Why Atheism Is Nonsense Pt.6 - Life is Ultimately Meaningless!

Though most Atheists would revolt and object to this idea, this was the ultimate conclusion of Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Johny Cage, and Bertrand Russel.  All of these famous Atheist intellectuals of the past centuries agree that if there is no God, the ULTIMATELY, life is utterly meaningless and becomes truly absurd.

They are not saying that there isn't momentary/personal/subjective meaning - but rather ULTIMATELY every act of every man, woman, and child is meaningless if after death there is nothing more, and if there is no God to infuse life with ultimate purpose, value, and meaning.

Most Atheists aren't courageous (or logical) enough to admit it, and they don't even realize that their "intellectual champions" such as Sartre, Camus, Russel were very bold and blunt about this.  In an essay entitled "A Free Man's Worship", Bertrand Russel declared:

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built."

If an Atheist is ABSOLUTELY HONEST about the logical outworking of his/her worldview, this is the inevitable result: An Ultimate Loss of Meaning, Purpose, and Value.

The problem is, however, that you don't live/think that way.  Why not?

Because you want life to have meaning, and believe that at some level it does have ultimate meaning....but this can't be true unless God exists to give it Ultimate Meaning.

Might this be a clue, placed within the innate beliefs and desires of men, to point them towards a Creator God?

"He has set eternity within the heart of man..." - Ecclesiastes 3:11

Confused about Concordism

Dr. Craig,

I am confused... You have repeatedly said you are not an "evidentialist" but you have said that our theology should be molded by modern-day science. (If you need references I can of course provide them). Secondly you have mentioned that we should not use the biblical text as a reference point back into science, but at the same time in both your published work and speaking you specify the biblical account of "creation ex nihilo" as being accurately conjectured in the Genesis account? Now while I agree (to a degree) with you I think, if we use the same logic on the virgin birth (which you admit to believe by faith alone) then shouldn't we conclude in light of modern science that the biblical text was simply using the virgin-birth account as perhaps a symbol of Jesus' purity but it was not really a virgin birth?

Do you see where I am getting at? It is quite confusing to get a solid idea where you stand on many of these type of issues; sometimes it seems more like you are close to a Karl Barth and other times to a more traditionalist viewpoint. I am and have been a RF chapter leader for several years now and though we can of course agree to disagree on points, I do want to accurately represent your position. (My specialty is in the philosophy of history with degrees in history/philosophy post grad in ancient history)

I hope you see where I am coming from and you or a colleague that checks these emails for you can help break this down a little for me. I personally have no problem (much like Francis Schaeffer or a Wayne Grudemen) in just saying "I don't know" on certain areas, but once we commit ourselves to one area (such as letting our exegesis be guided by modern science) we are just one step from deism it would seem? Because even if you have ample room for the historicity of the resurrection you do not for the virgin birth so how can you say the virgin birth is "factual" but most of the Genesis accounts must be looked at through the lens of modern science? (I am not a young earth creationist asking this mind you). My wife and I will be on the RF cruise this month which we are excited about but if you or someone could help clarify these point that would be fantastic and it would save me having to ask you on the trip. ;o)

Sincerely,

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Why Does Philosophy Get A Bad Rap With Some Christians?

Dr. Norman Geisler elaborates of the importance and function that Christian Philosophy should have for believers today.  It is an outstanding tool for defending the orthodox Christian faith, and also for developing Christian theology and doctrine.

As C.S. Lewis once stated "...Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, than bad philosophy must be answered."

- Pastor J.

Swami Vivekananda’s Christ ,The Messenger Part 1

by Dr. Samuel Inbaraja

“Vivekananda renounced the world and criss-crossed India as a wandering monk. His mounting compassion for India’s people drove him to seek their material help from the West. Accepting an opportunity to represent Hinduism at Chicago’s Parliament of Religions in 1893, Vivekananda won instant celebrity in America and a ready forum for his spiritual teaching.For three years he spread the Vedanta philosophy and religion in America and England and then returned to India to found the Ramakrishna Math and Mission. Exhorting his nation to spiritual greatness, he wakened India to a new national consciousness. He died July 4, 1902, after a second, much shorter sojourn in the West.”

