Apologetics 101
Defending the Faith
in the Marketplace of Ideas
(Written by Brian Hearn © 2007)
Mission Statement
To help equip and encourage Christians
in apologetics ministry so they might
engage honest truth-seekers, under the
right circumstances, with gentleness,
respect, and with the ultimate goal of
introducing the Gospel of Jesus
Topics Covered
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Five W’s of Apologetics
Engaging Others and Worldview
Arguments for God
Dealing with Doubt
Islam and Christianity
The Problem of Evil
The Case for Christ
Origins (Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation)
What is Apologetics?
How many of you thought the
first time you heard the word
‘apologetics’ it was about
apologizing?
Origin
Apologetics comes from the
Greek word apologia
(a-p&-'lO-j(E-)&)
“A written or verbal defense”
Christian Apologetics Defined
The discipline of rationally
justifying one’s belief in
Christianity through
systematic discourse
Extra-biblical and Biblical
Christian Apologetics sometimes
enters into areas not directly
addressed in the Bible but always
integrates the Christian worldview.
What is the Ultimate Goal?
Lead the honest truth-seeker to an
openness where the Gospel is shared
Rom 10:17 – “Consequently, faith comes
from hearing the message, and the
message is heard through the word of
Christ”
Why Apologetics?
Why should we be interested
in Apologetics?
Why are you interested
in Apologetics?
Be Prepared!
1 Peter 3:15 – “But in your hearts set
apart Christ as Lord. Always be
prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the
reason for the hope that you have.
But do this with gentleness and
respect”
How Would You Respond?
How do you know what you believe is true?
How do you know God exists – what proof is there?
How can we trust something [Bible] written thousands of years ago?
How do we know other religious creeds are not true?
Why isn’t God more visible if He wants everyone to know him?
Hasn’t Science/Evolution completely disproved biblical creation?
How can there be a loving God with so much suffering in the world?
Hasn’t Science proven religious faith is unnecessary?
How do we know the Resurrection occurred?
Results?
Out of the nine questions – how many
did you feel like you would be able to
give a sound answer to?
By the way, this course will not be about resolving all your tough questions
through impeccable argumentation!
Being Persuasive
•Is being persuasive a good thing or
does the idea seem too much like
coerciveness?
•Persuasiveness is a good thing - it
means to “win someone over.”
Paul Persuaded
1Cor. 9:19-23: Though I am free and belong to no man, I
make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those
under the law I became like one under the law (though I
myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the
law. To those not having the law I became like one not having
the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under
Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the
weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all
things to all men so that by all possible means I might save
some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share
in its blessings.
Paul Reasoned
Acts 17 (1-3 and 16,17) When they had passed through
Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica,
where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was,
Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days
he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and
proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead
…While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly
distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he
reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the Godfearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day
with those who happened to be there.
Just Say the Word!
But haven’t we been
taught to not worry about
what to say?
Origin of “Don’t Worry!”
Matthew 10:19 - But when they arrest you, do not worry
about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be
given what to say…
Luke 12:11 - When you are brought before synagogues,
rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will
defend yourselves or what you will say…
God is our defender in times of trouble!
(Psalm 9, 41, 59)
We should not take these versus to imply - one need not
concern themselves with how they share the Gospel.
Uploading
One option is to just upload the
message…
A bare-minimum do-not-be-concerned-aboutthe-delivery version of the plan of salvation
Uploading Examples
Is it effective in bringing unbelievers to salvation to
merely stand on a street corner holding a sign with
the reference: “John 3:16”
Why or why not?
If an unbeliever were to share their disbelief in the
Bible and their negative past experience in the
Church, would you respond by quoting: “John 3:16”
Why or why not?
Most of Us Do Not Upload
Because it is not persuasive!
Our approach to reaching out to the unbeliever is
important and God gives us many tools for the job.
Sometimes it is the right word at the right time
guided by the Spirit; sometimes it is a prophetic
word or verse of Scripture. Sometimes we are
called to merely listen. And sometimes, we are to
give an answer back for the hope we have….
Logic Teaser
Hearing the Gospel is a necessary condition for
salvation but not a sufficient condition.
Yes, merely hearing the Gospel can be on occasion immediately
effective in someone coming to faith in Christ –
but that is different than the logic-term “sufficient condition.”
Necessary Condition – is one which must be satisfied to
ensure
Sufficient Condition – is one which, if satisfied, ensures
Friendship Evangelism
Prominent evangelistic ministries targeting youngadults on college campuses employ friendship
evangelism:
•Campus Crusade for Christ
•Every Nation Campus Ministries
Why is friendship evangelism effective?
Because it leads to persuasiveness through trust.
Trust building is pre-evangelism.
Secularized Culture
Oftentimes we have a tough
challenge presenting biblical
truths and the Gospel to
unbelievers because of the
culture we live in…
Dr. William Lane Craig
Speaking about the secularization of
Europe and effectiveness of apologetics
in that setting…
Worldly Philosophy
Aren’t we taught to stay away from
worldly philosophy?
Colossians 2:8 – “See to it that no one takes
you captive through hollow and deceptive
philosophy, which depends on human
tradition and the basic principles of this world
rather than on Christ.”
Correctly Handle – Not Avoid
So that we are not taken captive by the World’s
philosophy we should be prepared to correctly
handle the truth – Take everything to Christ!
