Posts Tagged ‘Reason’

William Lane Craig

“If Christians could be trained to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change. Christians would be seen as thoughtful people to be taken seriously rather than as emotional fanatics or buffoons. The gospel would be a real alternative for people to embrace.”

–- William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, p. 18

URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

Sometimes Christians can be their own worst enemies. There are those Christians who don’t want to bother with doing the work of theology. They would rather just “wing it”, and feel all they need is “Jesus in their heart”. If that is your philosophy, please don’t engage your culture. They will chew you up, and spit you out, and you will poison the well for the next Christian.

Learn how to make a reasonable defence for your faith. 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 
Image with royal flush.

Image with royal flush. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Arguing from possibility is not evidence. Just because something is logically possible does not make it probable.

Just-so scenarios are just that: ideas without any evidence behind them. As such, they put the objector in the very same category as that to which they are objecting: offering a case with nothing to support it. Part of being a rational person is to draw a distinction between what is possible and what is reasonable to believe.

There are a lot of things that may be possible in the world, but are highly unlikely: such as dealing oneself a royal flush in poker two times in a row. Of course mathematics shows that such an event is possible, but it isn’t reasonable to believe that such a thing happened without deliberate intervention. If I’m playing poker and I see you dealt two royal flushes, I’m going to accuse you of cheating. That would be the reasonable thing to do. Similarly, seeing the strong evidences for a creator from the natural world, one is reasonable to infer deliberate intervention.”

— Lenny Esposito

via Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes: Separating What’s Possible from What’s Reasonable.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “Pokerface” Adams

“Naturalism cannot truly even provide a foundation for science itself”

1385293_658330927531417_355358686_nAs explored in this series of essays, the worldview of the Naturalist fails to provide grounding for many important concepts, such as: the origin and existence of our universe, why there is fine-tuning of the cosmos and of biological systems, human consciousness, the ability to trust our reasoning ability, the existence of universal abstract entities such as the laws of logic, the consistency and reproducibility of Nature, or even why things like knowledge have any intrinsic value at all.  Because of this, Naturalism cannot truly even provide a foundation for science itself.  Ultimately the worldview of Naturalism is without objective meaning or hope.  Given this worldview, are there really even any moral \”oughts\” or requirements on us?  What would be the justification for them?  The worldview of the New Atheists provides at best a poor foundation to build upon.

An important point here is not that the Naturalistic worldview cannot give answers to many of the issues mentioned above.  The real issue is \”on what basis\”?  What are they grounded on?  Is there anything that is intrinsic or objective about them?  How are these beliefs justified?  That is the Achilles heel of this kind of worldview.”

via Reasonable Worldviews – Materialistic Naturalism vs. Christian Theism – by Apologist – Newsvine.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “the unevolved” Adams