Swami Vivekananda (SV) delivered a speech at California on January 7, 1900. His topic was CHRIST ,THE MESSENGER. Though Swami Vivekananda had some grasp of some of the main ideas of Christianity, his presentation of Christ and his teachings is incomplete, erroneous and misleading. It is for this reason that a good critique to show his errors is needed.
1. “The voice of Asia is the voice of religion . The voice of Europe is the voice of politics. The voice of Europe is Greece…….. In Asia ,even today , birth or color or language never makes a race.That which makes a race is it’s religion…. We see therefore in the life of the messenger of life , the first watchword: Not this life but something higher; and, like the true son of the orient, he is practical in that.” -Swami Vivekananda.
Here Swami Vivekananda does a service to us by portraying Jesus as a true son of the orient. Many times the Hindus decry Christianity as foreign, but Swami Vivekananda doesn’t do that he actually finds common ground and looks at Jesus and the culture from which he came as something compatible, similar and familiar. But Swami Vivekananda doesn’t stop there . He attributes the spirituality of Jesus, the other worldly teaching of Jesus as coming because of his location in Asia. Swami Vivekananda concept is , “He is Asian , so he is religious”. Jesus’ teachings do not find their source in location or culture. John 7:15 The Jews were astonished and remarked, “How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?” John 7:16 Jesus replied to them, “My teaching is not mine but comes from the one who sent me. John 7:17 If anyone wants to do his will, he will know whether this teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own. God was the source of Jesus’ teachings and it was not his orientalism as Swami Vivekananda suggests in his writings.
2. “The best commentary on the life of a great teacher is his own life . ‘Foxes have holes , birds of the air have nests , but the son of man has no place to lay his head’.That is what Christ says as the only way to salvation; he lays down no other way. Let us confess in sackcloth and ashes that we cannot do that . We still have fondness for ‘me and mine’.We want property ,money and wealth. Woe unto us!” Swami Vivekananda
Again SV startles me with his grasp of the central concept which even many Christians have not learned. He rightly quotes Jesus , then he says something which Jesus did not say and then gives a good comparison with a humble confession that ,we are not like that. The problem is with the underlined part. Jesus did say “self denial” is the only way anyone can become his disciple and be saved but he said so much more which leaves SV providing incomplete information .
3.
What important things did Swami Vivekananda leave out about Jesus’ teaching on salvation? John 6:40 For this is my Father’s will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.”
John 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent.”
John 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live. John 11:26 Indeed, everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe that?”
In all these passages the central teaching is very obvious.Jesus is asking people to believe in him as the messiah, to obtain eternal life.
   Swami Vivekananda says in the same book , ‘Suppose Jesus of Nazareth was teaching, and a man came and told him,
“What you teach is beautiful. I believe that it is the way of perfection, and I am ready to follow it; but I do not care to worship you as the only begotten son of God.” What would be the answer of Jesus of Nazareth ? ‘Very well , brother, follow the ideal and advance in your own way’’. Swami Vivekananda clearly articulates things contrary to the teachings of Christ. Jesus very clearly preached himself as the messiah, the ‘Son of God’. He very clearly taught that believing him as the messiah is the first prerequisite for having eternal life.Now after believing that Jesus is messiah one should follow his other teachings also . But without accepting Christ as Lord and worshiping him no salvation is possible.

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

Continue reading --->

Why Atheism Is Nonsense Pt.5 - "Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea"

 How does the idea of Naturalism, 

kill the idea of Naturalism?

Well, according the Naturalism, if Evolution is responsible for the origin and development of mankind's brain, then it doesn't select development features based upon truth value, but rather based upon the survivability fitness of the organism (this is central to the idea of Natural Selection).  

