• Save
Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

on

  • 1,092 views

Contrary to common opinion, believing in the existence of God is not something which must be left up the "blind faith" or personal subjectivity of the individual. ...

Contrary to common opinion, believing in the existence of God is not something which must be left up the "blind faith" or personal subjectivity of the individual.

There are very strong intellectual and logical reasons to believe that God's existence is more plausible than not.

Many features of our reality such as objective morality, biological information, the beginning of the universe, and even human consciousness, that point powerfully and persuasively to God's existence.

For more information and resources like this, go to www.intelligentfaith315.com or to www.youtube.com/user/intelligentfaith315

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,092
Views on SlideShare
432
Embed Views
660

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 660

http://www.intelligentfaith315.com 503
http://intelligentfaith315.com 113
http://6198345805397954231_3b039ed5518ace9196928d800c807c0ec8dce045.blogspot.com 40
http://intelligent-faith-92vs.squarespace.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • [As an atheist} my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Straight Line = Standard C.S. Lewis - First Principle of Justice
  • ;

Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com) Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com) Presentation Transcript

  • The New AtheismThe New Atheism
  • Atheist’s Books on theAtheist’s Books on theRise!Rise!Richard Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.The God Delusion.Victor Stenger,Victor Stenger, God:God: The Failed Hypothesis.The Failed Hypothesis.Michael Onfray,Michael Onfray, Atheist Manifesto.Atheist Manifesto.Christopher Hitchens,Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great.God is not Great.J. L. Schellenberg,J. L. Schellenberg, The Wisdom of Doubt.The Wisdom of Doubt.Matthew Chapman,Matthew Chapman, 40 Days and 40 Nights.40 Days and 40 Nights.Tim Callahan,Tim Callahan, The Secret Origins of theThe Secret Origins of theBible.Bible.John Loftus,John Loftus, Why I Rejected Christianity.Why I Rejected Christianity.Michael ShermerMichael Shermer ,, founder of the Skepticfounder of the SkepticSociety and editor ofSociety and editor of SkepticSkeptic magazine.magazine.
  • Atheistic StatisticsAtheistic StatisticsA. Many Buddhists are Atheists.A. Many Buddhists are Atheists.B. Most Secular Humanists areB. Most Secular Humanists areAtheists.Atheists.C. All Marxists are Atheists.C. All Marxists are Atheists.D. 5% of Americans are atheists.D. 5% of Americans are atheists.E. 30% of English are atheists.E. 30% of English are atheists.F. 60% of Swedes are atheists.F. 60% of Swedes are atheists.G. 80% of Russians are atheists.G. 80% of Russians are atheists.
  • [A Church for Atheists!]
  • 3. It is True That a3. It is True That aTheistic God ExistsTheistic God ExistsCopyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008
  • Twelve Points that Show Christianity is TrueTwelve Points that Show Christianity is True1.1. Truth about reality is knowable.Truth about reality is knowable.2. The opposite of true is false.2. The opposite of true is false.3. It is true that a theistic God exists.3. It is true that a theistic God exists.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message fromGod.God.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmedby:by:a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;b. His sinless and miraculous life;b. His sinless and miraculous life;c. His prediction and resurrection.c. His prediction and resurrection.9. Therefore, Jesus is God.9. Therefore, Jesus is God.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
  • Outline:Outline:I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceI. The Importance of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceIV. The Rejection of God’s ExistenceIV. The Rejection of God’s Existence
  • Truth and ConsequencesTruth and ConsequencesIf God exists, then—If God exists, then—Miracles are possibleMiracles are possibleTruth is absoluteTruth is absoluteMorality is absoluteMorality is absoluteThe Bible is credibleThe Bible is credibleLife has an ultimate purposeLife has an ultimate purpose
  • Truth and ConsequencesTruth and ConsequencesIf God exists, then—If God exists, then—Miracles are possibleMiracles are possibleTruth is absoluteTruth is absoluteMorality is absoluteMorality is absoluteThe Bible is credibleThe Bible is credibleLife has an ultimate purposeLife has an ultimate purposeIf God does not exist, then—If God does not exist, then—Miracles are not possibleMiracles are not possibleTruth is not absoluteTruth is not absoluteMorals are not absolutesMorals are not absolutesThe Bible is not credibleThe Bible is not credibleLife has no ultimate purposeLife has no ultimate purpose
  • A Worldview Without GodA Worldview Without GodMan is the product ofcauses which had no previsionof the end they were achieving….His origin, his growth, his hopesand fears, his loves and hisbeliefs, are but the outcome ofaccidental collocations ofatoms…. All the noondaybrightness of human genius, are destined toextinction in the vast death of the solarsystem, and…the whole temple of Man’sachievement must inevitably be buriedbeneath the debris of a universe in ruins….Only within the scaffolding of these truths,only on the firm foundation of unyieldingdespair, can the soul’s habitation henceforthbe safely built” (Bertrand Russell, “A Free
  • II. The Definition of God’sII. The Definition of God’sExistenceExistenceA. Super PowerfulA. Super PowerfulB. Super IntelligentB. Super IntelligentC. Morally PerfectC. Morally PerfectD. Creator of the WorldD. Creator of the WorldE. Supernatural Being WhoE. Supernatural Being Whocancan intervene in the worldintervene in the worldConclusion:Conclusion: A Theistic GodA Theistic God
  • The Seven Views of GodThe Seven Views of GodTheism:Theism: An infinite personal Creator existsAn infinite personal Creator existsbeyond the world who canbeyond the world who canintervene in it.intervene in it.Deism:Deism: Theism minus miracles.Theism minus miracles.Finite Godism:Finite Godism: A God exists who is limitedA God exists who is limitedin power and/or perfection.in power and/or perfection.Atheism:Atheism: No God at all exists anywhere.No God at all exists anywhere.Pantheism:Pantheism: God is the universe (the All).God is the universe (the All).Panentheism:Panentheism: God has two poles, aGod has two poles, apotential pole beyond the world and anpotential pole beyond the world and anactual finite pole which is the world.actual finite pole which is the world.Polytheism:Polytheism: Many limited gods exist in theMany limited gods exist in the
  • Outline:Outline:I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceI. The Importance of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for a Theistic God’sIII. The Evidence for a Theistic God’sExistenceExistence
  • A. CosmologicalA. CosmologicalArgumentArgument1. Everything that begins had a1. Everything that begins had acause.cause.2. The universe had a beginning.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a3. Therefore, the universe had aCause.Cause.
