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?