That means, if one is consistent in their reasoning, there is no reason to trust the ideas and beliefs that are formed in my evolved brain/mind, since they have not developed in order to detect truth.  This ends up being a self-defeating belief to hold, since the belief in Atheism and Naturalism, is held by my self same brain/mind - but this mechanism cannot itself be consistently trusted.

If true, Evolution undermines the reliability of your intellectual faculties, including the belief of Atheism and Naturalism.  Therefore, Naturalsim is a self-defeating idea for an Naturalist or Atheist to hold to.

- Pastor J.

Why does a good God allow evil to exist?

If He is powerful enough to stop wrongdoing, then He Himself must be an evil God since He’s not doing anything about it even though He has the capability. 

Is He a bad God or a God that’s not all powerful?

One of the most haunting questions we face concerns the problem of evil. Why is there evil in the world if there is a God? Why isn’t He doing something about it? Many assume that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God.

Sometimes the problem of evil is put to the Christian in the form of a complex question, “If God is good, then He must not be powerful enough to deal with all the evil and injustice in the world since it is still going on.” Even the biblical writers complained about pain and evil. “Evils have encompassed me without number” (Psalm 40:12, RSV). “Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?” (Jeremiah 15:18, RSV). “The whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now” (Romans 8:22, RSV). Thus we readily admit that evil is a problem and we also admit that if God created the world the way it is today, He would not be a God of love, but rather an evil God.

However the Scriptures make it plain that God did not create the world in the state in which it is now, but evil came as a result of the selfishness of man. The Bible says that God is a God of love and He desired to create a person and eventually a race that would love Him. But genuine love cannot exist unless freely given through free choice and will, and thus man was given the choice to accept God’s love or to reject it. This choice made the possibility of evil become very real. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they did not choose something God created, but, by. their choice, they brought evil into the world. God is neither evil nor did He create evil. Man brought evil upon himself by selfishly choosing his own way apart from God’s way.

Continue Reading --->

Why Atheism Is Nonsense (Pt.4) - "Our Intellect Wouldn't Be Trustworthy"

Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who occupied the chair of Philosophy at Notre Dame, demonstrates yet another reason why the "Intellectual Price Tag" of Atheism is too high:  Our intellectual faculties (thoughts, conclusion, ideas, etc...) cannot be trusted.

Why?  Simply put, if Evolution is responsible for the origin and development of mankind's brain, then it doesn't select development features based upon truth value, but rather based upon the survivability fitness of the organism (this is central to the idea of Natural Selection).  

That means, if one is consistent in their reasoning, there is no reason to trust the ideas and beliefs that are formed in my evolved brain/mind, since they have not developed in order to detect truth.  This ends up being a self-defeating belief to hold, since the belief in Atheism and Naturalism, is held by my self same brain/mind - but this mechanism cannot itself be consistently trusted.

If true, Evolution undermines the reliability of your intellectual faculties, including the belief of Atheism and Naturalism.  It is a self-defeating idea for and Atheist to hold to.

- Pastor J. 

Evolutionary Creationism and the Image of God in Mankind Read

Dear Dr. Craig,

First off let me congratulate you on your amazing defense of Christianity as you travel about the world, debate, and lecture. I am a major fan, to say the least. However I have a question that has been put on my mind lately, concerning your views about creation and evolution. First off, I think you are spot on when you say evolution (in its many meanings) is not incompatible with Theism, rendering it useless as a objection to the concept of God. Aside from this, if I understand you right, you hold that views such as evolution[ary] creationism are compatible with the account of Genesis in the Bible. What bothers me about this is that I think, by holding this view, that God used evolution to bring about the diversity of life upon the Earth, including humans, you weaken and eliminate the notion that mankind was created in God's image, or at least make it problematic. Now hopefully I understand you to mean by evolutionary creationism that you think God created life at a basic level, that being cellular, and directed it to create the diversity we see everywhere and at some point on the evolutionary timeline humans came about and where then chosen to be special to God. If I characterize your view wrongly, please clarify in detail. So that brings me to the question, how do you hold the view of evolutionary creationism while holding firmly that man was created in the image of God?

