Are we saying we just don’t like it personally, or are we saying there are some things that are truly, transcendently, objectively evil? Is evil nothing more than a matter of opinion? If so, we could remove all evil by simply changing our minds about what we thought was evil in the first place. If we can’t eliminate evil in this way, we need to think about why and how transcendent notions of evil could exist. While evil might at first appear to be a strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving Divine Creator, it may actually be the best possible evidence for the existence of such a Being. Unless we are prepared to dismiss evil as nothing more than whatever fails to please our private desires or opinions, we’re going to need a transcendent standard of good by which to evaluate and identify anything as evil. As crazy as it might sound at first, the existence of true evil, the kind that transcends each of us as individuals and groups, is dependent on the existence of a true, transcendent standard of good. True evil is evidence for God’s existence."1

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

HT: The Poached Egg

Friday, November 20, 2015

Article: Two Things Terrorist Attacks Do NOT Tell Us About Religion by Natasha Crain

I was spending time with my wife and girls when I learned of the horrible terrorist attacks in Paris.  Many people have an opinion about what causes people to carry out such acts and to behave in such morally deplorable ways and it seems that all "religion" is often demonized as a result.

In this featured article Natasha Crain contends that while these attacks may tell us many things, there are two things they DO NOT tell us about religion.

1. That religion is bad.

2. That religion is false.

Crain claims that both of these conclusions are false.

Checkout the article here.

And if you don't already, you need to follow here work here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Cosmology, the Big Bang, and the Beginning

Introduction

I recall when I learned that my father had been diagnosed with dementia.  The news was not immediately devastating because I wasn’t convinced his diagnosis was correct.  At the time, my father lived 4 hours away and was on his own.  I was persuaded that once we moved him closer to us and were able to manage his medication, diet and medical appointments that he would be fine.   I told myself that the symptoms he was experiencing were just due to old age and stress.

My brother and I were able to move him into an apartment that was only 5 minutes from my home. We were able to manage his medication, diet and medical appointments just as I had hoped; however, as I cared for my Dad, evidence began to accumulate that confirmed his diagnosis.  Dad began to have conversations with himself in the mirror because he didn’t recognize his own reflection.  He was convinced it was someone looking at him through a window.  He no longer could keep track of time and lost his ability to read.  Finally, he no longer remembered my name or knew who I was.  I could no longer hide behind the possibility that Dad was just getting old or suffering from extreme stress.   Although the thought of my dad’s life ending this way was personally repugnant, I had to face the facts- my Dad had severe dementia.

The story of how I came to accept my Dad’s diagnosis of dementia illustrates just how difficult it can be to evaluate evidence and draw a sound conclusion when strong emotions are involved.   Sometimes we reject a conclusion not because it is unsupported by evidence, but because we find it personally distasteful.

A Universe with a Beginning

My reluctance to accept my Dad’s dementia diagnosis is not all that different from the reluctance demonstrated by many in the scientific community when the evidence for the “Big Bang” was discovered.  The “Big Bang” describes the scientific theory that all space, matter and time came into being at some point in the finite past.  This was significant because “all throughout history men have assumed that the universe as a whole was unchanging…the universe itself was just there…”1 The reaction by many in the scientific community was curious.  Professor of Physics at Auburn University  J. M. Wersinger explains:

"At first the scientific community was very reluctant to accept the idea of a birth of the universe... It took time, observational evidence, and careful verification of predictions made by the Big Bang model to convince the scientific community to accept the idea of a cosmic genesis...[T]he Big Bang is a very successful model...that imposed itself on a reluctant scientific community."2

Albert Einstein himself called the discovery “irritating.”3 Contemporary of Einstein and physicist Arthur Eddington wrote, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me…I should like to find a genuine loophole.”4 Phillip Morrison of MIT said, “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang Theory.  I would like to reject it, but I have to accept the facts.”5 The late agnostic Robert Jastrow comments on the reaction of his colleagues:

“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions.  They come from the heart, whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain.  Why?”6

What did these scientific thinkers find so “irritating” and “repugnant” about the discovery that the universe had a beginning?  Why the reluctance on the part of the scientific community to accept the hard evidence?  Before we answer those questions, let’s briefly survey some of the evidence for the "Big Bang."7

The Evidence that the Universe Began to Exist

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

As author J. Warner Wallace explains, throughout history, philosophers and “scientific thinkers (embracing the dynamics of Newtonian physics) believed the universe was infinitely old, uniform, and unchanging.”8

In 1916, Albert Einstein attempted to apply his general theory of relativity to the cosmos and he found these convictions were false.  His own calculations revealed that all space, all time and all matter had a beginning.  The idea of a finite universe was so foreign to the great Einstein that he introduced a mathematical constant into his equations to maintain the appearance of an unchanging and infinitely old universe.  Einstein would later call this the greatest blunder of his career.9  

By 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann uncovered Einsteins “blunder” as a mistake in algebra and astronomer Willem de Sitter found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has now been proven accurate to five decimals places and demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter.  It proves that time, space, and matter are co-relative.  They are co-dependent.  You can't have one without the others.

