Possible Answers to Jesus’ Failed Prophecies
You could classify objections to the claims of scriptures in three categories:
- External – historical or scientific inaccuracies
- Internal – too many textual variants or obvious interpolations and other later edits
- Internal – logical inconsistencies
In this last category falls the serious objection known as “Jesus’ failed prophecies,” which is discussed in one of the most challenging books on leaving faith that I have read, former Wycliffe missionary Kenneth Daniels’ Why I Believed.
Why the Evil God Challenge Fails
In The Evil God Challenge – Flipping Arguments, I attempted to outline Stephen Law’s argument against the existence of a good God. In this post, I present the arguments that undermine Law’s argument. Enjoy.
1. Theodicies are NOT arguments FOR a good God.
In the EGC, Law is not debating any of the traditional philosophic arguments FOR the existence of God (though he does argue against the Moral Argument elsewhere).
Instead, he takes the theodicies created to defend Christianity against the Problem of Evil and flips them to show that in many instances, they show an equal possibility of an evil God. The problem here is that these arguments are not meant to show that a good God’s existence is probable, only that it is logically possible that an all good God and evil could logically exist.
The Evil God Challenge – Flipping Arguments
In a recent, highly publicized series of debates in the U.K. between William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, and a series of atheists, resulted in some very interesting outcomes.
One new emphasis that came from the seemingly exhausted subject of God’s existence was what atheist and philosophy professor Stephen Law calls “the evil god challenge.” He discusses it at length in this episode of the Unbelievable Podcast (worth listening to).
As I understand it, the Evil God Challenge is not a challenge to the existence of God, per se, but to the arguments supporting a GOOD God. That is, Stephen feels that, for this argument, you don’t have to defeat the arguments for theism, but only for the Christian version of a Good God.
Specifically, Stephen argues that if the arguments for an omnipotent evil god are as a likely as those for a good god, then both arguments can be dismissed as spurious, since accepting one or the other would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction – or at least, you would have no real reason to say that a good God is more likely.
Read more
Why is it so important to take the Bible as literal, historical fact and not as allegory and metaphor?
In my post Is Genesis Metaphorical or Historical?, commenter Floss asked the question that forms the title of this post. Here’s my short answer.
1. It is important to interpret literature according to its literary type
If I read, for instance, a parable or metaphor as historical fact, I will totally miss the point. When, for example, Jesus says “A sower went out into the field to sow,” he’s not talking about an actual person – he wants the listener to understand the metaphor, not try to figure out the importance of some specific person.
Conversely, if I read historical narrative only as metaphor (e.g. George Washington or Jesus didn’t really exist, but their lives are merely to be understood as positive metaphors), I again am missing something true and important, namely that these people were real and impacted human history.
Guide: Best Atheist / Secularist / Anti-theist Podcasts?
I love the whole debate scene, and I have listened to a lot of Christian and non-Christian news podcasts, and narrowed down my favorites to Guide: Favorite Podcasts for Christians. Now, I want to venture out into the land of my ideological opponents. Here’s my list so far. Most of these I got from the list at Podcast Alley.
Last Update: 06.07.12
Is Genesis Metaphorical or Historical?
One of the more informative podcasts I listen to regularly is Issues Etc. Recently, they interviewed Joel Heck, who’s written a very inexpensive book entitled In the Beginning, God: Creation from God’s Perspective, which examines the questions surrounding the historicity and interpretation of Genesis.
I was impressed with his answers, and learned some new reasons why Genesis should be interpreted as history, not metaphor, and that Chapter 2 should be seen, not as a recapitulation, but as a detailed examination of the 6th day (the creation of man). His explanation of why the verbs in Chapter 2 should be interpreted as past tense (God “had planted”, not God “planted”) easily clears up the ‘problems’ with chronologies. Download the mp3 here.
Podcast: Play in new window
What good does eternal punishment accomplish?
In my last post, I discussed the various defenses of the eternality of hell – this time, I would like to compare the role of punishment in the temporal world (our current temporal time frame) and in eternity (eternal time frame).
1. What does EARTHLY punishment accomplish?
a. Protecting the Innocent
If we either incarcerate or execute criminals, we remove them from being a threat to the general population.
Read more
Pascal’s Wager – Part II: debunking the ‘all religions are equally improbable’ ruse
In Part I, I generalized that, since the impact of being wrong about God is high, it doesn’t matter how unlikely it is, it is still a high risk.