Andrew

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

"What is Evil?" - Dr. Norman Geisler

How should a Christian answer questions 

regarding the existence of "Evil"?

This is one of the most challenging questions that any Christian will be confronted with.  It is fitting for us to have a good answer when a skeptic inquires concerning the Christian Worldview's answer to these questions:

• "What is Evil?" - The absence of a good that should be present.
• "Where did Evil come from?" - Creatures with Free Will departing from God's perfect being.
• "What is the purpose of Evil?" - Allows for Moral Good, genuine Love, and God's preordained plan to manifest themselves throughout history.
• "What is the ultimate solution to Evil?" - In time, Evil will be conquered and removed by the Perfect Good - God. 

If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, I encourage you to listen to Dr. Geisler's teaching, entitled "If God, Why Evil?" here on our site.

- Pastor J.

Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.3: "Human Reason & Love are Mere Matter and Chemicals"

Another reason why the intellectual price-tag is much too high, in order to go along with the atheistic & naturalistic worldviews:  Human reasoning, consciousness, love and emotions are reduced to mere chemical reactions and random atomic combinations.

Of course, if a person is to be consistent with this line of thinking, then this as (as Dr. Alvin Plantinga puts it) a very strong "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism".  If Evolution selects features, such as intellectual development, on the basis of survivability fitness - it makes no selection based upon truth detection in the human brain/mind.

In other words, if our brains/intellect evolved only to help us survive, then they are unreliable for gathering truth about reality (since they didn't evolve to select and recognize truth), and therefore the evolutionary man must doubt his belief in the truth of naturalism, evolution, atheism, etc....  

This "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" shows that, if consistently analyzed, the process of the evolution of the human brain/mind is itself a self-defeating concept to the idea of Naturalism.

The question is, however, are there any Evolutionists or Naturalists that are intellectually honest enough and consistent enough in their reasoning, to admit it???

- Pastor J.

Scientific Evidence for God

Are there revolutionary discoveries in 20th century science 

that point towards God's existence?

Just ask Einstein, Hubble, and many Astrophysicists...

(pt.6) While most scientific discoveries have little to do directly with the doctrines and teachings of the Christian worldview, there are about 5% of the discoveries that lend VERY strong support for belief in a Creator of the universe.  We will also go over various quotes of more that  a dozen highly qualified modern scientists who hold very strongly to belief in a Creator God.

The goal of this series is to delineate at least 5 Reasons why science has NOT eliminated the classical and historical Christian concept of God.  I hope that you will stay with us as we continue to investigate this important question in light of the scientific, historical, and logical evidence - "Has Science Eliminated The Need For God?".

- Pastor J.

Politically Incorrect Salvation

William Lane Craig

Contemporary religious pluralism regards the traditional Christian doctrine of salvation through Christ alone as unconscionable. The problem seems to be that the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God seems incompatible with the claim that persons who do not hear and embrace the gospel of salvation through Christ will be damned. Closer analysis reveals the problem to be counterfactual in nature: God could not condemn persons who, though freely rejecting God's sufficient grace for salvation revealed through nature and conscience, would have received His salvific grace mediated through the gospel. In response, it may be pointed out that God's being all-powerful does not guarantee that He can create a world in which all persons freely embrace His salvation and that His being all-loving does not entail that, even if such a world were feasible for Him, God would prefer such a world over a world in which some persons freely reject His salvation. Furthermore, it is possible that God has created a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost and that God has so providentially ordered the world that those who fail to hear the gospel and be saved would not have freely responded affirmatively to it even if they had heard it.