READ:
• 2 Corinthians 10:5 – “take it to Christ”
• Proverbs 23:23 – “buy the truth”
• 1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “test everything”
• 2 Timothy 2:14-15 – “correctly handle”
• 2 Timothy 3:16 – “especially the Word”
Martin Luther’s View
√ • Ministerial Use of Reason - this is the use of
logic/reason as a servant or "handmaid" to the
Bible and theology. Logic/reason is not put on par
with or above the Bible, but stands in a
subordinate role to God's revelation.
X • Magisterial Use of Reason - this is the placing of
logic/reason on par with or actually above the
Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a
group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or
authority of truth.
Pre-Evangelism
In preparation of presenting the Gospel…but only one tool
(introducing Law before Gospel is pre-evangelism for example)
Weeding the field analogy – sometimes we
help to sow the seed; sometimes we help in
the harvest; sometimes as the apologist we
get to weed the field by removing false ideas.
Removing the boulders analogy – getting rid
of the boulders in front of the door (Jesus)
one must go through for salvation.
Apologetics For the Believer
• Ministering to other believers to help with
epistemic tension (though doubt is primarily a
spiritual battle!)
• Check your brains at the door: often suggested
as a reason to pursue apologetics – but it misses
the point and puts the focus on us (and our selfesteem) instead of service to God
Discussion
End of Session 1
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
From The Barna Group (barna.org - June 2007)
Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians
“Most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the
idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in
America as is radical Islam.”
“At the same time, two-thirds of Christians (63%)
who have an active faith perceive that the nation is
becoming more hostile and negative toward
Christianity.” ("Active faith" was defined as simply having gone to
church, read the Bible and prayed during the week preceding the survey.)
Opener
From The Barna Group (barna.org - June 2007)
Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians
About one in 11 Americans (9%) say they have “no
faith.” – that’s 20 Million Americans! – and one in 5
of those label themselves as atheists.
No-faith Trend
Generation
Current ages
1992*
2007*
Adult Mosaics 18-22
Busters
23-41
-16%
19%
14%
Boomers
Elders
8%
4%
9%
6%
42-60
61+
Opener
From The Barna Group (barna.org - June 2007)
Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians
One of the most fascinating insights from the research is the
increasing size of the no-faith segment with each successive
generation. When adjusted for age and compared to 15
years ago, each generation has changed surprisingly little
over the past decade and a half. Each new generation
entered adulthood with a certain degree of secular fervor,
which appears to stay relatively constant within that
generation over time. This contradicts the popular notion
that such generational differences are simply a product of
people becoming more faith-oriented as they age.
Recap
Apologetics – Greek apologia
Christian Apologetics – the discipline of rationally
justifying Christian belief through systematic discourse
Ultimate Goal – Rom 1:17
Be Prepared – 1 Peter 3:15
Are You Prepared? – maybe not as much as we’d like
Recap
Persuasive – is a good thing (to win someone over)
Paul was persuasive – he reasoned with others
Some approaches are more persuasive than others
Friendship Evangelism - trust building is pre-evangelism
Apologetics is pre-evangelism – but only one tool
(introducing Law before Gospel is pre-evangelism for example)
Terms Covered So Far
Pre-evangelism
– whereas evangelism is the activity
whereby a Christian explains or presents the Christian gospel of Jesus
to one seen as a non-Christian: pre-evangelism is the activity of
preparing the unbeliever for the reception of the gospel – both activities
are practiced with love, gentleness and respect.
Secular
– the state of being separate from religion. Secularism
works to separate public life from the religious life. As Christians,
secularism is in opposition to an integrated Christian worldview.
Worldview – think of this as “the way one sees the world.”
(more on this later.)
Question?
Evangelism or Pre-evangelism – which
activity should come first when we
engage an honest truth-seeker?
It all depends on where God leads!
Terms Coming UP
Naturalism (philosophical) – all phenomena or
hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false,
unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or
hypotheses
Theist / Theism
– theism is the belief in one of more
deities (as Christians we are theists who believe in a transcendent God)
Atheist / Atheism– atheism (a-theism or not-theism) rejects
theism. A “strong” atheist affirms the non-existence of God. The “weak”
version simply affirms an insufficient belief in theism (non-theism).
Where Apologetics?
Where will you find apologetic
resources and where are
apologetic activities making a
difference?
Online Resources
• www.bethinking.org – excellent audio archive for
beginner to advanced apologetics
• www.VERITAS.org – The VERITAS Forum
• www.Leaderu.com – Leadership University
• www.TheOCCA.org – Oxford Center for Christian
Apologetics
• www.RZIM.org – Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
• www.ReasonableFaith.org – WLC’s Site
• www.ARN.org – Access Research Network
• www.UncommonDescent.com – William Dembski’s
weblog on Intelligent Design
• www.studylight.org and www.biblegateway.com
(excellent Bible resource sites)
• www.apologetics.net (my site plug :-)
Organizations / Courses
Alpha International – employs a strong apologetic
element in their courses
Today 31,260 courses are running in 154 countries
throughout the world. The material for the course
has been translated into 61 languages plus Braille.
These courses are going on in workplaces,
schools, churches, college campuses and prisons.
Organizations / Courses
VERITAS Forum – Since 1992 speaking mostly at
US campuses - The forums are created by local
university students, professors, and ministers while
shaped and guided by the headquarter VERITAS
team.