  • 2. The Universe had a2. The Universe had abeginningbeginningA. Scientific evidenceA. Scientific evidence– SSecond Law of Thermodynamicsecond Law of Thermodynamics– UUniverse is Expandingniverse is Expanding– RRadiation Echoadiation Echo– GGeneral Relativityeneral Relativity– EEnergy Mass at Edge of Universenergy Mass at Edge of Universe
  • SSecond Law of Thermodynamicsecond Law of Thermodynamics““Once hydrogen has beenOnce hydrogen has beenburned within that star andburned within that star andconverted to heavier elements,converted to heavier elements,it can never be restored to itsit can never be restored to itsoriginal state. Minute by minuteoriginal state. Minute by minuteand year by year, as hydrogenand year by year, as hydrogenis used up in stars, the supply ofis used up in stars, the supply ofthis element in the universethis element in the universegrows smaller”grows smaller” (Jastrow,(Jastrow, GodGodand the Astronomersand the Astronomers,, 15-1615-16).).
  • UNUSABLEENERGY
  • Agnostic AstronomerAgnostic Astronomer RobertRobertJastrow:Jastrow:““Now we see how theNow we see how theastronomical evidence leads toastronomical evidence leads toa biblical view of the origina biblical view of the originof the world. The detailsof the world. The detailsdiffer, but the essentialdiffer, but the essentialelements in the astronomicalelements in the astronomicaland biblical accounts ofand biblical accounts ofgenesis are the same: thegenesis are the same: thechain of events leading to manchain of events leading to mancommence suddenly and sharplycommence suddenly and sharply
  • Science Ends with aScience Ends with aBeginningBeginning"The scientists pursuit"The scientists pursuitof the past ends in theof the past ends in themoment of creation. This ismoment of creation. This isan exceedingly strangean exceedingly strangedevelopment, unexpected bydevelopment, unexpected byall but theologians. Theyall but theologians. Theyhave always accepted thehave always accepted theword of the Bible: `In theword of the Bible: `In thebeginning God created thebeginning God created theheavens and the earth"heavens and the earth"(Jastrow, God and the(Jastrow, God and the
  • A SupernaturalA SupernaturalCreatorCreator"That there are"That there arewhat I or anyonewhat I or anyonewould callwould callsupernaturalsupernaturalforces at work isforces at work isnow, I think, anow, I think, ascientificallyscientificallyproven fact"proven fact"(Christianity(ChristianityToday,8-6-83, p.Today,8-6-83, p.
  • AstronomerAstronomer Victor J.Victor J.StengerStenger"The universe exploded"The universe explodedout of nothingness"out of nothingness"((Free InquiryFree Inquiry,, Winter,Winter,1992-93, 13).1992-93, 13).Note:Note: “Nothing comes“Nothing comesfrom nothing; nothingfrom nothing; nothingever could!”ever could!”
  • An Atheist’sAn Atheist’sResponseResponse"A proponent of [the big"A proponent of [the bigbang] theory, at leastbang] theory, at leastif he is an atheist,if he is an atheist,must believe that themust believe that thematter ofmatter of the universethe universecame from nothing and bycame from nothing and bynothingnothing"" (Anthony Kenny,(Anthony Kenny, FiveFiveWaysWays, 66)., 66).
  • A. CosmologicalA. CosmologicalArgumentArgument1. Everything that begins had a1. Everything that begins had acause.cause.2. The universe had a beginning.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a3. Therefore, the universe had aCause.Cause.
  • B. Teleological ArgumentB. Teleological Argument1. From Astronomy (Anthropic1. From Astronomy (AnthropicPrinciple)Principle)– a. Anticipatory design shows ana. Anticipatory design shows anintelligentintelligent Designer.Designer.– b. Human life shows anticipatory design.b. Human life shows anticipatory design.– c. Hence, human life shows anc. Hence, human life shows anintelligentintelligent Designer.Designer.
  • All Complex Design has aAll Complex Design has aDesignerDesigner
  • ““It is not to be conceived thatIt is not to be conceived thatmere mechanical causes could givemere mechanical causes could givebirth to so many regular motions,birth to so many regular motions,since the comets range over allsince the comets range over allparts of the heavens in veryparts of the heavens in veryeccentric orbits.... This mosteccentric orbits.... This mostbeautiful system of the sun,beautiful system of the sun,planets, and comets, could onlyplanets, and comets, could onlyproceed from the counsel andproceed from the counsel anddominion of an intelligent anddominion of an intelligent andpowerful Being"powerful Being" ("Scholium," 369).("Scholium," 369).Sir Isaac Newton (1642 1727):‑
  • The Anthropic PrincipleThe Anthropic Principle"The anthropic principle is the"The anthropic principle is themost interesting developmentmost interesting developmentnext to the proof of the creation,next to the proof of the creation,and it is even more interestingand it is even more interestingbecause it seems to say thatbecause it seems to say thatscience itself has proven, as ascience itself has proven, as ahard fact, that this universe washard fact, that this universe wasmade, was designed, for man tomade, was designed, for man tolive in. It is a very theistic result"live in. It is a very theistic result"((JastrowJastrow, Christianity Today [1982],, Christianity Today [1982],17).17).
  • Universe was Fine-Tuned for HumanUniverse was Fine-Tuned for HumanLifeLife1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat forlife.life.4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount forlife.life.6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.10. The cosmological constant (energy density of10. The cosmological constant (energy density ofspace)space)is minutely right for matter to exist.is minutely right for matter to exist.
  • Who Designed it ThatWho Designed it ThatWay?Way?
  • B. Teleological ArgumentB. Teleological Argument2. From Astronomy (Anthropic2. From Astronomy (AnthropicPrinciple)Principle)– a. Anticipatory design shows ana. Anticipatory design shows anintelligent Designer.intelligent Designer.– b. Human life shows anticipatoryb. Human life shows anticipatorydesign.design.– c. Hence, human life shows anc. Hence, human life shows anintelligent Designer.intelligent Designer.
  • B. Teleological ArgumentB. Teleological Argument2. From Astronomy (Anthropic2. From Astronomy (AnthropicPrinciple)Principle)– a. Anticipatory design shows an intelligenta. Anticipatory design shows an intelligentDesigner.Designer.– b. Human life shows anticipatory design.b. Human life shows anticipatory design.– c. Hence, human life shows an intelligentc. Hence, human life shows an intelligentDesigner.Designer.3. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)3. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)– a.a. Specified complexitySpecified complexity has an intelligenthas an intelligentdesigner.designer.– b. First life had specified complexity.b. First life had specified complexity.– c. Hence, first life had an intelligentc. Hence, first life had an intelligent
  • B. Teleological ArgumentB. Teleological Argument3. From Micro Biology (Argument2)– a. Irreducible complexity has anintelligent designer.– b. First life had irreduciblecomplexity.– c. Hence, first life had an intelligentDesigner.