Introduction: The Problem of Religious Diversity

"Diversity" is the shibboleth of the post-modern age. Nowhere is this more so than in the realm of theology or religious studies. The Harvard theologian Gordon Kaufman, observing that throughout most of Christian church history "the fundamental truth of the basic Christian claim was taken for granted, as was the untruth . . . of the claims of the church's opponents," says that by contrast today there has been "a striking change" among many Christian theologians:

Continue Reading --->

Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.2 - Ignorant of the Definition of "Atheism"

Is Atheism simply "the lack of belief in a god"?

Is Atheism "the lack of belief in a god" as many contemporary atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, would have you think?

Or is it a POSITIVE CLAIM TO KNOWLEDGE that needs justification to be accepted and believed?  If the claim of Atheism is a that the idea "God exists" expresses a false proposition, then it is a truth claim that must be defended rationally. Sadly, most atheists aren't even aware of this, and like Christopher Hitchens, simply attempt to dodge the question rather than giving positive arguments and proof for Atheism.

Remember: "The Absence of Evidence, is not itself Evidence of Absence."  One only need to reflect upon scientific investigations, and criminal detective work to see this.  In addition, there is not an "absence of evidence" with Theism, as there are great and robust intellectual demonstrations of God's existence. 

A few examples would include the following philosophical proofs:

- The Moral Argument

- The Kalam Cosmological Argument

- The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

- The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

- The Design Argument

- The Argument of Mathematical Applicability

- The Argument of Logical Applicability

- The Conceptual Argument

- The Argument from Desire

- The Argument from Beauty

- The Modal Ontological Argument 

- The Historical Argument of Jesus of Nazareth's Life, Death, and Resurrection

As I've said before, I simply don't have enough "blind faith" to be an Atheist.  I need to have good logical and rational reasons, that are compatible with reality, in order for me to subscribe to a particular philosophy or worldview.  Only the Christian Worldview passes the test!

- Pastor J.

Don’t all religions basically teach the same thing?

Many people wonder why we make such a fuss about Jesus Christ and Christianity, since they believe all religions are basically the same. They assume that all faiths are all talking about the same thing, but are putting it in a different way.

One man once gave this illustration. He said, “Suppose you take ten men and blindfold them, and lead them over to an elephant. You now let each of them touch a different part of the elephant—tail, trunk, etc.—without telling them what they are touching.

“You lead them back inside, take off their blindfolds and tell them to describe what they touched.” The man then asked, “Would their descriptions agree?” The answer of course is no.

The man then made this observation: even though these ten men touched the same thing, they did not agree because each touched a different part or, if you please, experienced it from a different angle. He went on to conclude, “Isn’t it the same in the area of religion?

“Aren’t all the different religious groups— Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc.—experiencing the same God, yet ex­plaining it in different ways? Thus can’t they all be true, but with each giving a different em­phasis?”

The problem with this illustration is identifying the elephant with God. You are assuming that all these people are experiencing the same God, when in fact this is not true. Christianity and Islam cannot both be true at

the same time. Neither can Mormonism and Buddhism both be correct simultaneously, nor can Christian Science and Hinduism.

All religions cannot be true at the same time, because they teach many things completely opposite from one another. They all may be wrong, but certainly they all cannot be right, for the claims of one will exclude the other.

As to matters of salvation and the person of Jesus Christ, only historic Christianity recognizes Him as the eternal God becoming a man who died for the sins of the world and arose again the third day. Salvation is obtained only by putting one’s trust in this Jesus.

The Jesus of Islam is not the Son of God who died for the sins of the world; neither is the Jesus of Mormonism- or Christian Science the same Jesus as revealed in the Bible.

Salvation is not by grace and through faith in these religions, but it is a matter of works. It can then be observed that we are dealing with different religious ideas that are not compatible with one another.

Even though many religions seem to be the same on the surface, the closer one gets to the central teachings the more apparent the differences become. It is totally incorrect to say that all religions are the same.

