>
Blog
Stephen Law’s argument concerning Evil God was very interesting. Within the Internet discussion that followed some suggested this argument lends itself to a parallel moral argument. It goes like this:
1. If Evil God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, Evil God exists.
The debate between William Lane Craig and Stephen Law has sent what amounts to shockwaves through the Christian community. Law’s “Evil God” argument is certainly interesting. These are some thoughts and criticisms about Stephen Law’s Evil God argument.
1. If gratuitous good exists, then Evil God does not exist.
2. Gratuitous good exists.
3. Therefore, Evil God does not exist.
Continue reading
The question seems intuitive. If humans were to live forever, wouldn’t they eventually become bored out of their minds? Let’s think about this for a second. Any activity, no matter how fun or engaging, ultimately comes to a point where it gets boring. That’s part of what it is to be human. Therefore, immortality is boring and pointless as any immortal life would eventually exhaust all possible sources of pleasure, value, and meaning, right? That depends on what you mean by “immortal life.”
People often have a presumption of naturalism when it comes to debates over God and Christianity. That is to say, in a discussion over whether or not God exists, it is often assumed naturalism is true unless or until God is shown to exist. This assumption is faulty, and this article will show why.
First, one must understand exactly why the presumption of naturalism is held (from a naturalist’s perspective). The idea is that naturalism just describes the physical world and how it works. In that case, supernaturalism is just naturalism plus God. In this way, supernaturalism (and its positing of God) is shown to be gratuitous (or unnecessary).
Equating belief in God with belief in Santa seems to be popular among many atheists who have grown up in religious families but later abandoned their “childish” belief in God in the same way they gave up their belief in Santa Claus. It’s so obvious that God is something you only believe in as a child but then later give up when you mature and become a rational, reasoning individual right? I mean, come on…you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God who created the universe and interacts with human beings? That’s worse than Santa Claus! For those who are sarcastically challenged, that last bit might have had a tinge of sarcasm. On a serious note, are they the same? Are we justified in giving up belief in God the same way we give up belief in Santa Claus?
We resent laws and restrictions. They get in our way. Consequently, many understandably resented the orders to evacuate their homes prior to Sandy’s uninvited visit, and stayed put. However, many had to pay a price for their choice.
Many also resent the teachings of Scripture as an unwanted intrusion. We cringe with contempt when we hear about God’s judgment for sin. For instance, we have found that lying is a useful tool to achieve our ends, but it’s also something of which God disapproves: Continue reading
First, Penn claims atheism is “not believing in God.” Aside from the fact this is the non-traditional definition, it also ignores the fact that theism is the proposition “God exists,” while atheism is negating that proposition. The position he describes more closely resembles that of classic agnosticism. Further, he fails to distinguish atheism from agnosticism on this view (what makes one different from the other on this view?).
Continue reading
Recently, it was brought to my attention that a YouTube video claims to have debunked William Lane Craig’s first premise in his moral argument. For a refresher, that premise claims “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.” The objector claims that if even one of the Euthyphro dilemma’s horns are even possible, then the first premise is false. This is (likely) due to an understanding of objective moral values (and/or God) as necessary. Since God is posited as the objective grounds for objective morality, if there is a possible world in which objective moral values exist outside of God, then God is not the grounds of that morality. Moreover, if there is a possible world in which God decrees objective morality, then the premise is false.
Some psychotherapists would have us learn to forgive ourselves. However, shouldn’t we instead seek forgiveness from the offended party? If you just robbed the local convenience store and beat up the clerk, self-forgiveness represents a refusal to acknowledge culpability, a denial of the obvious. Instead, you first have to be reconciled to the victim, as Jesus taught:
• “If you are offering your gift at the altar [or are performing any spiritual exercise] and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24) Continue reading
New Atheist and physicist, Victor Stenger, laments that most atheists don’t challenge and ridicule religious belief. Therefore, he lays out several put-up-or-shut-up challenges for theists. (However, he seems to have Christians in mind.):
• Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically [scientifically]. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means. If a properly conducted experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter. (NewScientist.com) Continue reading