The Expanding Universe

As already noted, General Relativity predicted an expanding universe.  In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble made a shocking discovery.  He found that the light from distance galaxies appeared to be redder than expected.  Philosopher William Lane Craig explains the implications:

“This ‘redshift’ in the light was most plausibly due to the stretching of the light waves as the galaxies move away from us.  Wherever Hubble trained his telescope in the night sky, he observed this same redshift in the light from the galaxies.  It appeared that we are at the center of a cosmic explosion, and all of the other galaxies are flying away from us at fantastic speeds!”10

Imagine with me for a moment that you could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse.  You would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point that is mathematically and logically nothing.11 This is known as the singularity.  In other words, there was nothing and then the entire universe exploded into being.  

Craig 12 is once again instructive: 

“As you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually the distance between any two points in space becomes zero. You can’t get any closer than that! So at that point you’ve reached the boundary of space and time. Space and time cannot be extended any further back than that. It is literally the beginning of space and time.
Eventually, the distance between any two points in space becomes zero. So space-time can be represented geometrically as a cone. What’s significant about this is that while a cone can be extended indefinitely in one direction, it has a boundary point in the other direction. Because this direction represents time and the boundary point lies in the past, the model implies that past time is finite and had a beginning.

Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy.  It’s the beginning of the universe.
Notice that there’s simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. Let’s not be misled by words. When cosmologists say, ‘There is nothing prior to the initial boundary,’ they do not mean that there is some state of affairs prior to it, and that is a state of nothingness. That would be to treat nothing as though it were something! Rather they mean that at the boundary point, it is false that ‘There is something prior to this point.’”13

Radiation from the Big Bang

In 1964, physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson couldn’t get rid of the radio signal “noise” from their large antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey.   No matter where they turned their antenna, this mysterious “noise” remained.  What they originally thought was bird droppings deposited on the antenna turned out to be a significant confirmation that the universe had a beginning!  Penzias and Wilson had discovered the residual background radiation caused when the universe first came into being.  Commonly referred to as the cosmic background radiation, this residual background radiation is actually light and heat from the initial explosion.  As author Frank Turek explains:

“This light is no longer visible because its wavelength has been stretched by the expanding universe to wavelengths slightly shorter than those produced by a microwave oven.  But the heat can still be detected.”14

Penzias and Wilson would go on to win a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Simply put, the well-established second law of thermodynamics 15 says that the quantity of energy within a closed, isolated system like our universe remains the same, though the amount of usable energy depreciates over time.  The implication is that the energy in our universe will ultimately “even out” until the entire universe is uniform in energy, temperature, and disorder.16

To illustrate, author and speaker J. Warner Wallace asks us to “imagine walking into a room and observing a windup toy police car.  The longer you watch it roll, the slower it moves.  You realize the car is winding down-that is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing.  It’s reasonable to infer the car was recently wound up prior to your entry into the room.  The fact the toy car is not yet completely unwound indicates it was wound up recently.  If the car had been wound much earlier, we would expect it to be motionless by the time we entered the room.”17

Wallace then applies this illustration to the universe:

“In a similar way, the fact our universe still exhibits useful energy-even though the second law of thermodynamics dictates we are on our way to a cosmic ‘heat death’- indicates a beginning.  Otherwise, and if the universe were infinitely old, our cosmos should have run out of usable energy by now.  We can reasonably infer it was once tightly wound and full of energy.”18

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires a beginning of the universe.

Quantitative Evidence from the Abundance of Helium

Having died in 2001 not accepting the “Big Bang” himself, it is ironic that Sir Fred Hoyle’s work on how stars formed would also demonstrate that the universe had a beginning.  J. Warner Wallace once again proves helpful:

“As he (Hoyle) studied the way elements are created within stars, he was able to calculate the amount of helium created if the universe came into being from nothing.  Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe (hydrogen is the first), but in order to form helium by nuclear fusion, temperatures must be incredibly high and conditions must be exceedingly dense.  These would have been the conditions if the universe came into being from nothing.  Hoyle’s calculations related to the formation of helium happen to coincide with our measurements of helium in the universe today.  This, of course, is consistent with the universe having a moment of beginning.”19

As astrophysics researcher Paolo Saraceno wrote:

“The discovery of the background radiation, together with the observed abundance of helium, was a mortal blow to the theory of a stationary universe; only a initial fireball could have produced it.  This meant the universe had an origin.”20

 The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem

In 2003, leading scientists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.  The now famous “Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem” implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called multiverse composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning!21

Vilenkin explains:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.  There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”22