The God of the Christians is not the same God as that of the Mormons, Muslims or Christian Scientists. If the God of the Bible is the only true God, then the other gods are nonexistent and should not be worshiped.

Continue reading --->

Truth - Does it Exist?

Does Truth exist?  Even if it does, can we know it?  Are we in the dark like Kant said that we are?  Should we be absolutely skeptical as Hume told us we should be?

Here we will begin to discuss the all important question of truth, and whether it can be known at all.  We will be examining the claims of Relativism, Agnosticism, Skepticism, and Postmodernism, and see what they claim to be the truth about truth.

The Mind behind the Universe

Dear Dr. Craig,

Thank you for the amazing work you do in your ministry.

Last year I studied Philosophy of Mind at my university, after hearing your advice to do such on the RF podcast. I found it extremely interesting and it certainly opened me up to a few realities about the field that I wouldn't have expected to be true (such as the increasing number of modern philosophers that are leaning towards dualism).

To my question: It seems to me that your suggestion, that the only rational cause for the universe is an unembodied mind, presupposes dualism. What do you consider to be the best arguments for dualism, in light of the materialist majority?

Moreover, what do you consider to be the best argument for an unembodied mind as the first cause over an abstract object? Could the 'multiverse', as described by Prof. Lawrence Krauss and other New Atheists, be such an abstract object? If so, does this put the notion of an unembodied mind as the first cause into second place?

Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Ben

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Why Atheism Is Nonsense: Pt.1 - "No-thing is actually Something"

This is one of the many reasons why the "intellectual price tag" of Atheism is too high for Theists:  Nothingness is counted as something.  

The amazing thing is, it's not even mentioned that philosophically this is an incoherent idea, since it violates the Law of Non-contradiction (A cannot be A and -A in the same way or at the same time). 

Sadly, although many of these atheistic thinkers and scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss, see themselves as supremely logical and pursue science on the basis of logical inference, they themselves make rudimentary errors of the first magnitude.

Philosophically, atheism is intellectually nonsensical, logically contradictory, and mentally incoherent.  For these reasons, and many others, I don't have enough blind faith to be an Atheist.

- Pastor J. 

Computers Are Not Darwin Machines

Most people think computers are built by intelligent design. How on earth can you say their development follows Darwin's mechanism of "survival of the fittest"? Yet an article at Science Daily announces, "'Survival of the Fittest' Now Applies to Computers: Surprising Similarities Found Between Genetic and Computer Codes." (Emphasis added.) Certain similarities between Linux code and bacterial genomes may obtain, but one thing should be clear: they are not Darwinian.

Sergei Maslov, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory, holds appointments in physics and quantitative biology. His grad student, Tin Yau Pang, assisted with the mathematical model. Their idea was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. What were the peer reviewers thinking?

Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" originally referred to natural selection in biological systems, but new research from Brookhaven National Laboratory and Stony Brook University scientists shows that this evolutionary theory also applies to technological systems.

But the essence of Darwinian evolution is aimless, purposeless churning via unguided natural processes, with no design or intelligence. If Linux code behaved that way, woe unto users of Linux!

What the authors found, instead, was irreducible complexity -- marks of intelligent design:

Continue reading --->

Is The Bible Without Error In Science and History?

How many errors can an omniscient mind make? 

Did Jesus and his disciples refer to the 50 chapters of Genesis? 

What do Jesus and Jonah have in common?

Here the One Minute Apologist, Dr. Bobby Conway, asks Dr. Norman Geisler if the Bible has any errors. One thing to remember is that the bible is not a text book on math or science or psychology, but when it speaks on these subjects, it speaks with absolute authority and absolute accuracy! If there is just ONE error in the bible, you would be justified not to believe in the entire document, but as we know and believe, the bible in its entirety is inerrant!

Dr. Geisler holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and has authored, coauthored ans edited over 60 books and hundreds of articles. You can check out Dr. Geisler's website at normangeisler.com.