Campus Crusade for Christ and Josh McDowell
Ministries – Para-church ministry that operates
student chapters on university and college
campuses
Dr. William Lane Craig
Apologetics impact at the
university…(6 min audio clip)
Our Spheres of Influence
The apologetic impact can go beyond
our immediate evangelistic contacts to
affect change in the atmosphere of our
homes, workplaces, and even the
church
[personal testimony here]
Who Are the Apologists?
(other than us armchair apologists)
The earliest apologists used historical defenses and
then later arguments for God’s existence…(e.g.
Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas)
Was Martin Luther an apologist? “Busy
reconstructing the church, Luther was not known as
an apologist. However, he said nothing, properly
understood, that would negate the consistent use of
reason by the classical apologists in defending the
faith.” (Norman Geisler)
Types and Proponents
Classical – first establish the validity of
theism (that God exists) then proceed to
specific Christian truths – stress on rational
processes, historical evidence, confirming
miracles
Augustine, Aquinas, WL Craig, N Geisler, CS Lewis,
JP Moreland, J Locke, W Paley, RC Sproul
Types and Proponents
Historical / Evidential – stresses historical
evidence as the basis for demonstrating the
truth of Christianity.
Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, JW Montgomery
and G Habermas
Types and Proponents
Cumulative Case – an eclectic approach.
Overlaps the classical approach but
downplays the need for theistic arguments in
advance. Overlaps the historical approach but
does not rest their case there. Sometimes
appeals to experiential evidence (testimony of
changed lives.)
Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel
Types and Proponents
Experiential or Existential – appeal
primarily if not exclusively to experience as
evidence of the Christian faith.
Eckart, Kierkegaard, Bultmann, Barth
Types and Proponents
Presuppositional - reject the validity of
theistic proofs and start directly from a
presupposed Trinitarian view. Without the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, everything is
seen through a jaundiced eye.
•Cornelius Van Til, John Frame (revelational)
•Gordon Clark, C F H Henry (rational)
•Francis Schaeffer (practical)
When is Apologetics Effective?
Younger the better – you can’t teach an old dog,
new tricks – statistically we are far less likely to
change our fundamental religious belief as we age.
The Barna Research study, announced on 11/12/99, shows
that the vast majority of those who are saved experience the
conversion during childhood -- before the age of 14. A person
who is unsaved at the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of
being saved later in life.
According to FCA: Over the age of 30 – only a 4% chance of
being saved.
Avoid Quarreling
Romans 12:16-18: Live in harmony with one
another. Do not be proud, but be willing to
associate with people of low position. Do not be
conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be
careful to do what is right in the eyes of
everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on
you, live at peace with everyone.
A good apologist knows when to not respond!
Read 2 Timothy 2:23-24
Apologetics 5 Ws Conclusion
From defense to persuasion
but in all things – love!
Dr. Greg Pritchard
Apologetics How?
Well that’s what the rest of the course will address!
End of Session 2
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
(from adherents.com (2/2007) – world population 6+ billion)
How many Chinese dualists are there in
the world?
0.4 Billion
How many Muslims are there in the world?
1.3 Billion
How many Hindus are there in the world?
0.9 Billion
How many Christians are there in the world?
2.0 Billion
How many atheists are there in the world?
1.1 Billion
Recap
Where apologetics – where is apologetic activity taking
place (universities, workplace, home, church)
Types – classical, historical, evidential, experiential, presuppositional
When Apologetics – in congenial situations with an honest
truth-seeker who is open to respectful discourse (avoid quarreling)
Christian Apologetics – is the art of Christian
persuasion and is always done in love (not to defend ourselves or win
arguments!)
Worldview Overview
Worldview defined; (calqued from the German
Weltanschauung) provides a framework for
generating, sustaining, and applying
knowledge – it is ones’ general view of the
universe and our place in it which affects one's
conduct. It is one’s system of beliefs; their
ideology; how one sees the world. Everyone
has a worldview, whether or not they can
articulate it.
Worldview Questions
• Where did everything come from?
• What should I do with my life?
• Why is life meaningful and is there any
ultimate purpose?
• How do I know what is right and wrong?
• What happens to me after I die?
Substantive Worldview
An ingrained, comprehensive, momentous
and cohesive worldview.
• It is deep-rooted unlike the ever-shifting position to suit
the moment and our immediate desires.
• It is wide-ranging unlike the skeptical view there is little to
know outside of our meager experiences.
• It is deeply meaningful unlike the view which says: “I don’t
know and I don’t care.”
• It coheres with a minimum of contradictory views.
First Principles of Logic
A first principle of logic cannot be deduced
from any other principle of logic
A first principle is universal, not invented, but
discovered; undeniable, irrefutable
Law of Noncontradiction : ~(p · ~p)
a proposition and its negation is necessarily
false. “One cannot say something is and is
not in the exact same sense.”
Contradictory vs. Contrary
Contradictory propositions: if two
propositions are contradictory - one must
be true and the other false.
Contrary propositions: if two propositions
are contrary – only one can be true (they
could both be false though)
Note: a proposition is the information content of an assertion and is either true or false.
