>
Blog
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
One of the most frequently cited and debated arguments for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I have not written on the argument before because there is simply so much good material on it out there that I don’t think I can add anything new. I have, however, run into numerous people with questions on the argument recently, and felt the need to finally get around to a post on the Kalam. Those interested in the argument are highly encouraged to read the links included at the end.
Reprinted with the gracious permission of William Lane Craig.
Examines the historical grounds for belief in Jesus’ resurrection, focusing on the empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
I spoke recently at a major Canadian university on the existence of God. After my talk, one slightly irate co-ed wrote on her comment card, “I was with you until you got to the stuff about Jesus. God is not the Christian God!”
This attitude is all too typical today. Most people are happy to agree that God exists; but in our pluralistic society it has become politically incorrect to claim that God has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus. What justification can Christians offer, in contrast to Hindus, Jews, and Muslims, for thinking that the Christian God is real? Continue reading
Reprinted with the gracious permission of William Lane Craig.
In his blog, atheist philosopher Stephen Law formulated the following skeptical argument against Jesus’ existence:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of extraordinary evidence there’s excellent reason to be skeptical about the claims.
2. There is not extraordinary evidence for any of the divine/miraculous stuff in the NT documents.
3. Therefore (from 1 and 2), there’s excellent reason to be skeptical about those extraordinary claims.
4. Where testimony/documents combine both mundane and extraordinary claims, and there’s excellent reason to be skeptical about the extraordinary claims, then there’s pretty good reason to be skeptical even about the mundane claims, at least until we possess some pretty good independent evidence of their truth.
5. The NT docs combine extraordinary and mundane claims about Jesus.
6. There’s no pretty good independent evidence for even the mundane claims about Jesus (such as that he existed).
7. Therefore (from 3, 4, 5, and 6), there’s pretty good reason to be skeptical about whether Jesus existed.
I’d like to know your opinion about this argument. I think a number of premises are problematic, both philosophically and historically. For example, premise 6 seems to be false on pure historical grounds (independent sources, even outside the NT, attest Jesus’ crucifixion, which implies his existence. And certainly the crucifixion is a pretty “mundane” claim, in Jesus’ time).
Best regards,
Mary
Venezuela
Reprinted with the gracious permission of William Lane Craig.
Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?
Copyright © 2010 by Christ on Campus Initiative (CCI)
It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.
Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled, Continue reading
Many years ago, while I was in the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University, my wife and I attended a family gathering. A relative heard I was in grad school and asked me, “What are you getting your degree in?”
I said, “Um… Apologetics.”
She replied with a chuckle, “I’m SO sorry!”
“It’s not really that bad,” I said, looking kind of confused.
Today, I still get odd responses at family gatherings when this comes up. But even Christians who come to my live apologetics workshops at area churches ask me, “Why does it sound like apologizing?” I get it. Our discipline has a weird name.
In this post, I’ll explain what Christian apologetics is, two general kinds of apologetics and what I like to call “the three essential elements of everyday apologetics.” So what is Christian apologetics?
Continue reading