  • ShudderShudder
  • Irreducibly Complex:Irreducibly Complex:All Parts are Needed toAll Parts are Needed toWorkWork
  • Microbiologist MichaelMicrobiologist MichaelBehe:Behe:"No one at Harvard University,"No one at Harvard University,no one at the National Institutesno one at the National Institutesof Health, no member of theof Health, no member of theNational Academy of Sciences, noNational Academy of Sciences, noNobel prize winner--no one at allNobel prize winner--no one at allcan give a detailed account of howcan give a detailed account of howthe cilium, or vision, or bloodthe cilium, or vision, or bloodclotting, or any complexclotting, or any complexbiochemical process might havebiochemical process might havedeveloped in a Darwinian fashion."developed in a Darwinian fashion.""Other examples… abound, including"Other examples… abound, includingaspects of DNA reduplication,aspects of DNA reduplication,electron transport, telomereelectron transport, telomere
  • Intelligent Design fromIntelligent Design froman Intelligent Being! (Mom)an Intelligent Being! (Mom)TT KK EE OO UUHH GG RRBBMMTTTT EE EEAAAA AAGGOO MM__
  • GCCytosine Guanine3Who Designed the Genetic Code?Sugar &PhosphateMoleculesBase PairsTAAdenine ThymineATGCAGTACT1 24
  • One Ameba =One Ameba =1,000 sets of an1,000 sets of anEncyclopediaEncyclopedia
  • Twelve Points thatTwelve Points thatShow Christianity is TrueShow Christianity is TrueCopyright by Norman Geisler 2004Copyright by Norman Geisler 2004
  • Who Designed the Human Brain?20 million = 1000 volumes20 million = 1000 volumeson each seat!on each seat!
  • The Search For IntelligenceASingle Message
  • Human Brain = 20Human Brain = 20million volumes ofmillion volumes ofinformation !information !
  • IntelligentIntelligentDesignDesign::"The conclusion of"The conclusion ofintelligent design flowsintelligent design flowsnaturally from the datanaturally from the dataitself--not from sacred booksitself--not from sacred booksor sectarian beliefs.or sectarian beliefs.Inferring that biochemicalInferring that biochemicalsystems were designed by ansystems were designed by anintelligent agent is a humdrumintelligent agent is a humdrumprocess that requires no newprocess that requires no newprinciples of logic orprinciples of logic orscience…. Life on earth at itsscience…. Life on earth at itsmost fundamental level, in itsmost fundamental level, in its
  • Teleological ArgumentTeleological ArgumentA. From Astronomy (AnthropicA. From Astronomy (AnthropicPrinciple)Principle)– 1. Anticipatory design shows an intelligent1. Anticipatory design shows an intelligentDesigner.Designer.– 2. Human life shows anticipatory design.2. Human life shows anticipatory design.– 3. Hence, human life shows an intelligent3. Hence, human life shows an intelligentDesigner.Designer.B. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)B. From Micro Biology (Argument 1)– 1.1. Specified complexitySpecified complexity has an intelligenthas an intelligentdesigner.designer.– 2. First life had specified complexity.2. First life had specified complexity.– 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent3. Hence, first life had an intelligent
  • Teleological ArgumentTeleological ArgumentC. From Micro Biology (Argument2)– 1. Irreducible complexity has anintelligent designer.– 2. First life had irreduciblecomplexity.– 3. Hence, first life had an intelligentDesigner
  • C. Moral ArgumentC. Moral Argument1. Every law has a law giver.1. Every law has a law giver.– a. Every prescription has a prescriber.a. Every prescription has a prescriber.– b. Every legislation has a legislator.b. Every legislation has a legislator.2. There is an absolute moral law.2. There is an absolute moral law.3. There must be an Absolute Moral3. There must be an Absolute MoralLaw Giver.Law Giver.
  • C. Moral ArgumentC. Moral Argument1. Every law has a law giver.1. Every law has a law giver.a. Every prescription has a prescriber.a. Every prescription has a prescriber.b. Every legislation has a legislator.b. Every legislation has a legislator.2. There is an absolute moral law.2. There is an absolute moral law.3. There must be an Absolute Moral3. There must be an Absolute MoralLaw Giver.Law Giver.““2” is the crucial premise. There are2” is the crucial premise. There aremany arguments in support of it:many arguments in support of it:
  • [As an atheist] my argumentagainst God was that theuniverse seemed so crueland unjust. But how had Igot this idea of just andunjust? A man does not calla line crooked unless he hassome idea of a straight line.Straight Line = Absolute Standard1. We can’t know what is un-justunless we know what is Just.C.S. LewisMere Christianity, 45.
  • 2. Absolutes are2. Absolutes areundeniable.undeniable.I am absolutelyI am absolutelysure there aresure there areno absolutes!no absolutes!You shouldYou shouldnever saynever say‘never’!‘never’!
  • The Father of Situational EthicsThe Father of Situational EthicsHe declared thatHe declared thatwe should:we should:1. Always avoid1. Always avoidusing“always.”using“always.”2. Never use “never.”2. Never use “never.”3. Absolutely avoid3. Absolutely avoidabsolutes.absolutes.((Situation EthicsSituation Ethics, 43), 43)Joseph Fletcher
  • 3. Moral comparisons demand3. Moral comparisons demandan objective moral standard.an objective moral standard.=Mother Teresa is better than Hitler
  • 4. True progress (or regress)4. True progress (or regress)demands an absolutedemands an absolutestandardstandard..We can’t know the world is gettingbetter (or worse) unless we knowwhat is Best.
  • 5. Everything can’t be5. Everything can’t berelative?relative?It can’t beIt can’t berelative to therelative to therelative, etc!relative, etc!It must berelative to whatis NOTrelative!
  • The moment you say thatThe moment you say thatone set of moral ideas canone set of moral ideas canbe better than another, yoube better than another, youare, in fact, measuringare, in fact, measuringthem both by a standard,them both by a standard,saying that one of themsaying that one of themconforms to that standardconforms to that standardmore nearly than the other.more nearly than the other.But the standard thatBut the standard thatmeasures two things ismeasures two things issomething different fromsomething different fromeither.either.C.S. LewisMere Christianity, 25.6. Moral disputes call for an objectivestandard outside the dispute.
  • 7. We don’t invent the moral law7. We don’t invent the moral lawany more than we inventany more than we inventmathematical or physical laws.mathematical or physical laws.No one invented theNo one invented thelaws of math--laws of math--and Newton did notand Newton did notinvent gravity.invent gravity.Like moral laws,Like moral laws,they werethey werediscovered!discovered!
  • 8. Universal moral guilt shows8. Universal moral guilt showsthere is a universal moralthere is a universal morallaw.law.
  • Making Excuses for ourMaking Excuses for ourFaultsFaultsIt seems then we are forcedto believe in a real Right andWrong. First, human beings allover the earth have thiscurious idea that they ought tobehave in a certain way.Second, they do not in factbehave in that way. The truthis, we believe in decency somuch that we cannot bear toface the fact that we arebreaking it, and consequentlywe try to shift theresponsibility. C. S. LewisMere Christianity, 21
  • 9. We sometimes choose dutyover instinct.