But that oversimplification is not entirely true. If it was, that would mean that all unconfirmable claims about the life to come, by any and all religions, would be equally binding, or just as important or risky.
If the Biblical God makes demands with consequences we can not confirm with empiricism, are they any different from the claims of Buddhism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What we really need is a better measure of how likely such claims are to be true. Can that be done without direct empirical evidence? YES. We must not ignore historical, ethical, and logical support for or against faith claims, and in so doing, discriminate between pretenders and contenders.
Below, I address this objection, which can be stated The lack of empirical support for faith means ALL FAITHS ARE EQUALLY IMPROBABLE and on par with fairy tales.
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 3
Conference Day 2 Session 3
Jay Richards – did physics kill God? (Stephen Hawking)
INTRO
1. For the materialist, the fundamental and foundational source is the universe… Carl Sagan said ‘the universe is all there is, was, or will be.’
>> But the cosmos is NOT eternal
A. Three strikes against materialism
1. A cosmic beginning
a. Edwin Hubble in the 1920s
. What were nebula?
. Discovered red shifts when measuring distant galaxies
. Discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding
b. Einsteins relativity implied expanding universe
. Visited Hubble, admitted that looking for a constant to make the universe eternal was a waste of time
c. Robert Dicke… An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding origin of matter…matter would be a fundamental given, we would not have to look for a prior source
2. A fine tuned universe
a. MJ Rees … The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values…
b. Paul Davies … The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions
c. Universe creating machine (see the privileged planet)
3. Local fine tuning … Astrobiology (habitable planets)
a. Carbon and water only create life (no silicon based life forms)
. Carbon alone forms large metastable molecules that bond to so many other elements
. Water is liquid over the range of temperatures where carbon is most reactive, forming the perfect solution for reactions
b. What makes a habitable planet?
. Carbon and water
. Solar habitable zone (not too hot or cols)
. Galactic habitable zone
. Cosmic habitable era
. Etc
Q1. Given the Size of the universe, why do we think our unlikely universe is not chance, but design?
>> Habitability correlates with measurability
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 Session 3
Wm Craig – 7 evidences for God
1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)
A. Contingency argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent
a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.
2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?
3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time
a. External to space and time
b. Transcendent and immaterial
c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity
2. The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing
3. Fine tuning (teleologic argument)
A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance
C. Possible explanations for fine tuning
1. Physical necessity
. The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
. M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes
2. Chance
. Probability is statistically 0
. Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
. An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.
3. Design
4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)
1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
. If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
2. objective moral values do exist
. Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
3. Therefore god exists
5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)
A. Actual v possible worlds
. If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
> one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
> other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
. Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
. Therefore, god exists in the actual world
6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)
7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)
A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted
B.
C.
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Keynote
Wm Craig – 7 evidences for God
1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)
A. Contingency argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent
a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.
2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?
3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time
a. External to space and time
b. Transcendent and immaterial
c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity
2. The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing
3. Fine tuning (teleologic argument)
A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance
C. Possible explanations for fine tuning
1. Physical necessity
. The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
. M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes
2. Chance
. Probability is statistically 0
. Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
. An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.
3. Design
4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)
1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
. If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
2. objective moral values do exist
. Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
3. Therefore god exists
5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)
A. Actual v possible worlds
. If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
> one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
> other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
. Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
. Therefore, god exists in the actual world
6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)
7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)
A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted
B.
C.
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 4
Frank Beckwith – no god, no good
A. Natural rights
1. Our rights wrt other citizens
2. Natural law tells us what things have value outside of relationships to others
>> atheist got no songs by steve Martin
>> a case for the crusades by stark
>> Kurt wise
>> legalism: there ought to be a law against it
B. Is natural moral law grounded in god?
1. The moral law is not physical
. Discovered from non inferential means of understanding … Not empiricism but introspection. They are immaterial
2. Moral rules are a form of communication
3. Moral rules have an incumbency
. Oughtness, the action of conscience
4. Guilt
C. Three possible grounds of morality
1. Morality is an illusion
2. Moral rules are the result of chance
. They are givens, brute facts
. Oughtness implies communication between minds, not accidental recommendations
. Moral rules evolve to support fitness (begs the question)
>> the moral animal by wright
. But why care for the weak? what if that has local negative impact on your fitness?
. How do we know that cruelty, social darwinism is bad for fitness?
. If the action benefits fitness, but the motive is bad, is it ok?
. If the action does not benefit, but the motive is good, is it bad?
. Should we be good tomorrow? How do I know what actions are good?