Christian Worldview
•There exists a personal triune God (Father, Son and Holy
Spirit)
•God created the heavens and the Earth
•The universe had a beginning (it is not eternal-past)
•Jesus is the Son of God
•There is a spiritual realm
•Natural causes are not the only causes in space-time
•Miracles happen
Christian Worldview
•The virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus were real
events in history
•We are more than just matter – we are spirit and matter
•Life is not merely the result of chance + time + energy
•The universe is designed
•Morality is universal and objective based on divine
command
•Our existence does not cease at the grave
Islamic Worldview
•There exists a God (Allah) – He is not triune
•Allah created the heavens and the Earth (seven
universes in layers)
•The universe had a beginning from a solid mass of water
•Jesus is not the son of Allah but a great prophet –
Muhammad is the greatest and last prophet (570-632AD)
•There is a spiritual realm
•Natural causes are not the only causes in space-time
•Miracles happen
Islamic Worldview
•Jesus was virgin born, spoke in the cradle but was not
crucified (Allah “lifted him up to his presence”)
•We are matter and spirit
•Life is not the merely result of chance + time + energy
•The universe is designed
•Morality is universal and objective based on the
commands of Allah
•Our existence does not cease at the grave
Atheist Worldview
•God does not exist
•The universe is a “brute fact”
•The universe did not have a beginning – it is eternal-past
•Jesus was just a man – if he existed at all
•There is no spiritual realm
•There are no supernatural causes
•Miracles do not happen
Atheist Worldview
•The virgin birth and resurrection events are not real
historical events
•We are mere matter
•Life is the result of chance + time + energy
•The universe may appear designed, but isn’t
•Morality is relative: simply the product of socioevolutionary processes
•We cease to exist at the grave
Pantheistic Worldview
•“God is all” – not personal
•The universe is (or part of) God (Hindu -> Brahman is the
material and efficient cause)
•The universe is eternally recurring, cyclical
•Jesus is God – and so are we!
•All is spiritual
•All cause/effect is God
•Miracles irrelevant – all activity is divine
Pantheistic Worldview
•Jesus was not virgin-born and did not rise from the dead
•Matter is illusory – there is only spirit (some pantheists
separate body and soul)
•Abiogenesis is left open – some pantheists believe
evolution is divine mechanism
•The universe is not designed
•Morality is objective and tied to the divine Unity (for some
tied to nature)
•No immortality (absorption) – others (soul separates from
body)
Worldview Division
Two individuals with substantive
worldview and with minimal overlap in
their core beliefs will have a difficult time
persuading each other.
Arguments for God
Cosmological Argument (Contingency)
Cosmological Argument (Kalam)
Teleological Argument
Moral Argument
Syllogism
Syllogism – a three-part deductive argument
Deductive Argument – the truth of the premises
ensures the truth of the conclusion
Good Deductive Argument – is sound and has
premises that are more plausible than their denials
Sound Deductive Argument – is formally and
informally valid
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
eks-'ni-hi-"lO-"ni-"hil-'fit (lat)
“From Nothing, Nothing Comes”
Metaphysical Principle - one that is understood
immediately and needs no supporting evidence
What is “nothing?”
The remotest, darkest and vacuous region of space
is not nothing!
Actual Infinite
Can you give me an example of an actual
infinite set in the physical world?
Actual Infinite Sets: are mathematical
constructs only – they do not exist in the
physical world.
Cosmological Argument
(Argument from Contingency)
Why is there something rather than nothing? –
a profound question posed by the great
mathematician and Christian philosopher G.
W. Leibniz who concluded all contingent
being requires a reason for its existence.
Cosmological Argument
(Argument from Contingency)
Contingent Being – the reason for its existence lies
outside of itself and it may to cease to exist (e.g. the
Earth)
Necessary Being – there is no reason for its
existence that lies outside of itself and it cannot
cease to exist (e.g. God)
Cosmological Argument
(Argument from Contingency)
The universe either exists contingently or
necessarily: we must choose - there are no other
reasonable choices.
1. The universe either exists necessarily or
contingently
2. The universe is not necessary
3. Therefore the universe is contingent
Cosmological Argument
(Argument from Contingency)
1. Things that are contingent have a reason
for their existence
2. The universe is contingent
3. Therefore the universe has a reason for its
existence
Cosmological Argument
(Kalam Version)
Kalam (“speaking”) – developed by Muslims during
the Middle Ages.
1. That which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
Cosmological Argument Synopsis…(4 min video clip)
Dr. William Lane Craig
Cosmological Argument
(Kalam Version)
Conclusion – the universe was caused ex nihilo.
[read Hebrews 11:3]
Personal – the cause must transcend space and
time; have unimaginable creative power; and be
personal to cause a temporal effect from eternity
Attempts to circumvent have been unsuccessful
(discuss various models)
Discussion
End of Session 3
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
How many stars in the known universe?