  • 10. We all find some things evil(e.g., genocide, racism & bigotry)
  • 11. There are many things11. There are many thingswewe don’t want others todon’t want others todo todo to us (e.g., lie, cheat,us (e.g., lie, cheat,abuse,abuse, and kill).and kill).“Do unto others what you“Do unto others what youwould have others do to you.”would have others do to you.”--The Golden Rule--The Golden Rule
  • 12. The same basic moral12. The same basic moralcodes arecodes are found in allfound in allmajor culturesmajor culturesLewis shows thatprohibitions againstdisrespect forparents, lying,stealing, and killingare found in all majorcultures of the world(see Appendix).
  • The Combined ArgumentsThe Combined ArgumentsGod is—God is—1.1. Infinitely powerfulInfinitely powerful—Cosmological Argument—Cosmological Argument2.2. Infinitely intelligentInfinitely intelligent—Teleological Argument—Teleological Argument3.3. Absolutely PerfectAbsolutely Perfect—Moral Argument—Moral Argument4.4. Absolutely Unique (One)Absolutely Unique (One) because:because:1. There cannot be two infinite Beings.1. There cannot be two infinite Beings.2. There cannot be two perfect Beings.2. There cannot be two perfect Beings.3. There is only one Mind behind the universe as3. There is only one Mind behind the universe asis indicated by—is indicated by—a. The anthropic principle;a. The anthropic principle;b. The universality of physical andb. The universality of physical andmathematical laws.mathematical laws.
  • D. The Argument from ReligiousD. The Argument from ReligiousNeedNeed1. All persons need God.1. All persons need God.a. Theists admit it.a. Theists admit it.b. Atheists reveal it.b. Atheists reveal it.2. What we really need, really2. What we really need, reallyexists.exists.3. Therefore, God really3. Therefore, God reallyexists.exists.
  • Former Atheist FrancisFormer Atheist FrancisCollinsCollins““Why would such a universalWhy would such a universaland uniquely human hungerand uniquely human hunger[for God] exist, if it were not[for God] exist, if it were notconnected to someconnected to someopportunity for fulfillment?...opportunity for fulfillment?...Creatures are not born withCreatures are not born withdesires unless satisfactiondesires unless satisfactionforfor those desires exist.those desires exist.A baby feels hunger: well, there is such aA baby feels hunger: well, there is such athing as food. A duckling wants to swim:thing as food. A duckling wants to swim:well there is such a thing as water”well there is such a thing as water” (The(TheLanguage of God, 38).Language of God, 38).
  • Atheist Admitted His Need for GodAtheist Admitted His Need for God"I needed God.…"I needed God.…I reached out forI reached out forreligion, I longedreligion, I longedfor it, it was thefor it, it was theremedy.remedy. Had itHad itbeen denied me,been denied me,I would haveI would haveinvented it myself”invented it myself”((Words, 102, 97).Words, 102, 97).Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
  • Sigmund Freud’s “God”Sigmund Freud’s “God”He admitted “it would beHe admitted “it would bevery nice if there were avery nice if there were aGod.…”God.…”He admittedHe admitted “a sense of“a sense ofman’s insignificance orman’s insignificance orimpotence in the face ofimpotence in the face ofthe universe.”the universe.”He refers toHe refers to “our God“our GodLogos [Reason]…”Logos [Reason]…” ((TTheheFuture of an Illusion, 52, 88).Future of an Illusion, 52, 88).
  • ““Nowhere did FreudNowhere did Freudpublish apublish apsychoanalysis of thepsychoanalysis of thebelief in God based onbelief in God based onclinical evidenceclinical evidenceprovided by a believingprovided by a believingpatient…. Instead,patient…. Instead,there is now muchthere is now muchresearch showing thatresearch showing thata religious life isa religious life isassociated withassociated withgreater physical healthgreater physical healthand psychologicaland psychologicalwell-being” (pp. 9-10).well-being” (pp. 9-10).
  • Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900“God is dead. God remainsdead. And we have killedhim. How shall we, themurderers of all murderers,comfort ourselves?” (“TheMadman” in Gay Science, 125).God
  • Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900““I hold up before myself the imagesI hold up before myself the imagesof Dante and Spinoza, who wereof Dante and Spinoza, who werebetter at accepting the lot ofbetter at accepting the lot ofsolitude. Of course, their way ofsolitude. Of course, their way ofthinking, compared to mine, wasthinking, compared to mine, wasone which made solitude bearable;one which made solitude bearable;and in the end, for all those whoand in the end, for all those whosomehow still had a ‘God’ forsomehow still had a ‘God’ forcompany....company.... My life now consists inMy life now consists inthe wish that it might be otherwisethe wish that it might be otherwise…and that somebody might make…and that somebody might makemy ‘truths’ appear incredible tomy ‘truths’ appear incredible tome…”me…” (Letter to Overbeck,(Letter to Overbeck, 7/2/1865).7/2/1865).
  • Nietzsche: To an “Unknown God”Nietzsche: To an “Unknown God”““Thou lightening-shroudedThou lightening-shroudedone! Unknown one! Speak.one! Unknown one! Speak.What wilt thou, unknown-What wilt thou, unknown-god?…god?… To the last of all thatTo the last of all thatare lonely, Oh, come back!…are lonely, Oh, come back!…And my heart’s final flame--And my heart’s final flame--Flares up forFlares up for thee!thee! Oh, comeOh, comeback, My unknown god! Myback, My unknown god! Mypain! My last--happiness!”pain! My last--happiness!”((Thus Spoke ZarathustraThus Spoke Zarathustra,,Part Four, “the Magician”).Part Four, “the Magician”).
  • Hume Couldn’t Live HisHume Couldn’t Live HisSkepticismSkepticism““Most fortunately itMost fortunately ithappens, that sincehappens, that sincereason is incapable ofreason is incapable ofdispelling these cloudsdispelling these clouds[of doubt],[of doubt], nature herselfnature herselfsuffices to that purpose,suffices to that purpose,andand cures me of thecures me of thephilosophicalphilosophicalmelancholy andmelancholy anddelirium…”delirium…” (A Treatise(A Treatiseon Human Nature 1.4.7).on Human Nature 1.4.7).David Hume (d. 1776)
  • Hume Couldn’t Live HisHume Couldn’t Live HisSkepticismSkepticism““I dine, I play a game ofI dine, I play a game ofbackgammon, I converse…; andbackgammon, I converse…; andwhen after three or four hours’when after three or four hours’amusement, I would return toamusement, I would return tothese speculations, they appear sothese speculations, they appear socold, and strained, and ridiculous,cold, and strained, and ridiculous,that I cannot findthat I cannot find in myin my heart toheart toenter into them any farther”enter into them any farther” (ibid.(ibid.1.4.7).1.4.7).
  • Atheist Albert Camus:Atheist Albert Camus:““For anyone whoFor anyone whois alone, withoutis alone, withoutGod and without aGod and without amaster, the weightmaster, the weightof days isof days isdreadful”dreadful” ((TheTheFallFall, 133)., 133).
