A Powerful Apologetic Method: ABDUCTIVE Reasoning!

"What in the world is 'Abductive Reasoing'?" Well, abductive reasoning is employed by crime scene detectives, car mechanics, and your medical doctor.  Abductive reasoning is when you look at all the known facts, and seek to form the best explanation to explain the data.  Abductive reasoning seeks to find the "inference to the best explanation" for the known facts.   

This is a vital way of thinking and investigating that all serious Christians should be engaged in....

 - Pastor J. 

On the Goodness of God

I used to be a Christian, by that I mean, really believed and actively practiced my faith. I truly accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and saviour, I ran Bible studies, took kids to and ran kids clubs, led sunday school lessons, ran Alpha sessions, led a house group, attended weeks of prayer and more. I wasn't messing around. So why did I give it all up? I had a lot of questions that I was often too scared to ask, because I felt if I asked them it would show my inability to continue running the activities I ran. I also kind of shot myself in the foot because when non believers asked me questions and I gave them answers, they never followed up with the questions I had in my head, the questions I myself was too scared to ask, so I never aired my questions. So what we're the questions?
I guess that they all boil down to one major question: How do we know God is good? Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and they believe that because, according to the Bible, he was without sin. It also follows (according to mainstream Christianity) that Jesus is also God. We can therefore conclude that God is without sin, He is morally pure. So does God stand up to moral scrutiny? It appears not. when Herod had his authority threatened by the birth of Jesus he gave orders for infanticide to ensure the death of this newborn king of kings. This is an awful event in history, that a person should order the slaughter of hundreds of children to protect his authority. Herod's behaviour is morally wrong. We can conclude that Herod is not God (bear with me). When Pharaoh refused to let God's people go after being ordered to by God, through Moses as a messenger, God decided that action must be taken. God's authority was in danger, he was being challenged. God's final action was to order the killing of the first born children in Egypt. Yes, there was a get out clause, the blood above the door, but none the less he ordered the killing of Children, and sure enough Children died. What makes this worse is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, he forced Pharaoh's hand, God knew that Pharaoh could not say 'I will let your people go.' God was killing those children no matter what. We can therefore conclude that God is not morally pure. That means that God is not really God, he is not who he claims to be. Now I'm fairly certain this is not a water tight argument, but as yet I have not heard a rational response.
I really want an answer to this question. I don't want to hear silly answers that don't make sense. For example : "God is good, we don't understand his reasons for everything" This ignores the question, how do we know he's good? "God is beyond our understanding and he does things for reasons we can't comprehend." Again this answer makes no sense if he is beyond our understanding how can we understand anything about him, where is the line of understanding drawn? It's a cop out to say this because as soon as we get to something we can't explain we just say "that's because God is beyond our understanding." "Satan has blinded you." if this is the case that means Satan hasn't blinded you so please answer the question for the sake of those who have been blinded. "the very fact you are talking about God, proves there is a God." we can talk about a lot of things that don't exist... There are more but please try and analyse any responses and see if they make sense. I look forward to your response, let's try and dig down into the truth.

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's response

A Question of Justice, Question of the week by Dr. Craig

Hello Dr. Craig,
My question is about divine justice. You describe God as being essentially kind, fair, and compassionate, but I do not see how his justice can be exemplified with scenarios like this:
Suppose a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer enjoys a lifestyle torturing, killing and cannibalizing people for fun. He eventually gets caught and goes to prison. In prison he becomes a born-again Christian and all this sins are absolved from him. He then gets killed and goes to heaven since the mere act of conversion into Christianity cleanses him of all previous wrong doings. Some of this victims however were not Christian when they were murdered and so they go to hell when they die. So not only are the murder victims tortured and murdered in this world, they get sent to hell to be tortured even worse, but now it is forever, while their murderer enjoys everlasting peace in heaven.
I have never had a Christian explain to me how this scenario above, is not only the work of a "perfect" and "all-loving" deity, but that this is an example of perfect justice that could not possibly be improved upon by any generation of humans, past, present of future. In other words, if the God of the Bible is inherently perfect, compassionate and just, why would he allow a serial killer into heaven but his victims suffer in hell eternally, when the only thing separating them (aside from the fact the victims never tortured and killed people) is the killer's conversion to Christianity in prison just before he died?
The objection I have is that this is not an act of perfect justice, and that the Christian God is merely being defined as perfect/kind/fair/compassionate etc which to me is just wordplay since his record shows otherwise. The only answer I have yet to hear, is that we all are deserving hell, and only those who submit to God are given mercy, even if they are serial killers. So I have to ask you, with all due respect, if you truly agree with this notion of justice, that would allow a sadistic serial killer off scott-free of divine punishment, when his victims, who pleaded for their lives and were killed without mercy, are now being tortured even worse, all while their cries for mercy will go unanswered for all eternity?
Thank you for your time.
United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer


“How do you expect me to believe in God,” asked Woody Allen, “when only last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of my electric type-writer?”

For a while now, at least in the Western world, the existence of any form of pain, suffering, or evil has been regarded as evidence for the non-existence of God. If a good God existed, people reason, these things would not. But they do and, therefore, God does not.

My job takes me around many different parts of the world in order to answer people’s questions about the Christian faith. I find it fascinating that I have never been asked this question in India, a country that certainly knows a lot more about suffering than many of us in the West. I find it even more intriguing that Christians who write books in situations where they have known unspeakable torment because of the gospel do not normally raise this as an issue for themselves either. Why?

There are so many ways in which questions concerning pain can be raised. It can be raised because of personal loss and suffering or because of a personal interest in the issue of theodicy, to name but two. However, regardless of the way the question is raised, it normally comes down to a moral complaint against God. “How could you allow this to happen?” The complaint is against God’s moral character. “Can I really trust God if I see this happen?” But if you are sure that you can trust God, regardless of the pain you find yourself in, there is no temptation to turn you away, as you realize God is the only one who can help.

Firstly, let’s deal with the argument against God’s existence. Ravi Zacharias has dealt with this thoroughly in his book 

Can Man Live Without God

. If you argue from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God, you are assuming the existence of an absolute moral law in order for your argument to work. But if there is such a law this would also mean that there is such a God, since God is the only one who could give us such a law. And if there is such a God to give us this law, then the argument itself is flawed, since you have had to assume the existence of God in order to argue that God doesn’t exist. It is an attempt to invoke the existence of an absolute moral law without invoking the existence of an absolute moral law giver, and it cannot be done.

Click HERE to continue reading