70 Sextillion (7/2003 Sydney Australia Study)
70,000 million million million (7 x 10^22)
1000 times the number of grains of sand from
all of the beaches of the Earth
10 times the number of grains of sand from
all of the beaches and deserts of the Earth
Recap
Worldview / Substantive – ingrained,
comprehensive, momentous and cohesive belief system
Worldviews Intro – looked at Christianity, Islam, Atheism
and Pantheism
Deductive Argument – a good deductive argument is
sound with premises more plausible than their denials
Recap
Cosmological Argument – (Contingency and Kalam
versions)
Metaphysical Assumptions – ex nihilo nihil fit (from
nothing, nothing comes) and Actual Infinite Sets (are ideas only)
First Principles – law of noncontradiction
(contradictory/contrary)
Teleological Argument
(tee-lee-AH-lah-jik-al)
(Argument from Design)
Greek word Telos – “end or purpose”
(tee-loss)
Greek word Teleos – “completion, perfection, arriving at a goal”
(tee-lee-oss)
Argument’s origin – as far back as Plato (Timaeus) and
Aristotle (Metaphysics)
Aquinas – One of his five proofs for the existence of God (Summa
Theologica)
William Paley – Watchmaker Analogy from (Natural Theology)
Teleological Argument
(Argument from Design)
1) That which is designed, has a designer
2) The Universe was designed
3) Therefore, the Universe has a designer
Disjunctive Syllogism
1) P v Q
(reads P “or” Q)
2) ~P
(reads “not-P”)
3) Therefore; Q
Note: P v Q v R; ~P · ~Q; therefore R
Sherlock Holmes Approach
Teleological Argument Synopsis…(4 min video clip)
Dr. William Lane Craig
Teleological Argument
(Argument from Design)
1) The Universe is either the result of law,
chance or design
2) The Universe is not the result of law or
chance
3) Therefore, the Universe is designed
From the Privileged Planet…(4 min video clip)
Anthropic Coincidences
Ockham’s Razor
Attributed to the 14th century Franciscan friar William
of Ockham. The principle states: an explanation of a
phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
possible.
“entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”
Law of Parsimony (law of succinctness)
Anthropic Principles
Anthropic Principle – coined by Brandon Carter
and expanded on by Barrow and Tipler – puts
constraints, as human observers, on the sort of
universes we could observe, and therefore affects
our ability to form an explanation of its existence.
WAP – Weak Anthropic Principle
SAP – Strong Anthropic Principle
PAP – Participatory Anthropic Principle
FAP – Final Anthropic Principle
Anthropic Principles
• WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle) – “we must be prepared
to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is
necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with
our existence as observers.” (Carter) – in other words, why be
surprised everything is fined tuned – if it were not, we wouldn’t
be here to observe it…But this hardly addresses the statistical
unlikelihood in fine-tuning! [lottery analogy]
• SAP (Strong Anthropic Principle) - "The Universe must
have those properties which allow life to develop within it at
some stage in its history." There are various flavors of SAP
(no pun intended) – from a teleological view to the ensemble
view (multiverse) – but why believe in an unobservable,
unverifiable multiverse?
Anthropic Principles
• PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle) – a SAP variation
based on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
It is based on the idea observation makes real.
• FAP (Final Anthropic Principle) - "Intelligent informationprocessing must come into existence in the Universe, and,
once it comes into existence, it will never die out." - "At the
instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained
control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe,
but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life
will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which
could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of
information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically
possible to know. And this is the end." (Barrow and Tipler)
Modus Tollens
(basic rule of inference for conditional statements)
1) If P then Q
2) ~Q
3) Therefore; ~P
Note: Q is a necessary condition on P
Note: Q therefore P is fallacious – it is
called affirming the consequent
The Moral Argument
(Argument from Objective Moral Values)
1) If God does not exist, then objective
moral values do not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore; God exists
Objective Values Defined
What are objective values? - Objective values are “recognized
and discovered, not invented by humans”
(“True for you but not for me”, Paul Copan, Bethany
House Publishers 1998.)
• Are absolute and have unconditional existence; they are not
relative or dependant.
• They are independent of human consciousness,
consequence or interpretation.
• There is an implied obligation, or a duty to comply.
• Furthermore, they are universal in that they are not subject to
a particular localization of space and time.
Moral Argument Synopsis…(4 min video clip)
Dr. William Lane Craig
Poll
Raise your hand to the following questions if you agree?
1) I found the cosmological argument
compelling for God’s existence?
2) I found the teleological argument
compelling for God’s existence?
3) I found the moral argument compelling
for God’s existence?
Cumulative Case for God
• Cosmological argument
• Teleological argument
• Moral argument
For God
• Neo-Darwinian evolution
(over-extrapolation)
• Argument from evil
• Argument from absence
For Unbelief
Much More Than Arguments
• Word
• Prayer
• Worship
• Sacraments
• Studies
• Music
• Fellowship
• Secularization through…
• Arts, Movies, TV
• Books, Music
• Internet, Gaming
• Educational Institutions
• Peer influence
For Faith
For Doubt
Spiritual Realm
Dealing with Doubt
Within the body of believers
Discussion
End of Session 4
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
Growth rates over the period from 2000 to 2005; all figures from the nondenominational World Christian
Database, a project of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
What is the fastest growing major world religion?
Islam – 1.84% / yr
How fast is Christianity growing?
Christianity – 1.38% / yr
Recap
Teleological Argument – argument from design;
Anthropic coincidences and principles
Moral Argument – argument from objective moral values
Cumulative Case – none of the arguments for God are
analytic proofs; they help to build a plausible case for God
Reason and The Holy Spirit
How does God reveal the true nature of
Jesus to us?
Read: 1 Corinthians 12:3
Read: Ephesians 3:2-6
How was the special revelation of Scripture
given to the prophets?
Read: 2 Peter 1:20-21
Read: 2 Timothy 3:16
(theopneustos, thay-AH-noo-stos)
Augustine on Reason
• Reason is prior to faith: “no one indeed believes anything
unless he has first thought that it is to be believed.” And, “it is
necessary that everything which is believed should be
believed after thought has led the way.” (On Free Will, 5)
•How can anyone believe the preacher without first understanding his
message?