  • Agnostic BertrandAgnostic BertrandRussellRussell““Even when one feels nearest toEven when one feels nearest toother people,other people, something in onesomething in oneseems obstinately to belong toseems obstinately to belong toGod...--God...--at least that is how Iat least that is how Ishould express it if I thoughtshould express it if I thoughtthere was a God. It is odd, isn’tthere was a God. It is odd, isn’tit? I care passionately for thisit? I care passionately for thisworld and many things andworld and many things andpeople in it, and yet…what is itpeople in it, and yet…what is itall?all? There must beThere must be somethingsomethingmore important one feels,more important one feels, thoughthoughI don’t believeI don’t believe there is.”there is.”Letter to Lady Ottoline
  • Atheist Walter KaufmannAtheist Walter Kaufmann"Religion is rooted in"Religion is rooted inmans aspiration tomans aspiration totranscend himself.…transcend himself.…Whether he worshipsWhether he worshipsidols or strives to perfectidols or strives to perfecthimself,himself, man is the God--man is the God--intoxicated ape”intoxicated ape” ((CritiqueCritiqueof Religion and Philosophy,of Religion and Philosophy,355, 359).355, 359).
  • Atheist Albert Camus:Atheist Albert Camus:“…“…Despite theDespite thefact that there isfact that there isno God, at leastno God, at leastthe Church mustthe Church mustbe built”be built” ((TheTheRebelRebel, 147)., 147).
  • Humanist EricHumanist EricFrommFromm““Indeed, ‘man doesIndeed, ‘man doesnot live by breadnot live by breadalone.’ He has onlyalone.’ He has onlythe choice of better orthe choice of better orworse…forms ofworse…forms ofreligion”religion” ((Psycho-Psycho-analysis & Religion, 22).analysis & Religion, 22).
  • Will Durrant and SonWill Durrant and Son““I survive morally becauseI survive morally becauseI retain the moral codeI retain the moral codethat was taught me alongthat was taught me alongwith the religion, while Iwith the religion, while Idiscarded the religion….discarded the religion….You and I are living on aYou and I are living on ashadow….shadow…. But what willBut what willhappen to our children…?happen to our children…?They are living on theThey are living on theshadow of a shadow”shadow of a shadow”((Chicago Sun-timesChicago Sun-times8/24/75 1B).8/24/75 1B).
  • "Whats Wrong with Humanism?""Whats Wrong with Humanism?"The BritishThe British Humanist MagazineHumanist Magazine chargeschargesthat Humanism is almost "clinicallythat Humanism is almost "clinicallydetached from life."detached from life." It recommends theyIt recommends theydevelop a humanist Bible, a humanistdevelop a humanist Bible, a humanisthymnal, Ten Commandments forhymnal, Ten Commandments forhumanists, and even confessionalhumanists, and even confessionalpractices!practices! In addition,In addition, "the use of"the use ofhypnotic techniques--music and otherhypnotic techniques--music and otherpsychological devices--during humanistpsychological devices--during humanistservices would give the audience that deepservices would give the audience that deepspiritual experience and they wouldspiritual experience and they wouldemerge refreshed and inspired with theiremerge refreshed and inspired with theirhumanist faith..." (1964).humanist faith..." (1964).
  • Suggested Hymns for Humanists:Suggested Hymns for Humanists:““Plato, Lover of My Soul”Plato, Lover of My Soul”““No One Ever Cared for Me LikeNo One Ever Cared for Me LikeSocrates”Socrates”““My Hope is Built on Nothing LessMy Hope is Built on Nothing LessThan Jean Paul Sartre andThan Jean Paul Sartre andNothingness”!Nothingness”!
  • Atheists Evaluate AtheismAtheists Evaluate AtheismDurant:Durant: It is aIt is a “shadow of a“shadow of ashadow.”shadow.”Nietzsche:Nietzsche: It isIt is not “bearable.”not “bearable.”Huxley:Huxley: It isIt is “intolerable.”“intolerable.”Camus:Camus: It isIt is “dreadful.”“dreadful.”Sartre:Sartre: It isIt is “cruel.”“cruel.”Hume:Hume: It leads toIt leads to ““delirium.”delirium.”The Main Point:The Main Point: AtheistsAtheists saysay with theirwith theirlips that there is no God, but theylips that there is no God, but theyshowshow with their lives that there is awith their lives that there is a
  • We Cannot Get Rid ofWe Cannot Get Rid ofGodGodThose who deny God withThose who deny God withthethe top of their mindstop of their minds,,nevertheless, cannot avoidnevertheless, cannot avoidHim inHim in the bottom of theirthe bottom of theirhearts.hearts.
  • Humanist EricHumanist EricFrommFromm““The need for…The need for…an object ofan object ofdevotion is deeplydevotion is deeplyrooted in therooted in theconditions ofconditions ofhuman existence”human existence”(Psychoanalysis and(Psychoanalysis andReligion, 22).Religion, 22).
  • Atheist Albert Camus:Atheist Albert Camus:““Nothing canNothing candiscourage thediscourage theappetite forappetite fordivinity in thedivinity in theheart of man”heart of man”(Camus,(Camus, The Rebel,The Rebel,147).147).
  • Outline:Outline:I. The Importance of God’s ExistenceI. The Importance of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceII. The Definition of God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceIII. The Evidence for God’s ExistenceIV. The Rejection of God’s ExistenceIV. The Rejection of God’s Existence
  • Evidence,Evidence,Why Do Some RejectWhy Do Some RejectGod?God?You Can Lead a HorseYou Can Lead a Horsetoto thetheWater, but….Water, but….
  • ScientistsScientistsArthur Eddington:Arthur Eddington:"Philosophically, the notion of"Philosophically, the notion ofa beginning of the presenta beginning of the presentorder of Nature isorder of Nature is repugnant torepugnant tomeme…. I should like to find a…. I should like to find agenuine loophole"genuine loophole" (in Heeren,(in Heeren,Show Me GodShow Me God, 81)., 81).Einstein:Einstein: ““This circumstanceThis circumstance[of an expanding Universe][of an expanding Universe]irritates meirritates me." And "To admit." And "To admitsuch possibilitiessuch possibilities seemsseemssenseless"senseless" Why? "I believe inWhy? "I believe in
  • Robert JastrowRobert Jastrow.--"There is a kind.--"There is a kindof religion in science.of religion in science. It isIt isthe religion of a person whothe religion of a person whobelieves there is order andbelieves there is order andharmony in the universe.... Thereharmony in the universe.... Thereis no first cause....is no first cause.... ThisThisreligious faith of the scientistsreligious faith of the scientistsis violated by the discovery thatis violated by the discovery thatthe world had a beginning underthe world had a beginning underconditions in which the knownconditions in which the knownlaws of physics are not valid,laws of physics are not valid,and as a product of forces orand as a product of forces orcircumstances we cannot discover.circumstances we cannot discover.