Have an Intelligent Faith!!

-Nelis

Atheism's Achilles Heel: "Scientism"

Do most Atheists hold to a self-defeating view 

of Science?

Here we will examine the logically self-defeating claims of "Scientism", and how many of today's atheistic researchers subscribe to this erroneous view of science.  We will also go over more that  a dozen highly qualified modern scientists who hold very strongly to belief in a Creator God.

It is vital to have a good handle on this faulty concept of learning truth about reality.  Especially since it is endorsed today by many at the University.  Learn how to refute "Scientism".

Have an Intelligent Faith!

- Pastor J.

Libet’s Experiments and Determinism

Dear Prof. Craig,

what does the Libet-Experiment indicate about free Will?

A US-american Scientist, Libet, conducted in 1979 an experiment involving the measurement of Brain-Activity during a controlled Decision-making Process, in order to better understand relations between neurological (physical) phenomena and the activity of the will.

The observation was, that:
1. brain activity occurs, then after a delay
2. one is oneself aware that a decision has become made, then after a delay (for the body to react)
3. the decision becomes made.

The delay between (2) and (3) can become accounted simply by transmission delays from the brain to the body. Of interest is the delay between (1) and (2).

Some (neurobiologists) claim, the gap between (1) and (2) demonstrates that the brain makes the decision and then the person experiences the decision (and simply associates the decision to his own free doing, as opposed to that of the body).

But a few things do not seem (to me) in order here. E. g.

a. (2) merely marks, when the person is, at another level of awareness so-to-speak, aware of his decision. But making a decision and becoming aware of the same are prima facie distinct phenomen, and thus should not be assumed to occur simultaneously. In order to disprove that a free-will decision has occurred, it seems one would have to collapse these two notions.

b. Assume now, decision-making and awareness of the same were to occur simultaneously. The so-called "readiness potential" in (1) is only measured in the times in a small neighbourhood of the activity. Could it be that this readiness potential regularly spikes, and that this be simply a regular phenomen which puts one into a state to make a decision? In this case, the compatibility of free-will and this preempting brain-activity are perfectly compatible.

My objections aside, I would really like to hear your professional opinion of this.

* The existence of free-will is among the deepest and most difficult problems in Philosophy/Science. If this problem were solved, and the Libet-Experiment were to have conclusively shown that human decision-making is not free but determined, there would then be consensus. Is there Consensus about the interpretation of the observations in the Libet-Experiment? Is there Consensus about the Free-Will Problem?

* What at all possible do the observations of the Libet-Experiment actually indicate?

Finally,

* Some simply take the approach of redefining free Will as a phenomen, whereby although the decision is determined, its causes is truly the person who does the deciding. In this way, some thing that Determinism is no problem at all for free Will --- rather the definition of free Will could be rethought. What do you hold of this approach?

Thank you for reading and thank you for your work!

With kind Regards,

Raj

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

FOR EARTHDAY: PhD Proves Our Universe Has a Cause!

Professor Alexander Vilenkin:  Mathematical PROOF of our Cosmic Beginnings!

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin, PhD Physicist & Cosmologist

Alexander Vilenkin is a Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers professional papers.His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe,Russia, and Japan, and in many popular books.

The most significant contribution that Professor Vilenkin has made is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem (BVG Theorem) in 2003.  This mathematical theory states that any Universe that has been expanding throughout it's history, must have had a point of beginning in the finite past.  What makes this BVG Theorem so interesting is that it holds REGARDLESS OF ANY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EARLY UNIVERSE.  This includes even the dubious "Multiverse Theory" that is popular today.  In specific reference to wild, outlandish, and extravagant attempts to avoid a finite universe, Professor Vilenkin stated this powerful  quote:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men 

and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. 