• Reason sets apart humans: “God forbid that He should hate
in us that faculty by which He made us superior to all other
beings…” (Letters 120:1)
•Reason elaborates on God’s general revelation (Free Will 2.6)
•Reason removes objections to faith (Letters 102.38)
Augustine on the Limits
of Reason
Regarding the Holy Spirit when it
comes to certainty of the Christian faith:
“First believe - then understand.”
(On the Creed 4)
“If we wish to first know and then
believe, we should not be able to know
or believe.”
(On the Gospel of John 7:29)
Thomas Aquinas
Will overrides Reason
• Human reason can be used to prove natural theology
• Human reason can illustrate supernatural theology
• Human reason can refute false ideas
“Arguments confirm truths that exceed natural knowledge and
manifest God’s works that surpass all knowledge” (Summa Contra
Gentiles 1.6)
He also said…
“When a man has a will ready to believe, he loves the truth he
believes…”
“faith involves will and reason does not coerce the will.”
More on Reason
and the Holy Spirit
John Calvin
Calvin believed reason was adequate to
understand the existence of God, the
immortality of the soul, and even the
truth of Christianity. At the same time, he
believed no one could come to certainty
about these truths apart from the Holy
Spirit.
More on Reason
and the Holy Spirit
Martin Luther (Third Article in his Small Catechism)
“I believe that I cannot by my own reason
or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my
Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit
has called me by the Gospel,
enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified
and kept me in the true faith…”
More on Reason
and the Holy Spirit
B. B. Warfield
“It is easy, of course, to say that a
Christian man must take his standpoint
not above the Scriptures, but in the
Scriptures. He very certainly must. But
surely he first must have Scriptures,
authenticated to him as such, before he
can take his standpoint in them.”
More on Reason
and the Holy Spirit
John Warwick Montgomery
Lutheran apologist John Warwick Montgomery does
believe that conversion is totally the work of the Holy
Spirit but also believes that the Holy Spirit works
through the evidence provided by the apologist to
remove the obstacles to faith (Faith Founded on Fact, Newburgh,
IN: Trinity Press, 1978).
“If you reject Him it will not be because of a deficiency
of evidence but because of a perversity of will.”
More on Reason
and the Holy Spirit
Norman Geisler
“The Holy Spirit is necessary for full assurance
of the truths of Christianity, and he alone
prompts people to believe in God’s saving
truth. The Holy Spirit works in and through
evidence, but not separate from it. As the Spirit
of a rational God, he does not bypass the head
on the way to the heart…”
Compare the Islamic and
Christian Concept of God
A debate between
William Lane Craig
and
Jamal Bedawi
at the University of Illinois
What to Expect
Unlikely to Convert – both debaters do fairly well and it
is unlikely this debate will sway the Christian or Muslim from their
current position.
Draws out Concepts – the debate does do a fairly
good job of drawing out a few distinctions between the Muslim and
Christian conception of God and Jesus
Debating Tactics – some interesting tactics are displayed
by both sides showing the debaters skills in rhetoric
Craig’s Opening Statement
Craig’s Opening Statement
I. Christian conception of God is true
I. Jesus regarded himself as the unique divine son of God
II. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead by God vindicated his
claims
II. Islamic conception of God is inadequate
I. Philosophically it is morally inadequate
I. God’s love is shown conditional and partial – but
should not be as the greatest conceivable being
II. Historically it is inadequate
I. Qur’an and New Testament make conflicting claims
about Jesus and the NT is a better source for the
historical Jesus
Bedawi’s Opening Statement
Bedawi’s Opening Statement
I. Qur’an – ample description of “God’s closeness” (Wadud)
II. Jesus was one of the 5 greatest prophets (all prophets are Muslim)
III. Rebuttal of Craig on Jesus’ divinity:
I. Downplays “son of God” (term servant is superior)
II. Matthew 11:27 (“God gave me everything”)
III. No knowledge “of the hour”: shows lack of divinity
IV. Jesus greater than the angels – still a creature
V. God raised Jesus – greater power apart from Jesus
VI. Resurrection – does not imply divinity (straw man)
IV. Rebuttal of Craig on Islam:
I. Islam is not an offshoot (all share one source – Allah)
II. Makes several assertions on Allah’s love
III. God loves “good deeds” and hates “evil deeds”
IV. But, morally inadequate: Allah loving the sinner and
saint equally (contradictory?)
Bedawi’s Opening Statement
V. Rebutting Craig (rapid-fire assertion) continued:
I. Gives several examples of how Allah loves
II. John 14 – (way, truth, and life) – speaking for Allah on
the true path as revealed by all of the prophets
III. Downplays John 10 – “I and the Father are one.” – one
in “purpose” not “essence.”
IV. Downplays “he who sees me sees God” – metaphor
and besides, “nobody ever saw God” (except Jesus?)
V. Thomas exegesis: “my godly lord”
VI. Downplays Mark 14 – “worship from others”
VII. Downplays “before Abraham was, I am” (mere foreknowledge)
VIII. Jews would have left Jesus alone if he claimed to be
God (really?)
Bedawi’s Opening Statement
V. More rapid-fire assertions:
I. If Jesus were God he would have been clearer about it
“was Jesus not clear enough that he need to be clearer” (rework of Bedawi’s
opening about the hiddeness of God line from Islamic tradition)
II. Should not believe the disciples in all matters – they
were not prophets (undermining his own mine?)