  • Other ReactionsOther ReactionsJulian Huxley:Julian Huxley: "For my own part,"For my own part,the sense ofthe sense of spiritual reliefspiritual reliefwhich comes from rejecting thewhich comes from rejecting theidea of God as a supernaturalidea of God as a supernaturalbeing is enormous..."being is enormous..." (Huxley,(Huxley,Religion without RevelationReligion without Revelation, 32)., 32).Friedrich Nietzsche:Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one were"If one wereto prove this Godto prove this God of theof theChristians to us,Christians to us, we should bewe should be
  • St. Paul’sSt. Paul’sDeclarationDeclaration::He speaks of those whoHe speaks of those who “…“…suppress the truth by theirsuppress the truth by theirwickednesswickedness because what may bebecause what may beknown about Godknown about God is plain tois plain tothemthem, because God has made it, because God has made itplain to them. Forplain to them. For since thesince thecreation of the world Godscreation of the world Godsinvisible qualities--hisinvisible qualities--hiseternal power and divineeternal power and divinenature--have been clearlynature--have been clearlyseenseen, being understood from, being understood from
  • Harvard’s RichardHarvard’s RichardLewontinLewontin““We take the side of science in spite of theWe take the side of science in spite of thepatent absurdity of some of its constructs…patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment tobecause we have a prior commitment tomaterialismmaterialism. It is not that the methods and. It is not that the methods andinstitutions of science somehow compel us toinstitutions of science somehow compel us toaccept a materialistic explanation of theaccept a materialistic explanation of thephenomenal world but, on the contrary, thatphenomenal world but, on the contrary, that weweare forced by our a priori adherence to materialare forced by our a priori adherence to materialcauses….causes…. Moreover thatMoreover that materialism ismaterialism isabsolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in theabsolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in thedoor”door” ((New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).
  • Truth and ConsequencesTruth and ConsequencesIf God exists, then—If God exists, then—Miracles are possibleMiracles are possibleTruth is absoluteTruth is absoluteMorality is absoluteMorality is absoluteThe Bible is credibleThe Bible is credibleLife has an ultimate purposeLife has an ultimate purpose
  • Truth and ConsequencesTruth and ConsequencesIf God exists, then—If God exists, then—Miracles are possibleMiracles are possibleTruth is absoluteTruth is absoluteMorality is absoluteMorality is absoluteThe Bible is credibleThe Bible is credibleLife has an ultimate purposeLife has an ultimate purposeIf God does not exist, then—If God does not exist, then—Miracles are not possibleMiracles are not possibleTruth is not absoluteTruth is not absoluteMorals are not absolutesMorals are not absolutesThe Bible is not credibleThe Bible is not credibleLife has no ultimate purposeLife has no ultimate purpose
  • ConclusionConclusionBut God does existBut God does exist (as the(as theevidence shows from):evidence shows from):1. The beginning of the universe.1. The beginning of the universe.2. The intelligent design of life.2. The intelligent design of life.3. The moral law3. The moral law4. The need for God.4. The need for God.
  • ConclusionConclusionBut God does exist (as theBut God does exist (as theevidence shows from):evidence shows from):1. The beginning of the universe.1. The beginning of the universe.2. The intelligent design of life.2. The intelligent design of life.3. The moral law3. The moral law4. The need for God.4. The need for God.Therefore, —Therefore, —1. Miracles are possible1. Miracles are possible2. Truth is absolute2. Truth is absolute3. Morality is absolute3. Morality is absolute4. The Bible is credible4. The Bible is credible5. Life has ultimate meaning5. Life has ultimate meaning
  • Atheism is Dead--GodNorman L. GeislerNorman L. Geisler“God is Dead”--Nietzsche
  • FOR FREE MATERIALFOR FREE MATERIALwww.InternationalLegacy.orgwww.InternationalLegacy.org
  • ArgumentArgumentObjection 1:Objection 1: Things could have happened by chance,Things could have happened by chance,not by design.not by design.Answer:Answer: First, the chances are virtually zero. Second,First, the chances are virtually zero. Second,science is not based on chance but on regularityscience is not based on chance but on regularitywhich demands an intelligent cause of life. Third,which demands an intelligent cause of life. Third,chance is not a cause. The only causes are naturalchance is not a cause. The only causes are naturalforces or intelligent ones. And life needs an intelligentforces or intelligent ones. And life needs an intelligentcause.cause.Objection 2:Objection 2: Natural selection could have caused firstNatural selection could have caused firstlife to emerge.life to emerge.Answer:Answer: First, there is no real natural selection on theFirst, there is no real natural selection on thepre-biotic level. Second, natural selection onlypre-biotic level. Second, natural selection onlyexplains the survival of the old, not the arrival of theexplains the survival of the old, not the arrival of thenew. Third, natural selection has never beennew. Third, natural selection has never been
  • Objection 3:Objection 3: There is lack of design in nature—There is lack of design in nature—things which have no purpose.things which have no purpose.Answer:Answer: First, no known purpose does not mean noFirst, no known purpose does not mean nopurpose. Second, we now know a purpose forpurpose. Second, we now know a purpose formany things we did not once know. Third, we maymany things we did not once know. Third, we mayyet find a purpose for the rest. Fourth, evenyet find a purpose for the rest. Fourth, evenrandomness has a purpose (cf. breath).randomness has a purpose (cf. breath).Objection 4:Objection 4: Some designs are not perfect. There isSome designs are not perfect. There iswaste. Organism’s break down. Mutations occur.waste. Organism’s break down. Mutations occur.Answer:Answer: First, even less than perfect designs stillFirst, even less than perfect designs stillneed a designer. Second, there may be a purposeneed a designer. Second, there may be a purposefor less than a perfect design. Third, the world’sfor less than a perfect design. Third, the world’simperfections may have a moral cause. It mayimperfections may have a moral cause. It mayhave been made perfect to begin with but only laterhave been made perfect to begin with but only laterbecame imperfect (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 8).became imperfect (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 8).
  • Objection 5:Objection 5: There could be endlessThere could be endlessdesigners and nodesigners and no first Designer.first Designer.Response:Response: First, eFirst, everyvery causecause doesdoesnot need a cause; only everynot need a cause; only everyeffecteffect needs a cause. Second,needs a cause. Second,everyevery designerdesigner does not need adoes not need acause; only everycause; only every designdesign does.does.Third, it begs the question toThird, it begs the question toclaim that every designer needs aclaim that every designer needs adesigner (It simply assertsdesigner (It simply assertswithout proof that there is nowithout proof that there is noFirst Designer).First Designer).