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide 

behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: 

they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

This mathematical demonstration of our cosmic beginnings, is tremendously troubling to our atheists and naturalist friends - and for good reason.  The logic is obvious:

1. If our Universe began to exist, it must have a Transcendent Cause.

2. Our Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, our Universe has a Transcendent Cause.

Of course, this Transcendent Cause would therefore be immaterial (having created the material universe), unimaginably powerful (having created all the energy of the universe), a metaphysically Necessary Being (since it is the source of all dependent reality), and would also be a Personal Being (having exercised a free choice to create).

This is some of what the Christian means when we speak of the Being of GOD.

How To Make An Atheist's Head Explode!

How can the Law of Cause and Effect help you 

when speaking with Atheists and Naturalists?

This is a good-humored look at some of the interesting problems raised for Atheists and Naturalists by things like the Law of Causality, which states among many things that "something cannot come from nothing" or that "Non-being cannot give rise to Being".

The principle of causality is a first principle. All first principles are self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. But not everything self-evident in itself appears to be self-evident to everyone. The principle of causality fits that category and so must be unpacked.

The principle of causality may be stated in various ways, some more easily accepted than others. 

For example, it may be stated:

1. Every effect has a cause.

This form is clearly self-evident, and it is analytic, in that the predicate is reducible to its subject. Other ways to state the principle are not analytic, nor so self-evident:

2. Every contingent being is caused by another.

3. Every limited being is caused by another.

4. Every thing that comes to be is caused by another.

5. Non-being cannot cause being.

Sometimes the principle is stated in other ways than these, but each form is reducible to one or more of these statements. For example, "Every thing that begins has a cause" is the same as "Everything that comes to be is caused by another." Also, "Every dependent being is caused by another" is the same as "Every contingent being is caused by another." All of the ways to defend the nonanalytic forms of the principle of causality (forms 2--4) require explanation of what is meant by the terms of the statement. The following are examples:

THE NATURE OF BEING AND NON-BEING:

Statement 5 can be defended by defining terms. "Non-being cannot cause being" because only being can cause something to exist. Non-being is nothing; it does not exist. And what does not exist has no power to produce anything. Only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of "cause" implies that some existing thing has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. Or it can be more popularly phrased, "Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could."

THE NATURE OF CONTINGENCY:

All contingent beings need a cause, for a contingent being is something that exists but that might, under other circumstances, not exist. Since it has the possibility not to exist, it does not account for its own existence. In itself, there is no reason why it exists. Once it was non-being, but non-being cannot cause anything. Being can only be caused by being. Only something can produce something.

But if someone does not accept this as self-evident, the statement can be defended in two ways:  First, inherent in the concept produce or cause is the implication that something that existed brought into being whatever is produced or caused. The alternative is to define nothing as something or a non-being as a being, which is nonsense. This argument should be distinguished from David Hume's point that it is not absurd to say that nothing can be followed by something. Hume himself denies that something can be caused by nothing: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause" (Hume, The Letters of David Hume, 1:187).

Second, everything that comes to be must have a cause. If it came to be, it is not a Necessary Being, which by its nature must always exist. What comes to be is a contingent being, which by nature is capable of either existing or not existing. Something separate from the contingent being has to determine that it comes into existence. So, everything that came to be must be caused, since there must be some efficient action which causes it to pass from a state of potentiality (potency) to a state of actuality (act). For, Aquinas noted, no potency for being can actualize itself. To actualize itself means it would have previously been in a state of actuality, and to be actualized means it would have been in a state of potentiality. It cannot be both at the same time. That would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Hence, one cannot deny the principle of causality without violating the principle of non-contradiction.

EVERYTHING THAT COMES TO BE HAS A CAUSE: 

 Using this statement of the principle of causality, the existence of God/a First Cause can be demonstrated as follows:

- Everything that comes to be is caused by another.

- The universe came to be.

- Therefore, the universe was caused by another.

Another way to prove the existence of God uses a different statement of the principle of causality:

- Every contingent being is caused by another.

- The universe is contingent in its being.

- Therefore, the universe is caused by another.