Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 18: The God of the Bible Exists?

After laying out his case for the existence of God in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Dr. Norman Geisler attempts to link the God that he thinks he has proven to exist with "the God of the Bible":Is this the God of the Bible? At the burning bush, God told Moses his name and said, "I AM WHO I AM" (Ex. 3:14).  This signifies that the central characteristic of the God of the Bible is existence.  His very nature is existence.  ...The Bible also calls God eternal (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2), un … [Read more...]

25 Questions for Theists

Almost five years ago, I published my "20+ Questions for Theists." They say hindsight is 20/20. After reading the numerous comments in the combox, I can see that I was not as clear as I would have liked to have been. So I'd like to offer a clarification before reposting the list of questions, which has now grown to 25 (or so).Many people incorrectly assumed that the list was supposed to function as a list of "gotcha!" questions. Even our own Keith Parsons commented, "Any Bible-believing … [Read more...]

God is a Person

INTRODUCTIONJoe Hinman wants to debate the existence of God with me, but before we can have an intelligent debate on this issue, we need to come to some sort of mutual understanding about the meaning of the word "God".In my view God is a person.  In Hinman's view God is NOT a person.  He can, I suppose, stipulate a definition of "God" that asserts or implies that God is NOT a person, but then I might not have any interst in debating the existence of such a being (we will see how that g … [Read more...]

LINK: My Guest Post at Randal Rauser’s Blog

UPDATED: Part 2 is now available.Randal Rauser was kind enough to allow me to write a guest post for his blog. The post is about the consequences of skeptical theism and is going to be published in two parts. The first part is available now, the second will be available in a couple of days.Here is Part 1And Part 2I know that he is frequently the recipient of this kind of praise, but it bears repeating: Randal is to be admired for seeking out and interacting with people who hol … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 13: Existence and Attributes of a Necessary Being

In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God, Geisler reformulates the argument from being as follows:Argument from Being #2 - Initial Version 50. If God exists, [then] we conceive of Him [God] as a necessary Being.   51. By definition, a necessary Being must exist and cannot not exist.   THEREFORE 52. ...if God exists, then He [God] must exist and cannot not exist. (WSA, p.25) PHASE 3 ARGUMENTBoth premise (50) and the conclusion (52) are conditional statements with t … [Read more...]

Video of Lowder’s Debate with Frank Turek on Naturalism vs. Theism

Topic: "What Better Explains Reality? Naturalism or Theism"Link: https://youtu.be/ENZYEPpR2JcLinks to Specific Elements of Debate:Moderator's Introduction: https://youtu.be/ENZYEPpR2Jc Lowder's Opening Statement (20 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=02m23s Turek's Opening Statement (20 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=20m55s Lowder's First Rebuttal (10 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=44m55s Turek's Firs … [Read more...]

A Very Unscientific Survey of Some Popular Responses to the Problem of Evil

I recently defended Paul Draper's evidential argument from evil (specifically, facts about pain and pleasure) against William Lane Craig's popular objections. (LINK) I decided to browse his website discussion forum devoted to the problem of evil. I was struck by some of the responses used by the people posting there (who should not be confused with Craig himself). Putting aside the posts which tear down strawman versions of the argument from evil, versions not defended by any atheist philosopher … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 7: Two Definitions of “Faith”

The Two Main Definitions of "Faith" in UnapologeticThere are seven short statements in Unapologetic that appear to be definitions of the word "faith".  The definition given in Chapter 1 (p.37) is an incomplete version of the definition given in Chapter 2.  The definition given in Chapter 2 is clear and worthy of serious consideration:Faith is a cognitive bias that causes believers to overestimate any confirming evidence and underestimate any disconfirming evidence.  (Unapologetic, Ch … [Read more...]