  • ArgumentArgumentObjection 1:Objection 1: The designer must be like designers weThe designer must be like designers weknow, namely, finite, multiple, male or female,know, namely, finite, multiple, male or female,imperfect, etc. But God is not like this.imperfect, etc. But God is not like this.Answer:Answer: First, the principle of uniformity demandsFirst, the principle of uniformity demandsonlyonly similaritysimilarity, not identity of causes in the past with, not identity of causes in the past withthose in the present. Second, similarity of cause tothose in the present. Second, similarity of cause toeffect means both likeness and differences. Third,effect means both likeness and differences. Third,the Cause of the world must be different from thethe Cause of the world must be different from theworld it causes in many ways:world it causes in many ways:The Cause of the World The WorldThe Cause of the World The WorldCreatorCreator The CreatureThe CreatureNo Beginning A beginningNo Beginning A beginningInfinite (unlimited) Finite (limited)Infinite (unlimited) Finite (limited)Pure Actuality Actuality and potentialityPure Actuality Actuality and potentialityConclusion:Conclusion: The effect is like the cause in itsThe effect is like the cause in itsactuality but unlike it in its potentiality (limitations).actuality but unlike it in its potentiality (limitations).
  • Objection 2:Objection 2: Who made God?Who made God?Answer:Answer: 1) No one. God is the unmade Maker and1) No one. God is the unmade Maker andthe uncaused Cause. He never came to be butthe uncaused Cause. He never came to be butalways was.always was.2) God needs no cause. Even atheists believe in2) God needs no cause. Even atheists believe inan uncaused universe. So, why not an uncausedan uncaused universe. So, why not an uncausedGod.God.3) If there is anything, then something always was3) If there is anything, then something always was—either the universe or God. And the universe had—either the universe or God. And the universe hada beginning. Hence, God always was.a beginning. Hence, God always was.Objection 3:Objection 3: If everything needs a cause, then soIf everything needs a cause, then sodoes God.does God.Answer:Answer: Everything does not need a cause. OnlyEverything does not need a cause. Onlywhat begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause.what begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause.The world is all of these, but God is none of these.The world is all of these, but God is none of these.Hence, God does not need a cause, but theHence, God does not need a cause, but theuniverse does.universe does.
  • Objection 3:Objection 3: Energy is eternal and uncreated.Energy is eternal and uncreated.Hence, the universe needs no cause. ForHence, the universe needs no cause. Forthe First Law of Thermodynamics says:the First Law of Thermodynamics says:“Energy can neither be created nor“Energy can neither be created nordestroyed.”destroyed.”Answer:Answer: 1)1) This is a misstatement of this Law.This is a misstatement of this Law.It should be stated: “The amount of actualIt should be stated: “The amount of actualenergy in the universe remains constant.”energy in the universe remains constant.”It says nothing about the origin or destiny ofIt says nothing about the origin or destiny ofthe energy. 2) Science is based onthe energy. 2) Science is based onobservation, and the first statement is notobservation, and the first statement is notbased on observation. Hence , it is notbased on observation. Hence , it is notscientific but purely speculative.scientific but purely speculative.
  • Objection 4:Objection 4: An infinite series (regress) of causes isAn infinite series (regress) of causes ispossible. Hence, there is no First Cause.possible. Hence, there is no First Cause.Answer:Answer: An infinite regress is not possible since:An infinite regress is not possible since:1. Any infinite series of actual things is not possible1. Any infinite series of actual things is not possible(since one more can always be added, but(since one more can always be added, butmore than an infinite numbered series is notmore than an infinite numbered series is notpossible).possible).2. An infinite number of causes is not possible since2. An infinite number of causes is not possible sinceevery one is being caused, and yet one is causing.every one is being caused, and yet one is causing.So, one is causing itself which is impossible.So, one is causing itself which is impossible.Objection 5:Objection 5: Things can happen without a cause.Things can happen without a cause.Answer:Answer: This is absurd. Even the skeptic Hume saidThis is absurd. Even the skeptic Hume saidso. It is absurd to affirm that nothing can produceso. It is absurd to affirm that nothing can producesomething. “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing eversomething. “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing evercould.”could.”
  • Objections AnsweredObjections AnsweredObjection 6Objection 6 According to Heissenberg, subatomicAccording to Heissenberg, subatomicparticles operate without a cause.particles operate without a cause.Answer:Answer: 1) He never said this. He only said we1) He never said this. He only said wecannotcannot predictpredict the exact course of a particle, not that itthe exact course of a particle, not that itdid not have a cause. 2) Further, we can’t “see” thedid not have a cause. 2) Further, we can’t “see” thesubatomic world without disturbing it. 3) Also, thesubatomic world without disturbing it. 3) Also, thepattern produced by particles is regular andpattern produced by particles is regular andpredictable and, hence, it must have had a cause.predictable and, hence, it must have had a cause.Objection 7Objection 7: Believing there is a First Cause leads to: Believing there is a First Cause leads toantinomies or contradictions. For if everything needsantinomies or contradictions. For if everything needsa cause, then there must be a First Cause. But ifa cause, then there must be a First Cause. But ifeverything needs a cause, then so does the Firsteverything needs a cause, then so does the FirstCause. Hence, the contradiction.Cause. Hence, the contradiction.Answer:Answer: Everything does not need a cause. Only whatEverything does not need a cause. Only whatbegins (is finite or contingent) needs a cause.begins (is finite or contingent) needs a cause.
  • Objections AnsweredObjections AnsweredObjection 8:Objection 8: Only a finite cause is needed to explain aOnly a finite cause is needed to explain afinite effect, not an infinite one.finite effect, not an infinite one.Answer:Answer: Not so. So, ifNot so. So, if everyevery finite needs a cause,finite needs a cause,then the First Cause cannot be finite or else it wouldthen the First Cause cannot be finite or else it wouldneed a cause. Hence, the First Cause must be not-need a cause. Hence, the First Cause must be not-finite, that is, infinite. Just as the First Cause must befinite, that is, infinite. Just as the First Cause must beuncaused, so the First Cause cannot be finite,uncaused, so the First Cause cannot be finite,contingent, or have a beginning.contingent, or have a beginning.
  • Other ObjectionsOther ObjectionsObjection 9:Objection 9: The God of philosophy is not the God ofThe God of philosophy is not the God ofthe Bible.the Bible.Answer:Answer: They must be the same since:They must be the same since:1. They are both infinite Beings, and there cannot1. They are both infinite Beings, and there cannotbe two infinite Beings.be two infinite Beings.2. They are both absolutely perfect, and there2. They are both absolutely perfect, and therecannot be two absolutely perfect Beings.cannot be two absolutely perfect Beings.3. There is more than one way to approach the3. There is more than one way to approach thesame object (like a mountain peak).same object (like a mountain peak).a. Objectively--philosophicallya. Objectively--philosophicallyb. Subjectively—religiouslyb. Subjectively—religiously
  • Objection 10:Objection 10: Philosophical arguments can’t be usedPhilosophical arguments can’t be usedto bring anyone to God.to bring anyone to God.Answer:Answer: This is not true because:This is not true because:1. The Bible says they can (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15).1. The Bible says they can (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15).2. It is unreasonable to believe the God of reason2. It is unreasonable to believe the God of reasonwill bypass reason to reach reasonable creatureswill bypass reason to reach reasonable creatures(God does not bypass the mind on the way to the(God does not bypass the mind on the way to theheart).heart).3. Many people testify to the use of reason3. Many people testify to the use of reasonand evidence to bring them to God (St.and evidence to bring them to God (St.Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Frank Morrison, C. S.Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Frank Morrison, C. S.Lewis, Jay Budziszewski, and many others).Lewis, Jay Budziszewski, and many others).