III. Mathew 28 on baptism – 4th century forgery?
IV. Eusebius didn’t refer to trinity – came later at Nicene
V. I Timothy 3:16 – “He” instead of “God” who was
manifest in the flesh
VI. Bible not authentic anyway – British museum codex-A
(again, does this not undercut the branch Bedawi is sitting on?)
Craig’s Rebuttal
(12 min)
Craig’s Rebuttal
I. Christian conception of God is true
I. Jesus regarded himself as the unique divine son of God
– Bedawi did not dispute authenticity of Jesus’
statements:
I. Servant more honorific comment is from a quranic
perspective
II. “God the Son”/“Son of God” distinction (John 1:18
‘only begotten God’)
III.“Matthew 11” on “if God gave everything” argument
was incoherent
IV.Mark 13:32: “Jesus must know the hour” (but Jesus
was genuinely man)
V. Noted the mistranslation of the Greek in John (on
Thomas)
Craig’s Rebuttal
II. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead by God vindicated his
claims (empty tomb; appearances and origin of the church) - Bedawi did
not dispute these three facts of history but tried to “soften
the blow”
I. Resurrection does not make you divine – agreed
II. No other “resurrection” like Jesus’ (other cases are
revivifications)
III. Islamic conception of God is inadequate
I. Philosophically it is morally inadequate – Bedawi made
no positive arguments for Islam – and Bedawi agrees
“God must be all-loving”
I. Much rhetoric on both sides as Bedawi claims Allah is
“all loving” and Craig claims his love is conditional
II. On historical inadequacy – Bedawi made no case at all
Discussion
End of Session 5-6
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
Christian researcher George Barna polled
thousands of Americans in 1989 and asked
the question, "If you could ask God one
question, what would it be?" The answer by
an overwhelming margin was? …
"Why is there pain, evil and suffering?“
(17%)
“Undoubtedly the greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in
God.” William Lane Craig
Dr. Ravi Zacharias (Intro)
Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering (The Faith & Science Lecture Forum)
The Problem of Evil
Theodicy: is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that
attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the
world with the existence of God being all-good and all-powerful
Problem of Evil
Emotional Problem
Intellectual Problem
Probabilistic Version
Logical Version
David Hume – Logical Problem
18th Century Scottish Philosopher on the logical problem of evil
“
Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? "
I. If God is all-powerful G(p) then He must be able to prevent evil E(a)
I. G(p) -> E(a)
II. If God is all-good G(g) then He must desire to prevent evil E(d)
I. G(g) -> E(d)
III. If God is able to prevent evil and has the desire to prevent evil, then
evil should not exist
I. (E(a) · E(d)) -> ~E
IV. Evil does exist.
I. E
V. Therefore; God is either limited in power or goodness, or both.
I. Therefore; ~E(a) v ~E(d) – from iii (DT and MT)
II. Therefore; ~G(p) v ~G(g) – from I and ii (MT)
David Hume – Logical Problem
18th Century Scottish Philosopher on the logical problem of evil
• If God is all-powerful then He must be able to
prevent evil
• This is arguably false – God cannot do
what is logically impossible or contrary to
His nature
• If God is all-good then He must desire to
prevent evil
• This is arguably false – there may be
morally sufficient reasons to allow evil for a
greater purpose
C. S. Lewis on Free Will
“Free will, though it makes evil possible, is
also the only thing that makes possible any
love or goodness or joy worth having. A world
of automata; of creatures that worked like
machines; would hardly be worth creating.
The happiness which God designs for His
higher creatures is the happiness of being
freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each
other....”
Alvin Plantinga on Free Will
“Now God can create free creatures, but he
cannot cause or determine them to do only
what is right. For if he does so, then they are
not significantly free after all; they do not do
what is right freely. To create creatures
capable of moral good, therefore, he must
create creatures capable of moral evil; and he
cannot leave these creatures free to perform
evil and at the same time prevent them from
doing so.”
Augustine
God thought we were worth creating
“A runaway horse is
better than a stone.”
Dr. Ravi Zacharias
(25 min)
Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering (The Faith & Science Lecture Forum)
Probabilistic Problem of Evil
The logical problem of evil is easily defeated using
possible-worlds arguments consistent with the
Christian worldview – but logical possibilities often
come cheap!
The probabilistic problem of evil draws out the
quantity, degree and apparent pointlessness of
evil and gratuitous suffering and tries to show
possible-worlds solutions are not probable with
respect to our background knowledge.
Christian Worldview Response
• The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but
knowledge of God (Ravi talks about worship here)
• Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God
and His purpose (Ravi noted cumulative evil is individual evil multiplied)
• God’s purpose is not just for this life but spills
over beyond the grave into eternal life
• The knowledge of God is an incommensurable
good
William Lane Craig – Hard Questions, Real Answers
C. S. Lewis
“God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our
pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf
world…No doubt Pain as God's megaphone
is a terrible instrument: it may lead to final
and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the
only opportunity the bad man can have for
amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the
flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel
soul.”
Dr. Ravi Zacharias
(from the floor 7 min)
Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering (The Faith & Science Lecture Forum)
Discussion
End of Session 7
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Writings of Antiquity
(chart by Norman Geisler, 1986)
Author/ Book
Date Written
Earliest Copies
Time Gap
Homer, Iliad
Herodotus
History
Thucydides,
History
Plato
Caesar, Gallic
Wars
Livy, History of
Rome
800 B.C
480-425 B.C.
c. 400 B.C.
c. A.D. 900
460-400 B.C.
