Posts Tagged ‘William Lane Craig’

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


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 
c57cee151a339e3ac3ed7860587b275378cade8728a1e3e89bc5c21fdd0be2faA universe without God offers no hope, and no help with the big questions of life.

” To help think about this, let us suppose that God does not exist. In an atheistic scenario, we as human beings are simply Johnny-come-lately biological accidents on an insignificant speck of dust we call Earth which is hurtling through empty space in a meaningless and random universe that will eventually die a cold heat death. In the big scheme of things, we are no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes. In a universe where there is no God and no afterlife, our actions are meaningless and serve no final end because ultimately each one of us, along with everyone we know and influence, will die and enter oblivion. Mention of morality is an incoherent babbling; there is no difference between living the life of a saint or a sociopath, no difference between a Mother Theresa and an Adolf Hitler. William Lane Craig frequently refers to this as “the absurdity of life without God.”[2] He states,

Without God the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exists. As for man, he’s a freak of nature—a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life…the end of everything is death…In short, life is utterly without reason…Unfortunately, most people don’t realize this fact. They continue on as though nothing has changed.[3]”

— Aaron at Apologetic Junkie

via Apologetic Junkie: Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God.


simul iustus et peccator, 


Eric Adams 

Rossville, GA


“God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”


“The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Theism is on the rise; atheism is on the decline.2 Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat. In a recent article in the secularist journal Philo Quentin Smith laments what he calls “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” He complains,  “Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism. . . began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians . . . . in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, ‘academically respectable’ to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.3

Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”4” — William Lane Craig

via Theistic Critiques Of Atheism | Reasonable Faith.

simul iustus et peccator,

Ерік Адамс

“Unless the materialist has some positive arguments of his own to prove that materialism is true, then he can’t justifiably dismiss theistic arguments merely because they imply that an immaterial, fundamental entity exists.”

English: This photo was taken by my wife durin...

English: This photo was taken by my wife during a cruise. It has no copyright concerns. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“If materialism is false, what would be some good ways to attack it? First, demand from the materialist some arguments for the view that the only fundamental entities which exist are material. Don’t let him get away with just asserting his metaphysical worldview or trying to shift the burden of proof to you (demanding that you prove that a fundamental, immaterial entity exists). He’s making the materialist claim; now insist that he support his claim. Second, give arguments for the reality of immaterial, non-supervenient entities. The arguments for God’s existence come to the fore here. If God exists, then materialism is false. I’ve presented cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments, all of which, if sound, imply the existence of a transcendent, immaterial being. These are great arguments to use against the materialist because they focus on what the real issue is: theism vs. atheism. Unless the materialist has some positive arguments of his own to prove that materialism is true, then he can’t justifiably dismiss theistic arguments merely because they imply that an immaterial, fundamental entity exists. He needs to show why those theistic arguments are unsound—which is just the discussion you want to have!” — William Lane Craig


via Materialism | Reasonable Faith.

simul iustus et peccator,



St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the eponym ...

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the eponym of Thomism. Picture by Fra Angelico (c. 1395-1455). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God as a necessary being. For the braniacs among us.

“Perhaps this argument was a bit much in terms of trying to state something simplistically[1]. Maybe this re-stated argument can be of some assistance:

  • What we observe in the universe is contingent.
  • A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.
  • The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite.
  • There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes[2].

The argument basically runs as follows: We observe that things come in and out of existence – that is, they are contingent. More particularly, we notice things in the world that are capable of existing and capable of not existing. However, it is impossible for those contingent things to exist as such forever, for, anything that can fail to exist has not always existed. Since not all existents are capable of existing and not existing, there must be a necessary being – a being that cannot not exist. From this point, we are confronted with the question of whether or not this necessary being has its existence in itself or from another.” – Steve Dunn

via Thomistic Cosmological Argument | Hellenistic Christendom.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “waddling with wassail” Adams


“The early pre-Markan burial narrative mentions the empty tomb. This source pre-dates Mark, the earliest gospel. The source has been dated by some scholars to the 40s. For example, the atheist scholar James Crossley dates Mark some time in the 40s. (See the debate below)

The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark’s passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul’s account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul’s own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

(b) The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say “The President is hosting a dinner at the White House” and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the “high priest” as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus’ death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.”-Wintery Knight

via What are the arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb?