Wednesday, August 26, 2020
Saturday, August 22, 2020
Worldview and Apologetics in the News
Why Bill Nye keeps getting bashed for not being a scientist
2,700 evangelicals warn against politicizing coronavirus, urge Christians to take vaccine
Gender-bending sex-ed curricula tells teachers to hide kids' gender confusion from parents
Liberty Alumni Pastors Urge University Board to ‘Permanently Remove’ Jerry Falwell Jr. as President
‘Cuties’: Netflix Under Fire for Sexual Exploitation With Movie About Young Girls ‘Twerking’
Is Believing in God Like Believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Rev Chris Lee: The viral vicar of Instagram
‘WAP’ isn’t empowering women, it’s objectifying them
Tweens, Teens, Tech, and Mental Health: Coming of Age in an Increasingly Digital, Uncertain, and Unequal World 2020
Gender-Transition Surgery Does Not Improve Mental Health After All
Bodily Marian Relics And The Assumption Of Mary
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Our last edition is here.
Thursday, August 20, 2020
Video- On Behalf of a Molinist Perspective by William Lane Craig
A great talk here by Dr. William Lane Craig on Molinism. The Q and A is quite fun as well!
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Post
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Why Philosophical Proofs for God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs by Brian Huffling
He writes:
The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science. Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.
Checkout the entire article here.
You can find more of Huffling's work here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Article: What is Thomism? by gotQuestions.org
What is Philosophy?
Sunday, August 16, 2020
Review of J.L. Schellenberg, "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason," by Daniel Howard-Snyder
Philosopher Randal Rauser also has a thoughtful review of Schellenberg's work, The Hiddenness Argument, here. Schellenberg responds to Rauser here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Video: Why Does God Seem So Hidden? by Sean McDowell
R. Douglas Geivett on the Hiddenness of God
Why Does God Hide?
Saturday, August 15, 2020
Video: Christianity and the Challenge of Hinduism
A great talk on Hinduism!
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Worldview and Apologetics in the News
Critical Thinking for Confused Times
Christ, Not Caesar, Is Head of the Church
Most pastors say adultery shouldn't permanently disqualify clergy from ministry: survey
5 types of church members who won't return after quarantine
'People Feel Betrayed': Hallmark Channel Movie to Feature its First Same-Sex Wedding
Jerry Falwell Jr. Takes Leave of Absence from Liberty
‘Democrats for Life’ Leader Says Biden Doesn’t Want Their Votes
Human Engineers Can’t Top These Biological Intelligent Designs
MacArthur defends worship
Kamala Harris Is the 'Most Pro-Abortion of Pro-Abortion Politicians,' Nat'l Right to Life Says
Is Jesus too Good to be False? Interview with Author Tom Gilson
How the Corona Virus Ought to Redirect Our Hope
How the Corona Virus Ought to Redirect Our Hope
Debate: Will There be a Future Physical Resurrection of the Dead?
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Our last edition is here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Our last edition is here.
Sunday, August 02, 2020
Gary Habermas and Mike Licona Answer the Claim that, "There is a Huge Mountain of Probability Against an Event Ever Being an Act of God."
Their response is as follows:
"The critic says, 'Even before investigating a claimed miracle, we know that there is a huge mountain of probability against it ever being an act of God.' To say that corpses stay dead much more often then they come back to life is a wild understatement. In short, the world we inhabit does not make room for the miraculous. It is simply not that kind of universe. So even if we cannot explain what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion, this reasoning would insist that there could not have been a resurrection. The technical name for the issue that is being raised by this sort of objection is antecedent probability. Even before an investigation, miracles are so improbable because of the evidence against miracles from past experience, that they are considered highly unlikely, if not practically impossible.
This mindset seems to make sense and is a thoughtful approach, but it has serious problems.
First, if the sort of God described in the Christian Scriptures exists, there is no reason to reject the possibility of miracles as the explanation of well-attested events for which no plausible natural explanations exist.
Second, to say that we should deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the very case for which we have been looking.1
Third, the entire foundation on which this objection is based is fatally flawed. We learn about the nature of this world by our experience of reality. Our knowledge of the world around us is gained by gathering information. When we cast our net into the sea of experience, certain data turn up. If we cast our net into a small lake, we won't be sampling much of the ocean's richness. If we make a worldwide cast, we have a more accurate basis for what exists.
Here is the crunch. If we cast into our own little lakes, it is not surprising if we do not obtain an accurate sampling of experience. However, a worldwide cast will reveal many reports of unusual occurrences that might be investigated and determined to be miracles. Surely most of the supernatural claims would be found to be untrustworthy. But before making the absolute observation that no miracles have ever happened, someone would have to investigate each report.
It only takes a single justified example to show that there is more to reality than a physical world. We must examine an impossibly large mountain of data to justify the naturalistic conclusion assumed in this objection. When data relating to the supernatural are examined, unwanted evidence is cast aside. This point does not claim that we actually have such evidence. Rather it is simply a straightforward challenge to naturalistic methods.
Evidence exists that there have been (and perhaps still are) supernatural phenomena. Although not as well-attested as Jesus' resurrection, to the extend that they can be confirmed, they should significantly change our ideas concerning the natural world. Consequently, not only would the backdrop for the entire naturalistic objection disappear, but also it would actually turn the subject in the opposite direction. If other miracles do occur, then the Resurrection is far more plausible."2
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:
1. Their case for the resurrection is included in the aforementioned book. Dr. Habermas summarizes their case here.
2. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, p. 143-146.
Related Posts
Common Objection #32- "The hypothesis 'God rose Jesus from the dead' is miraculous. Therefore, it is the least probable."
Common Objection #5- "Belief in God is Unreasonable or Delusional."
On Miracles and Historiography: Can The Supernatural Ever Be The Best Explanation? by Jonathan McLatchie
Saturday, August 01, 2020
Worldview and Apologetics in the News
Oxford Mathematician John Lennox Reviews AI Predictions Through the Ages
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Our last edition is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)