A Moral Argument for God which Begs the Question against Theists

Reposting a comment I left on fellow Patheos blogger Bob Seidensticker's blog, Cross Examined. Bob was writing about Geisler's and Turek's book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Bob quoted this passage from their book:  If the atheists are right, then we might as well lie, cheat, and steal to get what we want because this life is all there is, and there are no consequences in eternity. (p. 68) Bob's response:Wow—what planet are these guys from? How many atheists think that it’s f … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 9

Here are some key points from the first section (Relation of Faith to Reason) of Geisler's article "Faith and Reason" (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 239; hereafter: BECA):The contents of faith "are above reason." and so must be revealed to humans by God. Faith "involves will (freedom) and reason doesn't coerce the will". Some theological truths "have been proved demonstratively" and can be based on reason, such as the existence of God.If we take the second point in … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 8

In the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999; hereafter: BECA), Geisler has written a fairly long and detailed article on “Faith and Reason”, and the entire article is basically an exposition of the views of Aquinas about faith and the relationship between faith and reason.There are nine bolded subheadings in Geisler’s article on “Faith and Reason”:1. Relation of Faith to Reason 2. Three Uses of Reason 3. Divine Authority 4. Reason in Support of Faith 5. Distinguishing Fai … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 7

I'm going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne's characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside.  But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler.As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler's case for Christianity is a failure.  IMHO Jeff won that match with a K.O. of Geisler in the very first round: Let’s suppose, but only for the sake of argument, that the following evidence favors theism over atheism, i.e. … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal: Chapter 9 (Part 2)


Chapter 9. Do We Have Early Eyewitness Testimony about Jesus? By Matthew Wade Ferguson and Jeffery Jay Lowder(This post continues where part 1 left off.)(ii) New Testament Textual Accuracy: “Textual accuracy” measures the degree to which copies of a document match that of the original document. Although none of the original New Testament documents have survived, Geisler and Turek argue that the textual accuracy of the New Testament documents is superior to that of other ancient docu … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal: Chapter 9 (Part 1)

Chapter 9. Do We Have Early Eyewitness Testimony about Jesus? By Matthew Wade Ferguson and Jeffery Jay LowderAs we read them, Geisler and Turek seek to accomplish three things: (i) review the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus; (ii) show the New Testament is textually accurate; and (iii) begin an extended, multi-chapter defense of the New Testament’s historical accuracy.(i) Extra-Biblical Evidence: According to Geisler and Turek, (a) the ratio of ancient sources which record Jesus within … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal, Part 7: Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?  As I read them, Geisler and Turek (G&T) seek to establish four points: (1) If God exists, then miracles are possible; (2) Hume's argument against the credibility of miracle claims is a failure; (3) miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God); and (4) we don’t observe Biblical-quality miracles today because such miracles are not needed to confirm a new revelation from G … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7


Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler  In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God's existence which I call the "Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument," which they formulate as follows. 1. Every law has a law giver. 2. There is a Moral Law.3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to briefly summarize G&T's defense of … [Read more...]