Divine Implications

The evidence for the “Big Bang” is quite good.  Yet, as one prominent philosopher explains, “the history of twentieth-century cosmology can be seen as a series of one failed attempt after another to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the standard big bang model.  Unfortunately, the impression arises in the minds of laymen that the field of cosmology is in constant turnover, with no lasting results.  What the laymen doesn’t understand is that this parade of failed theories only serves to confirm the prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist.  That prediction has now stood for over eighty years throughout a period of enormous advances in observational astronomy and creative theoretical work in astrophysics.”23

So why is it “irritating” and “repugnant” to some that the universe had a beginning?  Why has the scientific community been so reluctant to accept the birth of the universe?  It is my contention that it is because the origin of the universe has divine implications and some have been very forthright about this fact.  Arthur Eddington admitted, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”24 The late agnostic Robert Jastrow commented that “…there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”25 Wersinger contends that the origin of the universe “seemed to have to call for an act of supernatural creation…”26

Conclusion

My Father went home to be with the Lord 3 years ago.  I still remember finding out that he had been diagnosed with dementia.  I initially rejected the idea and although the implications were incomprehensible to me, the evidence continued to accumulate and I could no longer ignore the obvious.  The more I suppressed the truth regarding his condition, the sillier I most likely looked to friends and family.  Ultimately, I had to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

In like manner, the standard cosmological model has been accepted by the “clear majority of the cosmological community,”27 but as we have seen, not without some resistance from the scientific community.  It has been my contention that some have resisted or rejected the standard model not because it lacks evidential merit, but because it has divine implications.  Some have even resorted to the fantastic and unsupported speculation.  Physicist Lawrence Krauss has attempted to redefine the term "nothing" to mean "something."28  Others, such as atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, have even advanced the idea of a self-created universe!29  Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith is forthcoming regarding the attempts atheists have made to deal with the Big Bang:

“The idea that the Big Bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the suggestion of a divine creation seemed so compelling that the notion that 'God created the Big Bang' has taken a hold on popular consciousness and become a staple in the theistic component of ‘educated common sense’. By contrast, the response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively lame.”30

I appreciate the fact that many in the unbelieving community pride themselves on being children of reason.  However, it seems with the current evidence for the beginning of the universe, that Smith is right.  If you are an atheist, "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing."31

The evidence is clear.  The universe began to exist.  To suggest otherwise is to contradict the evidence. That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnotes:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 87.
2. J.M. Wersinger, "Genesis: The Origin of the Universe," National Forum (Winter 1996), 11, 9, 12 as quoted by Dr. William Lane Craig in On Guard, p. 91.
3. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 73.
      4. Ibid.
      5. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 112-113.
6. Ibid., 113.
7. For the purposes of this post I will be focusing on the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.  However, there are excellent philosophical reasons for believing that the universe had a beginning as well: 1) An actually infinite number of things cannot exist 2) You can't pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time.  For more on these arguments, see here.
8. J. Warner Wallace, God's Crime Scene, p. 32.
9. Geisler and Turek, p. 74.
10. Craig, p. 88.
11. Geisler and Turek, p. 79.
12. For those who would question William Lane Craig's credibility in matters of cosmology, I would encourage them to consider his publications on the topic here.  His published work on cosmological issues has appeared in a wide range of scientific and philosophical journals including Astrophysics and Space Science, Nature, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, The Journal of Philosophy, and International Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
13. William Lane Craig, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," 2015.  Numerous comments by physicists and scientists confirm Craig's contention.  Atheist physicist Victor Stenger writes that "the universe exploded out of nothingness" (V.J. Stenger, "The Face of Chaos," Free Inquiry 13 (Winter 1992-1993): 13.  
Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the microwave background, said: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.)  Prominent physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler conclude "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo" (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 442.   To see more quotes such as this, see here.
      14. Geisler and Turek, p. 81.
15. 
Interestingly, it was Arthur Eddington who said, “…if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” (Quoted in Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon &Shuster, 1988), 20.
16. Wallace, p. 34.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 34-35.
19. Ibid. p. 35.
20. 
Paolo Saraceno, Beyond the Stars: Our Origins and the Search for Life in the Universe (Singapore: World Scientific, 2012), 26 as quoted by J. Warner Wallace, God’s Crime Scene, p. 37.
21. Craig, p. 92.
22. 
Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.91-92.
23. Craig, p. 91-92.
24. 
Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 178.
25 
“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.
26. Ibid.
27. As astrophysicist Andrew Liddle and astronomer Jon Loveday affirmed, "The standard cosmological model is a striking success, as a phenomenological description of the cosmological data...the model's success in explaining high-precision observations has led a clear majority of the cosmological community to accept it as a good account of how the Universe works" (Oxford Companion to Cosmology [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 8).
28. See here.  For more detailed refutations of Krauss's work I recommend Peter S. Williams's article "A Universe from Someone: Against Lawrence Krauss" located here and here is a nice collection of podcasts by Dr William Lane Craig responding to Krauss's book A Universe from Nothing.
29. To see a response to this view, see here.
30. As quoted by Mike Licona here.
31. William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 135.