. What if I have conflicting sentiments? Is it moral to prioritize them?
. What if my sentiments towards evil are positive? Are my actions wrong?
Atheist misconceptions about god and morality
. You can recognize objective morals wo faith
. You can act and be moral without faith
. But you can not logically ground assertions that objective good exists without god
. Moral good must include external attestation, obligation/duty, and punishment
. External means a necessary being, not a contingent one
Richard Taylor… A duty is something owed. Moral obligation requires accountability to another.r
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 2
Conference Day 2 / Session 2
JP Morland – The existence of the soul
A. Xianity is a spiritual religion
1. It claims a religious realm, including god, angels, souls both animal and human
2.
B. Preliminary Notions
1. The law of identity…if a is identical to b, there are no differences
2. Cause and effect ….A causes b does not mean a=b
3. Functional dependence does not mean a=b
Q1 what is the self, not how does it function
Define consciousness (ostensively) : you must give examples to define, using first person
1. Think of regaining consciousness after anesthesia or sleep
C. Consciousness … The 5 states of
1. Sensations
a. External experiences of the senses
b. Internal experiences like emotions
c. Can not be true or false
2. Thought
a. Content that can be expressed in a declarative sentence or propositions
b. Can be true or false
c. Exist only while I think them
3. Belief
a. Mental content you take to be true with > 50% certainty
b. Can be true or false
c. Exist even while not thought of
4. Desire
a. A felt inclination towards or away from something
5. Volition…an exercise of will
a. An endeavoring … Choosing an action
D. What bears consciousness?
1. Why these states are not merely physical
a. Things true of mental states that are not true of physical states
. Physical states can not be true or false
. Some mental states are normative
. Brain states have size and location, mental states do not
. Mental states can be pleasurable, sensations can be pleasurable, but physical states don’t have this type of property
b. The knowledge argument
. Facts about consciousness are not the same as facts about material states
. Imagine we could track the cause and effect of every physical particle…the experience and synthesis of facts, meta data, is above the physical facts
E.g. A mechanical bat v a real bat. What it feels like to be a bat is about consciousness, not physics.
c. Intentionality
. The ofness or aboutness of consciousness … Have objects of focus
. Brain states don’t have objects, they are v. Are about
2. Why you are a soul
Soul as per Aristotle : an immaterial object that contains consciousness and animates the body
a. You are a simple, indivisible thing, but your body is not. You can’t have 2/3 of a person. See dandy walker syndrome
b. You are possibly disembodiable
. Even if no life after death, what of nde experiences?
c. Free will … Libertarian
. Determinism is false because we are self aware and responsible for action
. You are the driver of the car, not the car (ucla brain chem guy)
Reasonable Faith Conference, Day 2 / Session 1
Conference Day 2 / Session 1
Craig Haizen – Christianity and world religions
A. Raising an arm as a miracle
1. My soul initiated the action
B. Christianity is different
1. Its claims are testable
2. 1 Cor 15…if Christ is not raised, we are fools
3. Xianity is grounded in historical claims
a. Hinduism separates religious claims from reality, expects no connection
b. Buddhism is mostly experience oriented, makes few metaphysical claims
c. Islam claims no miracles
C. How xianity is different
1. Xianity is testable
2. Salvation is free
3. World view fits reality
a. Pain/evil/suffering…what do other views say?
. Eastern religions say it’s an illusion
. All world views have problems answering this, but we offer hope
4. You get to live a …….. Life Is. 1:18, 42:21, Jn. 1:1
5. Xianity has Jesus at the center
a. is a figure in most religions, but not central…why do they all include him?
D. Closing
1. The blind man and the elephant…the original
2. The Raja appears and tells the blind men what they were touching…they did not know and had to be told or they would keep brawling
Reasonable Faith Conference, Day 1 Session 2
Conference day 1 session 2
Greg Koukl
A. Disproving Christianity
1. In the Beginning
2. If Jesus did not rise
3. If there is no soul/spirit
B. Bad arguments against religion
1. There is no truth (is that true? Self refuting)
a. Needs illustration, ppl just don’t see it, it’s so simple
. If no view is true, how or why argue?
. If no truth, then your claim is meaningless
2. Confusing faith w wishing…or hope in the face of no or contrary evidence
a. Faith does not fill the space where ignorance exists, into which knowledge pushes.
b. Faith = active trust (don’t say faith, people misunderstand it)
c. Believing IN, not THAT
d. An act of trust grounded in knowledge, not divorced from or antithetical to knowledge
————-
Q1 There is no objective truth in spiritual matters that can be proven or disproven?