Tacitus, Annals
Pliny
Secundus,
Natural History
New Testament
c. 400 yrs
c. 1,350 yrs
No. of
Copies
643
8
Percent
Accuracy
95
?
c. A.D. 900
c. 1,300 yrs
8
?
400 B.C.
100-44 B.C.
c. A.D. 900
c. A.D. 900
c. 1,300 yrs
c. 1,000 yrs
7
10
?
?
59 B.C. 17
4th cent.(partial)
c.
1 partial
19 copies
?
mostly 10th cent.
c. 1,000 yrs
100
A.D. 61-113
c. A.D. 1100
c. 850
c. 1,000 yrs
c. 750 yrs
20
7
?
?
A.D.
c. 114 (fragment)
c. 200 (books)
c. 250 (most of N.T.)
c. 325 (complete
N.T.)
5366
[Greek]
99+
A.D.
A.D.
50-100
400 yrs
±50 yrs
100 yrs
150 yrs
225 yrs
Craig on the Resurrection
(6 min)
Craig on the Origin of Christian Faith
(6 min)
Craig on the Empty Tomb
(9 min)
Craig on Jesus’ Appearances
(12 min)
Craig on Gospel’s Confirmation
(10 min)
Craig on Philosophical Presuppositions
(4 min)
Discussion
End of Session 8
Time for open discussion
about the material covered
Opener
All of the world’s unique information on the
Internet is estimated to be less than 10^20
bytes (100 million, trillion bytes)
(2007)
If all of this information were stored as DNA –
how much space would you need?
Less than the volume of a pinhead
On The Origin of Life
From Genesis
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing
plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their
various kinds." And it was so.
Genesis 1:20 - And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
Genesis 1:24 - And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,
each according to its kind.”
Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Genesis 2:2 - By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
On The Origin of Life
Five Dominant Views
Chance + necessity + time
God-directed
Naturalism
Supernaturalism
Intelligent
Design + God
Biblically
Compatible
SelfOrganization
Darwinian
Evolution
Theistic
Evolution
Cosmic
Ancestry
+ abiogenesis
front-loaded
design?
Terms Used
Neo-Darwinism: In general it is the combined
view developed in the mid-20th century from
genetics and Darwinian evolution theory
where the gene is the primary unit of evolution
and contingency and material mechanisms
cause variation
Biological Evolution: Descent with modification
Biogenesis: Life arising from life
Abiogenesis: Life arising from non-life
Appeal to Ignorance
God of the Gaps: a version of the logical
fallacy: “appeal to ignorance” when science
fails to provide a naturalistic explanation one
infers a supernatural one.
Cuts both ways: Scientism will often cry “godof-the-gaps” and then appeal to future
discovery to fill the gap – but this no defeater
for a supernatural inference!
Appealing to Gaps: provides no explanation
Darwinian Dogma
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet
somebody who claims not to believe in evolution,
that person is ignorant, stupid or insane Richard Dawkins
Let me lay my cards on the table. If I were to give an
award for the single best idea anyone ever had, I'd
give it to Darwin, ahead of even Newton or Einstein
and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of
evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of
life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space
and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical
law. Daniel Dennett - Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995)
Taking Darwinism Seriously
Christians need to take the challenges of
Darwinism seriously and not hand-wave it
off with pithy uninformed comments.
[e.g. Million monkeys on typewriters analogy]
Darwinism Intro
(9 min)
Irreducible Complexity
(17 min)
Irreducible Complexity
Irreducibly complex systems: cannot be built
gradually because their end-function does
not exist until all requisite components are in
place
Co-option: a process by which components
from one functional system are reused in
another novel functional system
Biochemical Predestination
(21min)
Intelligent Design
(13 min)
Design Inference Filter
Is an effect the result of a design-cause?
HP – High Probability
HP
IP – Intermediate
Probability
SP – Small Probability
yes
Necessity
no
yes
IP
no
Spec – Specification
SP+Spec
yes
Design
no
Chance
Mountain Archer Analogy
Imagine shooting an arrow off a mountain to a
10 sq. mile valley 10,000 feet below
1. HP – hitting the valley
2. IP – hitting one of a small number of trees you were
not aiming for
3. IP / Sp – landing in a stream running through the
valley you were aiming for (design can slip through – false-negative)
4. SP - hitting a particular stone you were not aiming
for
5. SP / Sp – hitting a small bull's-eye intentionally
(only design can be caught here – no false-positives)
Design Inference
Complexity + Specification = Design
1. There is a relationship between small
probability and complexity
2. To infer design the probability must be very
small (below the universal bound)
3 . A specification is a conditionally
independent pattern
Improbability Bound
If the odds are less than 1e-150 for a
contingent (chance) cause to produce a
complex specified effect, then the effect
obtaining is below the limit of statistical
possibility
The GUID - 3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301
(5.3e-36)
Design Inference
A – Natural
Process
B
B- Design
C – Limit
of natural process
Complexity
A
Specification
C
Conclusion
1. The Design Inference is straightforward – how
you apply it to biology is not
2 . The I.D. camp must improve their methodology
for applying the Design Inference to biological
systems
3. The Darwinist camp, instead of engaging in
sound scientific and philosophical debate, is trying
to excommunicate I.D. from the scientific community
4. The jury is still out…
Discussion
End of Session 9-10
Time for open discussion
about the material covered