  • Objection 11:Objection 11: Depraved men cannot understandDepraved men cannot understandthethe truth about God (1 Cor. 2:14).truth about God (1 Cor. 2:14).Answer:Answer: Yes they can because —Yes they can because —1. This text says they don’t1. This text says they don’t receivereceive it, not thatit, not thatthey can’tthey can’t perceiveperceive it.it.– 2. Otherwise God is wrong in condemning them2. Otherwise God is wrong in condemning themfor not responding to general revelation infor not responding to general revelation innature (Rom. 1:19-20).nature (Rom. 1:19-20).3. The image of God is not erased but only3. The image of God is not erased but onlyeffaced in fallen man (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9).effaced in fallen man (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9).4. They couldn’t suppress the truth unless they4. They couldn’t suppress the truth unless theyknew what they were suppressing (Rom.knew what they were suppressing (Rom.1:18). Indeed, God said it was “clear” and1:18). Indeed, God said it was “clear” and“evident” to them (Rom. 1:19-20).“evident” to them (Rom. 1:19-20).
  • Objection 12:Objection 12: So-calledSo-called Moral Law is merely herdMoral Law is merely herdinstinct.instinct.Answer:Answer: This is not so because: 1) If so, the strongerThis is not so because: 1) If so, the strongerinstinct would always win, but it does not (since moralinstinct would always win, but it does not (since moralduty sometimes sides with the weaker instinct). 2) Ifduty sometimes sides with the weaker instinct). 2) Ifso, we would always act from instinct, not for it (toso, we would always act from instinct, not for it (tobolster it, as we sometimes do).bolster it, as we sometimes do).Objection 2:Objection 2: Moral Law is merely social conventionMoral Law is merely social convention..Answer:Answer: First, what is learnedFirst, what is learned throughthrough society (e.g.,society (e.g.,Math and Logic) is not necessarilyMath and Logic) is not necessarily based onbased on society.society.Second, judgment about society being better (orSecond, judgment about society being better (orworse) only make sense if they are independent ofworse) only make sense if they are independent ofsociety. Third, most differences in judgment are oversociety. Third, most differences in judgment are overfact, not values.fact, not values.
  • Objection 13:Objection 13: Moral Law is just the law of nature.Moral Law is just the law of nature.Answer:Answer: First, nature’s laws are descriptive, notFirst, nature’s laws are descriptive, notprescriptive (as moral law is). Second, situationsprescriptive (as moral law is). Second, situationsfactual more inconvenient are sometimes morallyfactual more inconvenient are sometimes morallydesirable (and vice versa).desirable (and vice versa).Third, things naturally more convenient are some-Third, things naturally more convenient are some-times condemned by moral duty (e.g., betrayingtimes condemned by moral duty (e.g., betrayingone’s friend for money).one’s friend for money).Fourth, even factual convenience for the whole raceFourth, even factual convenience for the whole racedoes not explain why I ought to do that when it is notdoes not explain why I ought to do that when it is notfactually convenient for me to do so.factually convenient for me to do so.Objection 14:Objection 14: The moral law is mere fancy.The moral law is mere fancy.Answer:Answer: It can’t be since we can’t get rid of it. Also,It can’t be since we can’t get rid of it. Also,value judgments are meaningless without it. Further,value judgments are meaningless without it. Further,I did not make it since it condemns me.I did not make it since it condemns me.
  • Objection 15:Objection 15: People interpret the moral law differently.People interpret the moral law differently.Answer:Answer: Scientists have interpreted nature differently, butScientists have interpreted nature differently, butnatural laws have not changed.natural laws have not changed.Objection 16:Objection 16: We used to burn witches but no longer do. So,We used to burn witches but no longer do. So,values changevalues change..Answer:Answer: Our values did not change. We still believe inOur values did not change. We still believe inpunishing murderers. What changed was our factualpunishing murderers. What changed was our factualunderstanding of whether witches are murderers.understanding of whether witches are murderers.Objection 17:Objection 17: Practices vary from culture to culture.Practices vary from culture to culture.Answer:Answer: Moral law is not what peopleMoral law is not what people dodo but what theybut what they oughtought totodo. This we know by what we want people to do to us (not bydo. This we know by what we want people to do to us (not bywhat we do to them).what we do to them).Objection 18:Objection 18: Even our understanding of virtues differ fromEven our understanding of virtues differ fromculture to culture.culture to culture.Answer:Answer: My understanding of love has changed overMy understanding of love has changed overtime but love has not changed.time but love has not changed.
  • Objection 19:Objection 19: Political debates reveal aPolitical debates reveal aconflict of value (e.g., on war, poverty, etc).conflict of value (e.g., on war, poverty, etc).Answer:Answer: These are largely debates overThese are largely debates overmeansmeans notnot endsends (values).(values).Objection 10:Objection 10: The abortion debate is aThe abortion debate is aconflict of values.conflict of values.Answer:Answer: Much of it is over fact (of whenMuch of it is over fact (of whenhuman life begins), not over the value of lifehuman life begins), not over the value of life(or persons).(or persons).The conflict of values can be resolved byThe conflict of values can be resolved byappealing toappealing to expectationsexpectations, not, not actionsactions..
  • FOR FREE MATERIALFOR FREE MATERIALwww.InternationalLegacy.orgwww.InternationalLegacy.org
  • Twelve Points that Show Christianity is TrueTwelve Points that Show Christianity is True1.1. Truth about reality is knowable.Truth about reality is knowable.2. The opposite of true is false.2. The opposite of true is false.3. It is true that a theistic God exists.3. It is true that a theistic God exists.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.4. If God exists then miracles are possible.5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.6. The New Testament is historically reliable.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:a. His fulfillment of many prophecies;a. His fulfillment of many prophecies;b. His sinless and miraculous life;b. His sinless and miraculous life;c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrectionc. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection9. Therefore, Jesus is God.9. Therefore, Jesus is God.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (andanything opposed to it is false).anything opposed to it is false).
  • Why Only One God ExistsWhy Only One God ExistsBecause:Because:1. There can be only one infinite1. There can be only one infiniteBeing.Being.2. There can be only one absolutely2. There can be only one absolutelyperfect Being.perfect Being.3. The anthropic principle (the3. The anthropic principle (theuniverseuniverse was fine-tuned for humanwas fine-tuned for humanlife fromlife fromthe moment of beginning).the moment of beginning).4. The unity of mathematical and4. The unity of mathematical andphysicalphysical laws.laws.