————-
C. See, know, believe
1. Exodus
2. Elijah
3. Mark 2 … So that you may KNOW
4. Romans 1…belief starting from the EVIDENCE of creation
——————–
3. The problem of evil
a. If real evil exists, then objective morals exist
b. If moral relativism is true, then there can not be a ‘problem of evil’
c. how do you define ‘evil’?
Q2. Why is natural evil bad? Loss of life? Assumed. Social contract?
Q3 what are the limits of science or reason? The physical? The moral? Morals/values can be defined by logic w assumptions about what is valuable, but not empiricism?
4. Science can’t confirm gods existence
a. Material methods can not measure the immaterial
b. We can infer, like in forensic science or history
Q4. What about indirect measurement? Prayer? Happiness? Health?
Q5. Why is it a good idea to assume materialism in science? How does that limit us? What is the role of intuition in science? What are the risks of allowing in supernaturalism in science? How do we manage those risks? Can we safely assume design, or does that make us miss processes? Or does this only apply to origins in a deist sense?
Reasonable Faith Conference Notes, Day 1 Session 1
Conference day 1 Intro
Jp Moreland
A. History of intellectualism in xianity
1. now seen as bigoted and dangerous…we have a PR problem
B. Where is this view coming from?
1. Three world views
a. Xian theism
b. Scientific naturalism
1. Science is our best epistemic tool
2. Physical world is all there is
c. Postmodern Relativism
C. Faith, knowledge, and certainty
1. Faith is trust based on what we already know to be true.
2. You can know something without having empirical certainty.
Francis Beckwith
A. No God, No Good
1. How do you answer the question ‘is there a moral law?’
2. How do we help people realize what they already intuitively know?
3. Believing in oughts indicates you believe in objective truth
Greg Koukl
A. Simple cosmological argument
1. A big bang requires a big banger
2. Worse than magic…. Big bang lacks magician. What is more reasonable? God or something from nothing?
3. How is faith illogical?
Jay Richards
A. Different questions require different types of evidence
1. Most of our answers come from a few accomplished intellectuals
2. The more accomplished you are, the crazier your claims can be, unchallenged.
B. Hawking’s errors
1. Category error: gravity is one of the things that needs to be explained, not a cause
2. He uses ‘nothing’ to refer to a ‘quantum vacuum’
Craig Hazen
A. What are we afraid of?
1. Most people ask the same simple questions which have answers
2. Most people are not angry atheists, but ARE hurt by anti-intellectual religionists and anti theist misinformation
Do atheism or religion necessarily lead to violence?
Often, people bring up the argument that atheism or religion lead necessarily to evil. Here, I assert that both history and logic support the arguments that atheism and certain kinds of religion (Divine Command religion, specifically), combined with man’s predilection for abusing power, DO lead to violence, both logically and evidentially.
However, Christianity, in a form that does not involve a commitment to Divine Command theory (such as St. Thomas Aquinas‘ view), does NOT lead necesarrily to evil, and perhaps necessarily to GOOD.
Further, this contention is supported by both logic and historical evidence, with exceptions, of course (we argue from the norm, not the exception). Syllogisms examined below.
Read more
Why Atheists are inevitably autocrats
American Vision, one of my favorite home-schooling, Christian world view sites, has a good summary of why institutional atheism leads to a type of theocratic totalitarianism. Of course, this sort of statement will automatically cause the logic circuits in the atheists brain to fry, and they will probably immediately and uncontrollably start ranting about how “atheism can’t be theo-anything because there is no God in atheism,” but in my summary below, whenever the author I am summarizing writes ‘theocrat’ (he’s being purposely provocative), just substitute ‘autocrat.’
The New Atheism
One of my top three favorite magazines, Wired, has a really good piece on The New Atheism this month. It covers the mouthpieces at the head of this movement (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett), as well as articles on other notable atheists including Steve Olson, Penn and Teller, and Warren Allen Smith.
Debate: Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?
In response to the recent spate of in-depth pro-gay theology comments, I have been reading and researching, and came across this debate between Christian exegete James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and liberal activist Barry Lynn, an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ. Their debate covers many of the scriptures and contextual questions discussed, and I thought it pertinent. However, it does not address all of the arguments at hand, but merely a good number of them. I have excerpted the arguments against homosexuality by James White below. White has also penned a book entitled The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality.
Read more
